Sorry I’m not going for your flamebait…
Try someone else!
Those four 2A7 23mm cannon are still effective against low altitude targets like helicopters or drones. Upgrading Shilka is an entirely reasonable cost effective path to go down. New radar and electronics will ensure the Shilka is still a holy terror to low level tac-air!
It cant run cant fight cant climb.
Well this statement shows your true colour, you know full well that it will anger the Typhoon fanboys! Fishing for a flamewar methinks!
Ask the services who operate it…they are very happy with its ability to run, fight and climb…
WS-10 is a copy of AL-31F.
Bad copy of course.
Comparison of the resorts:
AL-31F – 1000h
izd. 117/117S – 4000h
WS-10/WS-10A – ~100-300h
NO NO NO!
The WS-10 is not a copy of the AL-31F!!!! How many times does this have to be explained!
The AL-31F and WS-10 have a different configuration:
WS-10
* Compressor: 3 fan and 9 compressor stages
* Combustors: annular
* Turbine: 1 high-pressure and 2 low pressure stages
AL-31F
* Compressor: 4 fan and 9 compressor stages
* Combustors: annular
* Turbine: 2 single-staged turbines
In respect of the GE-F110 the WS-10 isn’t a direct copy but does share the same configuration:
GE-F110
* Compressor: 3 fan and 9 compressor stages
* Combustors: annular
*1 high-pressure and 2 low pressure stages
This is due to the Chinese using the core of the CFM56 as a basis for development, this civil engine uses the same core as the GE F101. The GE-F110 is a derivative of the F101. Despite that the Chinese have still taken many years to develop the WS-10, it is in no way a copy of the Russian engine. Actually its fairer to call it a reverse engineered derivative of the GE-F101.
If you are dropping the harriers retaining the LPH made more sense!
Ocean is less manpower intensive and cheaper to run, retaining her for the next decade pretty much fits in with her intended OSD anyway
I highly doubt the M2K thing, the new Iraqi airforce is highly US centric.
To induct two fighter types one of which second hand with different logistics trails makes little sense.
Also any M2K would have to be paid for by the Iraqi government whilst F16 will come as US defence aid.
Teer Zorro if you guys want to have an India VS Pakistan P1$$ing contest can you take it to PMs rather then clutter up the thread with we are better then you guff!
After all the noise in the press about how wonderful UOR procurement is, the Shadow shows the problem with it.
With UOR you get a new type quickly off the shelf but the price is you end up with a small number of equipment that is unique in your logistics chain and not much use outside of the conflict your currently involved in.
Just look at the mess of different mine protected (my itallic as many of these vehicles have actually been fairly useless and we have ended up digging out old 1960s vintage FV430 APC that can do the job better with extra armour!) armoured vehicles purchased with UORs that in all likelyhood will be retired the second the UK is out of A-Stan!
This is where a bit of research or even reading previous posts comes in handy, this privatising of the SAR fleet idea came from and was initiated from the previous government
Respectfully I know fully well that the previous Labour government initiated the process of privatisation of SAR, actually I find your suggestion that I don’t do research or even look at previous posts rather insulting!:mad:
My point was the Conservatives like privatising things a fact well born out by history! If you would do a bit of research of lets say the 1980’s you would find that to be the case…
Canada also has no need for her and certainly not the money, they are having enough trouble financing the upgrade of ships already in service let alone inducting an old STOVL carrier.
If Canada did want this kind of vessel in that class they would be better off something new with nice cheap to run diesels.
I forgot to post this but has anybody notice this on Chinese defence blog, the PLANAF are operating some KA-31 AEW:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/12/two-kamov-ka-31-naval-airborne-early.html
Looks like they are going for a low risk solution from Russia whilst at the same time developing a higher risk solution in the form of the Z8 AEW.



Well, that’s because the Chinese description line beside the engine says it is WuoShan-15 ( WS-15) under developing and intended to use in Chinese 4th G fighter ( 5th internationally)
Well alas I can’t read Chinese but I don’t doubt what the description line said. Looking at the picture I wonder if they are showing it backwards with the burner section on the right and the intake on the left, also I wonder if the image was taken with a fisheye lens distorting it.
On another note Pinko two posts away from 1000!
On a happier note another section makes a move:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/business/8731678.Slowly_does_it____as_carrier_moves_100_yards/

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/New-carrier-is-taking-shape.6654804.jp
One thing which is starting to bug me is neither the RN website or the Carrier alliance website have updated to acknowledge the change in configuration.
Actually this statement on the Royal Navies website is embarrasing for the service and should at least be deleted:
The JFAG will also operate helicopters and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from all three Services in a variety of roles that could include anti-submarine/anti-surface warfare, attack and support. The Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has been selected to fulfil the JCA role. The carriers will also be able to operate GR9 Harriers.
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/
I understand that things are still up in the air but they could at least acknowledge the change!
I would think the FAA would regard even the upgraded F-5EM/FM as a retrograde step even with its Python V and Derby capability.