A poster called Jimbo wrote in a Taiwanese board that there was a proposal to further develop the IDF Ching Kuo to the “ADF” powered by two F404 engines.
Does anybody know anything about this ADF?
Depends on what costs you are looking for – the developmental cost and support costs of running upgradation programs etc are probably more for the propulsion segment , the avionics are also good contributers however that cost is generally spread over various types of aircraft.
If you are looking for procurment cost then airframe and engine are probably the bulk of the cost per unit !!
Let’s focus on the developmental cost of a single type – say F-35A or Typhoon F2. Does anybody have concrete data about the proportion radar/avionics takes?
Cheers,
Sunho
How is the relation between Iran and Pakistan? Does Pakistan regard Iran as a threat?
Cheers,
Sunho
What happened to the Azarakhsh which was first reported in 1997?
Cheers,
Sunho
Now fire or drop something/Who didn’t see pic. of canadian starfighters fire rockets yet? 😉 /
Can anybody identify the bomb being dropped in the first picture?
Thanks in advance,
Sunho
Is there an official policy barring ethnic Chinese from becoming pilots in the RMAF?
The name Lt Kol Tan Hui Hock in the article below is clearly Chinese.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/6/24/nation/14642794&sec=nation
Cheers,
Sunho
Here’s the rest of the F-8F(RN) story.
“LTV were obviously prepared to bend over backwards to meet RN requirements and even to help fund development, but in February 1964 their Lordships said that nothing would do but the Phantom (with two Speys instead of one) and LTV were told they had won the Navy VAL contract, with the prospect of making at least 1,000 of these new attack machines derived from the Crusader (the A-7 Corsair, likewise described in Attack Aircraft of the West) and so stopped bothering about a few dozen rather difficult Crusaders for Britain.”
Cheers,
Sunho
I believe the RN looked at a 2-seater F-8 in the sixties, before opting for the Phantom. Anyone have any info on how keen they were, or any pictures of how it might have looked?
From Bill Gunston’s “Early Supersonic Fighters of the West” printed in 1975.
“Late in 1963 LTV schemed an advanced British development of their original two-seat study of five years earlier. Called F-8F(RN) it would have been slightly longer than other Crusaders, would have had a pilot and observer in tandem at the same level (unlike the trainer) and would have matched the BLC and double droop of the French aircraft with the better fuel economy and increased urge of a reheat Spey engine.”
Hope this helps,
Sunho
That technology was/is at hand from Mirage 2000. The RCS reduction measures will not prevent you from detection, it will delay the chain of shot-down as given before. I wrote about tactical surprise!
For a HAWK-missile site it is ~ 50 km in Middle-East-conditions for example.
So when alarmed early, that something “unknown” was approaching?! If the unknown is higher-up, it gives better view conditions.
Interestingly the French air force did not employ its Mirage 2000D bombers as designed – fully automatic terrain-following flight at low level – in Kosovo in 1999. They always ingressed at high altitudes.
When did the French first (was it the first day of the war?) send their Mirage 2000Ds against what target in the Kosovo War of 1999?
Cheers,
Sunho
The Rafale is a low-level penetrator too and is in need for active ECM only, when detected by the AD to achive tactical surprise.
It looks like the Rafale is the only ‘new’ combat aircraft still designed for automatic terrain masking by low-level flight at night in mind. EADS claims this feature costs 60 times as much as RCS reduction measures.
Stealth helps to reduce detection radius of tracking radars, but those aircraft are still vulnerable against optical-tracking-systems for example.
What’s the typical range at which an optical tracker acquire its target? And it should be cued by other longer-range sensors to see in the right direction at the right time, I think.
Cheers,
Sunho
It seems European countries are not investing much into studying manned very low observable combat aircraft. There isn’t any manned VLO technology demonstrator nor a RCS test mock up which even the Japanese have.
Is it because they think it’s not worth the effort or simply because they have no money?
Cheers,
Sunho
I’m not sure if this Skyhawk is a N-model, but the missiles are definitely Gabriel III. If anybody has a photo of the Israeli F-4E with this missile, please post it here.
Cheers,
Sunho
No? According to Global Security Israel’s strategic nuclear weaponry is / was mainly aimed at the USSR / Russia:
“Given the very long range of the Jericho-2 missile, some analysts have speculated that this system was developed to deter Soviet intervention in the region. The USSR has always been one of the primary targets of Israel’s nuclear force, as Israeli assumptions hold that no Arab nation would attack Israel without Soviet support. The purchase of fifty F-4 fighters from the US in 1968 provided Israel with a platform capable of delivering a nuclear payload as far as Moscow, and it has actively pursued imagery and other information necessary for targeting weapons against the USSR. In 1979, the US agreed to provide Israel with access to high-resolution images of its neighbors taken by the KH-11 satellite. Israel was able to use this agreement to view targets of interest in western Russia (as well as to obtain targeting information for the attack on the Osirak reactor). Israel received more such data during the mid-1980s through the espionage activities of Jonathan Pollard.”
This reason is identical to the raison d’etre of the French and UK nuclear arsenals during the 1960s and 1970s: getting the US involved in a nuclear war (and thus creating a reliable deterrent to the USSR.)
The F-4 taking off in Israel is capable of bombing Moscow??? What a nonsense!
The article says two MiG-25 prototypes were operating in Yemen in May 1967, two months before the Domodedovo airshow!
———-
A retired Soviet Air Force general who was personally involved relates that two prototypes of what was to become known as the MiG-25 were based in southern Yemen in 1967.168
168. V. Vakhlamov, “Aleksandr Vybornov,” Zhurnal As [Ace Journal], 1 (1993)
[Russian] the article was reproduced at http://aces.boom.ru/all3/vyborn_ai.htm
This model had made its first test flight in 1964, but was first glimpsed by Western observers only on 9 July 1967; at the time of the Dimona overflights, it had not yet even been assigned its Soviet designation, much less its NATO appellation (Foxbat) and had never yet been detected in flight.169
169. Maj.-Gen. (ret’d) Georgy A. Bayevski, “Secret Mission in the Skies of Sinai,” first published in Vestnik Vozdushnogo Flota and reproduced at http://www.foxbat.ru/article/mig25_2/mig25_2_1.htm [Russian]; R. Prasannan, “Goodbye, MiG-25,” The Week (India,) 29 September 2002, reproduced at http://www.the-week.com/22sep29/events1.htm.
However, an official Russian military history stated recently that “The MiG-25 . . . was used in the late 1960’s on the Egyptian-Israeli front as a reconnaissance aircraft.”170
170. Zolotaryov, Russia (USSR) in Local Wars and Military Conflicts, 296.
Cheers,
Sunho
DefenseNews.com reported that Rumsfeld assured JSF technology transfer to Australia quoting AFP. Below is transcript of the joint press conference with Rumsfeld and Nelson, Australian minister of defence.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMinTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=5773
“QUESTION:
Mr. Secretary, I’m wondering whether or not you’ve given any guarantees today on the transfer of technology for the Joint Strike Fighter Program to the Minister.
And just a follow-up, if I might, too, on North Korea. I’m just wondering how, for both of you, how concerned you are on China at the moment on whether or not China is not doing any heavy lifting on the North Korean issue.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
With respect to the technology transfer, my understanding is that most of the issues either have been worked out or are being worked out quite successfully. And we discussed the subject. We recognize the interests of Australia in particularly the Joint Strike Fighter. I took the minister by to meet Gordon England, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who works these issues, which I do not to any great extent.
And I know of no issue that’s a problem there.”
Cheers,
Sunho