Well I’m going to say it again but the JH-7 is apparently a pretty good piece of kit and certainly a real mud mover.

Whilst the airframe and engine are nothing exciting it has a decent warload and the later variants have the latest Chinese avionics by all accounts. For the Chinese its entirely home brewed (OK the engines are really Speys but they are entirely Chinese built now) without any recourse to external suppliers. It can also carry their latest smart munitions which is very useful.

In its primary role of penetration strike and anti shipping its certainly nothing to be sniffed at considering they can pump them out in high numbers.

But as I have already said I don’t think a small number of civil C5 could compete with the large number of AN-124 already operating in the outsize cargo sector.

The US DOD already charters AN-124 when they need extra capacity on short notice. There are more AN-124 (and the AN-225) out there operating in the civil market so they are going to be able to undercut a civil operated C5 fairly easily. I would argue it would cost more to lease a civil C5 unless the US DOD is prepared to subsidise the cargo operator which isn’t going to happen with defence cuts.

I think the whole Iran aircraft carrier thing is more to do with a miss translation of an Iranian report. I get the impression they were talking about new destroyers that carry missiles capable of sinking a carrier but this mutated into “Iranian aircraft carrier”.

Iran has no need for an aircraft carrier whatsoever.

Problem is whilst the upgraded C-5M would be a fairly good competitor to the AN-124 any cargo liner that purchased the airframes would have to absorb the upgrade costs and then try and break into an outsized cargo market pretty much ruled by the AN-124/AN-225. Volgna Depna can easily get nasty and drop their prices making the whole process of adopting C-5M un-cost effective. It also has to be weighed against the cost of purchasing second hand Boeing 747 and cargo converting them or even purchasing new build C17.

The operators of the AN124 and lone AN-225 effectively got them for free so they are in the market at a huge advantage! Anybody trying to enter the outsize cargo market has to factor in the startup costs. In the end its a niche market well served by several aircraft including the AN124, AN125, 747 and A300 Beluga.

Sadly true, also a very difficult situation for BAE Systems. India is a huge market for the company so they have to be sensitive to Indian ego’s over the matter. The customer complaining about availability due to lack of spares they should of purchased then further complaining about delayed deliveries due to parts being taken from CKD kits to repair aircraft already in service would be politically challenging! Clearly BAE Systems have been trying to avoid an official argument but if true HAL’s behaviour of kicking out BAE staff when the problem was pointed out is hardly constructive.

Then again many a service the RAF included has made the mistake of believing parts mtbo figures during procurement and under buying spares.

I wonder why IAF Su-30MKI’s didn’t use western tanking assets when they came over for Exercise Indradanush II – they brought 2 X Il-78 tankers and two Il-76 support aircraft.

OK – procedures are probably different – but it surely would have been a great training oportunity??

The reason why Indian fighters didn’t tank off RAF refueling assets was due to them using a different grade of fuel. The RAF uses JP-8 DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34. I’m not sure what grade India uses but its one more suited to the hot, high and humid conditions. The fuel injectors in Indian jet engines are configured for their fuel grade, whilst I’m sure you could probably fuel them with JP-8 the engines won’t run as well and it would also involve expensive maintenance and fuel tank draining after the event.

Curiously the USN suffers the same problem when their jets take on fuel from USAF tankers carrying JP-8 as they use JP-5 with its higher flashpoint characteristics on their carriers.

Main issue with UPAZ is the receiving aircraft needs an illumination light for night refueling as the basket isn’t fitted with lights like western ones.

But I am inclined to think that in theory western and Russian probes are compatible with UPAZ without change…why reinvent the wheel.

Indian MKI use a Cobham 754 series buddy pod similar to that used by USN Super Hornets.

http://www.cobham.com/media/33361/cob_m04_754_datasheet_uk_fa.pdf