As I have previously said on other threads the whole generation game is mainly for the benefit of the fighter manufacturers.
They all disagree over the matter and happily use the concept to push their products.
For example Mig like to call their latest generation Mig 29 5th generation, I’m sure western manufacturers don’t agree.
As far as I’m concerned leave the fighter manufacturers to it!
What bugs me is when people use the “generation” idea to justify their point in the forum.
As always things are slightly more complicated then they first appear!
Whilst it is often reported that the Jaguar M was scuppered by Dassault and the French desire for an entirely local product this often hides the fact that actual testing showed the Jaguar to be unsuitable for carrier operations.
As is already well known the Jaguar is a notoriously underpowered aircraft, this might be alright for an aircraft operating from a long runway but rather problematic for an aircraft operating off a short carrier deck.
The main issue was ability of the aircraft to recover from a bolter (missing the arrester cable), even with improvements to the responsiveness of the reheat system ability to safely recover in the event of a bolter was marginal at best. Tests in the UK using our land based facilities then later at sea on the French carriers showed the Jaguar M to be unsuitable for carrier operations without major modifications. As far as Im aware the main modification was to the reheat system allowing selection of full reheat all at once (Im no expert at reheat systems and welcome some clarification on this).
With Dassault able to offer a proven cheap off the shelf solution in the form of the Super Etendard the writing was on the wall for the Jaguar M.
Over the years the politics of the decision has clouded the actual engineering realities of the situation at the time. Its easy to be critical of the French for opting for the Super Etendard but it was the safe local option and the SuE has worked out very well for them in the end.
Further to my previous post.
I was under the impression that there was a project underway to develop a new jet transporter, there was talk of cooperation with the Ukraine, utilising the AN-70 as a start point.
Thanks Sealord.
I think the question for EADS is the economic viability of introducing an A320 based MPA.
First of all they already have the small end of the market sewn up with the CASA light transport derived aircraft, after that we need to factor in the Lockheed Martin P3 which is still a globally prolific type which with structural overhauls and avionic updates will be retained by many airforces. To a degree EADS has a share of the P3 upgrade market already and with the number still in service globally a potentially prosperous market for EADS.
After that we need to factor in the Boeing P8 which will have the advantage of a large domestic order enabling costs to be driven down and with the FMS program an attractive choice for present P3 operators who wish to update. Against P3 updates and the P8 an A320 MPA will struggle to get off the ground.
I think EADS would only of considered an A320 MPA if they could of guaranteed a French, German and Italian sale to replace their current Atlantic fleets.
Just found at the CDF !!
一航公布的大飞机专项的概念图 类似于C-17的大型军用运输机
… is it a real concept or only another “dream” ??
Deino
Looks like a small c17 with a hint of IL76.
Considering that supplies of new IL76 have become problematic I can see the logic in developing an indiginous jet transport. It is a logical next step on from the Y8/Y9 program and certainly within the scope of their aerospace industry.
Of course a couple of CAD pictures are not evidence of a development program but I would be interested if they would use an indiginous engine or buy in a foreign engine like the Perm PS90.
What avionics changes had to be made to allow the Mirage III to carry Falcon? I know Sidewinder is no big deal when it comes to integration but Falcon is a far more exotic system.
Wow two sets of 100mm guns and 5 MLRS systems, imagine the kind of firepower that could bring to bare on a beechhead.
Didn’t the US Marines want something similar a while back.
A clever way to make use of a relatively new build hull rendered obsolete by the rapid modernisation of the PLAN. According to Sinodefence only one ship was converted so I wonder if it was reguarded as succesful.
Weird that they are looking at mothballing the Batch 3 Type 22, the Admiralty preferred selling some early Type 23 during the 2004 fleet cuts because the Batch 3 Type 22 are so useful.
They have a well balanced armament and more importantly fleet command and control facilities. The RN accepted the 2004 cuts and the igmony of having a fleet smaller than France in return for no more cuts, 8 Type 45 and the carriers. I bet the top admiralty brass are having a screaming hissy fit at the MOD.
The idea of closing down Portsmouth beggers belief…
Considering all three services appear to be in a permament battle to belittle each other and steal each others budget allocation because the Treasury won’t refund the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq its no surprise that the British armed forces are in utter meltdown at the moment. I have a hunch that if we hadn’t done Iraq then the budget would of been able to support the Afghanistan operation.
Over the next week we will get denials about any cuts from the MOD then they will do it anyway in a months time when it has all died down a bit in the press.
well no point in having shiney ships if they arent going to use them.
what they need to do is sort out their procurement issues and stop relying on a bullying defence firm. if you look at all the programs that are late or over budge ONE single firm stands out in all of them.
and that firm needs to be kicked out. It is costing the british armed forces and the british tax payers too much money.
As for iraq and afghanistan, i do believe that afghanistan is a good move, iraq however is not.
Whilst one particular firm (beginning with B and ending in Systems) does seem to have the lion share of cost over run it is after defence consollidation the major UK player. In the case of some equipment if we didn’t got to Bae we would have to purchase from a foreign source.
In effect they have the government over a barrel on this matter.
Fascinating!
I presumed that the R DARTER was a fairly new system and would find a home on the Gripen.
An UMKHONTO development would be an interesting move.
Worse come to worse they can always buy AMRAAM or METEOR if the new project falls through. I would of thought MBDA would welcome South African technical input (and cash) with the METEOR program.
Mainly FABS and rocket pods I would of thought, little chance of any precision munitions.
Actually further to my previous post the press tend to be useless at millitary equipment recognition. I tend to squirm through news reports when the usual designation mistakes come in and newspapers can be even worse.
For example on one report the other day they called the AH64D Apache the Warthog! F16 can become F18 in newspaper world the list goes on…
Nope. Many peoples around the word have interest in Mig-29/Su-27 behavior in that unique conflict, many forums discussed it. But nowhere was any informations with same degree of reliability. I.e. you cant track these rumors back to some credible sources – Mig / SU officials, Russian goverment / Army officials, Ethiopean / Eritrean officials , independent researcher who actually made it there , asked people 1st – hand and can show some documents… There was NO claims from these groups. Only rumors sourced from unknown yellow papers by unknown (or very well known, heh) journalists.
A blackhole in all respects!
I noticed the report posted that mentioned MIGS bombing targets but to your average Somali they are probably all MIGS.
The Argentines probably wouldn’t mind getting their hands on the Panteras even if its only for spares.