This is a misconception that cruise missiles can do it all. Why do you think only a very small percentage of strikes carried out in conflicts use cruise missiles? I’ll tell you why, it’s because cruise missiles are of no use against what are known as ‘targets of opportunity’ and ‘time critical targets’. The Libyan conflict is a prime example of this and those targets that were hit were not even deep into enemy territory but instead were right on the enemy shoreline. Missiles like Storm Shadow and TLAM have thier place against known fixed targets but are of very limited use against anything else.

Indeed I agree, then again it hasn’t stopped people trying. It takes my mind back to the AGM-136A Tacit Rainbow which in theory was a loitering cruise missile SEAD asset…

http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/rainbow.shtml

speaking of IFR probes, what is the situation with other aircraft today and in the near future? Voyager provides drogue and hose only? And c17 and new c130j receive fuel via boom only? Is that correct? And if is, is there a timetable concerning possible modification of any of those mentioned planes so the transport fleet can be refuelled in air?

Voyager is drogue only, RAF/MOD didn’t want to pay for maintenance and a training stream for boom operations. Personally I don’t agree with that and I actually spoke to an No.8 Squadron pilot about it recently who said it would of been nice if they had been asked over the matter.

RAF C130J are probe only and Lockheed Martin offer it as an option for new buyers.

RAF C17 are boom receptacle equipped only and there is no plan to fit a probe. RAF C17 have the extra fuel tanks giving them a significant range and mitigating the need for tanker support. Again RAF/MOD didn’t want to pay for the maintenance or training stream.

Finally RAF E3D Sentry are probe and boom receptacle equipped. They can use both and train with both. RAF pilots prefer using the boom given the chance as it is easier to park a 707 behind a tanker then push a probe into the drogue (as pointed out in prior conversation with No.8 Squadron pilot).

I believe RAF RC135W will be boom only and I see some logic using it considering the international and joint US nature of its use.

Two Australian No.77 Squadron F/A-18 Hornet welcome Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU) Sukhoi Su-27 & Su-30 Flanker into Darwin to participate in Exercse Pitch Black 2012.

http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?position=1&archiveid=5003&columns=4&rows=2&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=pitch%20black

Carlo Kopp must of prolapsed at the sight!

Then that person was probably pulling your leg WP840.

I have lost count of the rumours over the years that the UK was going to get some form F/A18. Usually involving “some bod told me…”

Of course there is one thing we are missing in this debate the Soko G-4 Super Galeb. Serbia is upgrading 15 of their fleet to G-4MD standard with modernised avionics. It has a basic air to air capability so it can perform limited air policing duties. The more critical aspect is it keeps Serbia in the fast jet business with a core of pilots at a reasonable price as they have full control over the avionics, airframe and engine.

To be honest those days of nefarious pocket lining of officials are over tomkeus. Apart from anything else Serbia just doesn’t have the money to make that kind of thing attractive. China will sell you stuff no questions asked …but they want hard currency or as in the case of some third world African nations unfettered access to your natural resources.

I agree with GrM that second hand base model Mig-29 is not inconceivable, I vaguely remember the Ukraine were offering overhauled Mig-29 pulled through their overhaul plant and given a limited upgrade similar to the German/Polish examples to make them NATO compliant.

In other words Serbia should get JF-17

Now I think in many ways comparing the JF-17 to the old F-5 is rather unfair, it has modern avionics and a good multi mode pulse-doppler radar. It can handle modern smart munitions and has a BVR capability, I would say a fairer comparison would be the F20 Tiger shark and even then the JF-17 benefits from improvements in microprocessor and display technology giving a more modern cockpit environment and MMI.

Because in the end you will reach a point where the aircraft run out of fatigue index points (or however they measure airframe life in Serbia) even with a SLEP.

The other issue is even with an extensive update like the LanceR or Bison there are key components and sub systems that become hard (or even impossible) to source due to them being out of production. To a degree this can be mitigated by cannibalising airframes retired early or brought up from abroad but even then that source will start to dry up. There was an interesting article a few years back in AFM about Indian airforce Mig21 overhauls. Representatives of India’s main overhaul facility for the Mig21 made it clear that even with their buying power getting parts on the international market is a real struggle. With Serbian budgets it must be really difficult not forgetting they are competing with other Mig21 operators for those remaining parts and consumables.

So in the end it comes down to the point where you have to get out of the air defence business (as some new NATO members have) or replace the fleet.