Well well well, look at this hanging off the wing of a JH7A at Zhuhai:

A Sino-AGM-154…

Bet that will cause some interesting debates back at the Pentagon and the Air Power Australia web-site to go into total meltdown…I wonder what panicky the end is nigh gems old Carlo Kopp will come up with over this one!

😎

There are several layers to consider with this but lets deal with the F16 issue first…

It isn’t going too happen, it is an alien type to the UK logistics chain and it makes far more sense to procure more Hawk T2, the CO of 736 NAS was clearly playing mischief with the press. He knows full well it would never happen but he threw the concept out there fully knowing a rag like the Express would bite and the perennial Red’s replacement arguments would crop up. I bet he is having great fun laughing it up back at base with his fellow NAS members.

Now looking at the Red’s replacement issue, if they are going to be retained it will be a Hawk T2 variant in all likely-hood. Cost wise the Reds are not that expensive on an annual basis and the government of the day would suffer a severe PR hit cutting them. Now as it stands the Hawk T1/1A are on their way out and a further follow on T2 order for the RAF and Royal Navy would not be a bad thing. Lets be clear any more procured will not be purely for the Red’s or 736 NAS, they will be added to the current pool of aircraft and rotated as needed. It makes good economic sense for the MOD to increase the Hawk T2 pool whilst BAE Systems are still servicing export orders for the type.

Looking at the Red’s in particular it should be noted that the rumour grape-vine has thrown up some objections to the Hawk T2 as a steed for the team, frankly take them with a pinch of salt. Firstly cost is raised as an issue, well maybe it has got more complex avionics but increasing the general pool of the type would help with economies of scale. Also deleting the T1/1A from service would offer cost savings as the UK would be only operating one Hawk type. Another thing older aircraft like the T1/1A usually require more general maintenance in relation to their flight hours.

The other issue raised is the manoeuvrability argument with the rumour grapevine stating Red’s insiders prefer the T1A over the T2 in that respect. All very well but so what? This is not the first time the Red’s have had to adopt a new type and change their display routine, many Red Arrow old boys and fans alike talk wistfully of the Folland Gnat days and twinkle rolls! They can adapt and I really don’t see it as a deal breaker, any pilot who is wearing the Red overalls who gets too vocal on the matter will be quietly taken to one side and have these words whispered in their shell like ears:

“If you know what is good for your future career in the RAF be a good chap or chapette and wind your neck in…”

I fully expect the 2015 SSDR will lead to a further Hawk T2 batch being purchased and the 736 NAS/Red’s replacement issue quietly going away.

Can the MiG-31 intercept and shoot down Mach 3+ targets? When was this proven?

What types of target drones capable of simulating aircraft flying at mach 3.4 were used when testing the R-33 missile?

I think we get into the world of the theoretical here, as I understand it both Russia and Israel both looked into and planned to use what was in effect a computer timed Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI).

For Israel it was to deal with high flying reconnaissance Mig-25 and would involve an F-15 armed with Sparrows making an intercept. When the Mig-25 was detecting approaching their airspace they would calculate the flight path and direction then launch the F-15 at the right moment to allow a zoom climb in the right direction followed by a Sparrow launch.

As I understand it Russia planned to do a similar thing with their Mig-31 and R-33, I vaguely remember reading a report of such an intercept (with out the launch of course) and it required the Mig-31 to get off the runway and into its climb at a very exacting computer calculated time. The R-33 would also launch automatically based on the geometry of the intercept and data sent to it from Ground Control. If they missed the runway launch by even a few seconds the intercept theoretically was a scrub.

Whilst it doesn’t have the cachet or excitement of the J-15 or the new 052D Destroyers the new Y-8FQ is probably one of the most important assets required by the China Navy. A decent, modern long range MPA/ASW/ASuW aircraft has been desperately needed if they expect to able to project themselves as a Blue Water Navy. The current fixed wing MPA/ASW assets are woefully obsolete and lacking in numbers.

What interests me is if there is an export market for this type, certainly could see Pakistan taking a look at the type to supplement their P3.

KC-390 is failed project from the start. Brazil neither has the budget nor exports to sustain the production that is dependent more than 90% on US/EU components.

MTA has solid foundation based on IL-476/MS-21 supply chain.

Fairly common practice for military aircraft to carry a civilian serial whilst undergoing manufacturer test flights. For example here is the RAF A400M with a civilian serial number:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00439021.pdf
Outlines the overall plan

Essentially 12 Typhoons, with initial and advanced training outsourced most likely to rUK but possibly elsewhere within NATO.
6 Herks and a mixed rotary squadron.

Likely RAF keeps 2 squadrons of Typhoons at Lossie, whist ScotDF stands up it’s first (Scottish pilots from the RAF).

In the future 4 MPAs (possibly as part of a joint buy -larger order …economy of scale and co-operation), more Typhoons. RAF involvement at Lossie reduces as more ScotDF Typhoons come on line (probably 2 short squadrons).
Other things to be added after defence review.

I almost posted that list myself, it is pretty much unworkable and the SNP know that as well.

They talk about “x number” of airframes, with UK support until they are up and running with Scottish personnel to operate them. Looking at the airframes first:

12 Typhoon, a very expensive twin engine air superiority fighter and they can’t assume they would get after negotiation Tranche 3. Most likely it would be Tranche 1.

6 Hercules, a type very nearly out of RAF service and by all reports nearly worn out. So are they talking about buying new examples or refurbishing the old?

4MPA, would have to be off the shelf and they would have to set up from scratch.

Looking at personnel, it is a rank assumption that the UK defence infrastructure will just support a nascent Scottish Defence Force. If it did there would be a cost. There is no training infrastructure in Scotland for the Typhoon or for that matter frigates like the T23. Personnel would be the biggest problem, many would not leave the UK armed forces for an SDF and it would more then likely be not possible to fill the trades needed to support the different types the SNP say they can.

Now the SNP know this and would blame Westminster then set up a more realistic SDF.