The UK government has given up the further upgrading plan for Tornado and now it prepares to scrap all RAF’s Tornado GR4 within five years, which might be a problem for RSAF if it decides to keep using Tornado after five years.

I do not know if this has already been said?
But if this was the case, and with the cash and wiliness to spend it – couldnt
Saudi Arabia buy ex-RAF Tornadoes and their spare parts inventory (probably at fantastic prices too!), and cannibalize the hell out of them?

The Tornado is still an outstanding strike aircraft, with its capability still offering potential in my opinion!

Regards
Pioneer

To quote what I posted on this in another thread:

What about South Korea as a partner for the Israelis (KF-X)? Indonesia might not be thrilled at the notion, but SK would likely prefer Israel’s avionics expertise and financial resources over theirs if it came to that. There is also a precedent of Israeli arms sales to South Korea (Popeye, EL/M-2032, Green Pine, Harpy, Searcher, small arms), at least as much as there is with Indonesia (customer for KT-1, LPDs and OPVs, sold CN-235s and Puma helos to Korea). Maybe commit to purchase T-50s to sweeten the deal? Also, Sweden would certainly welcome a partner(s) in their ongoing 5th generation studies.

I truly think Indonesian Muslim factor would stop this idea dead!
Indonesia loves playing this card when ever it can. Especially when it gives it world-wide recognition by the rest of the Muslim world!!

What about Taiwan & Israeli partnership?
Politically, Taiwan has and is being snookered more and more as the PRC bets more economically, politically and militarily larger and powerful. Unfortunately (and sadly!) the United States is turning the supply line off and on that many times to appease the waking dragon!
Taiwan and Israel once had a great military development relationship (until Israel burnt Taiwan for big and better $$ things in PRC:mad:)

Israel had been (and should be more than useful in being shafted i.e firstly by Britain, then France, and when it suits it, the United States! How and why it has tolerated this, I have never been able to get my head around (apart from the U.S $$$$$$$$)

With the changing world climate these days (anyone willing to sell the most advanced technology to anyone!) – for who would ever have thought Greece would be buying and fielding major Soviet/Russian weapons and equipment or Russia wanting to purchase French designed & made amphibious assault ships (although the French wiliness is of no surprise or shock!:dev2:). The more than ever open arms market could be lucrative for a Taiwanese/Israeli 5th Generation fighter in terms of sales to recuperate R&D costs!
The major stumbling block for this project would be that which has flouted every other Israeli aircraft export potential – the use of American engines!
Again this could be bypassed if Israel and Taiwan are willing to use Russian engines (or perhaps more wisely, incorporate into the design a multi-engine capability! This would allow Israel and Taiwan to use preferred advanced U.S engines, and offer Russian engines in export variant (although this may be the only option for Taiwan, if the U.S continues to shaft and squeeze it!!)

Taiwan & Israel both have the security and political reasoning!
Combined they have the technological knowledge and know how in production, aerodynamics, weapons, avionics and sensors!!

Just my thoughts

Regards
Pioneer

I would love to have sat in on the pitch for that…

“so let me get this straight, you want us to take a four engined prop patrol aircraft, make it even slower and less maneuverable and then use it as a fighter….?”

“yes Admiral”

With no disrespect my friend!
I would deem this aircraft as an Interceptor and not as a fighter!
The requirement by the navy would have been the engagement of Soviet long-range anti-ship / ASW / MP aircraft, which threatened its fleets way out at sea (at a range outside of land-based fighters and tactical attack/strike aircraft!). For example –
The CL-520 would have been used to intercept the likes of Soviet Tupolev Tu-16 Badger and Tu-95 Bear and Tu-22 Blinder(As per time frame I am not sure about the Tu-22M [I]Backfire[I] was yet a known threat?) at a stand-off range, using a combination of its long-range AWACS facilities 100`s of miles range detection capability with its AN/APS-96 and its battery of (up to ten) Eagle missiles.
At the extreme ranges these engagements would have occurred, it is very unlikely that the CL-520 would have seen, let alone been concerned with Soviet /Warsaw Pact fighter and interceptors, the likes of MiG-21, MiG-23 or Su-11, Yak-28P and Su-15 etc (the only interceptor threat I could picture being that of the Tu-28 Fiddler

It should also be taken into consideration, that the USN still would have its carrier-based fighters to deal with any leakers. Whilst the Soviet Navy would have lacked any credible carrier-based fighter/attack aviation at the time (until the arrival of the Kiev Class and its Yak-38`s!)

As a side note I view a difference in modern post-WWII terms an interceptor and fighter!
In post-WWII term an interceptor has become (and predominantly designed) around an aircraft designed for straight-line, high-speed and quick climb performance. Equipped with powerful, long-range air-search radars and armed with long-range AAM`s,> With the primary role of engaging bombers.
Where as the post-WWII fighter as (in most cases!) been designed with more manoeuvrability/agility incorporated into its design. As well as a more multi-role armament of shorter and medium range AAM and gun to fight other fighters and strike/attack type enemy.

P.S. pjhydro – if this design concerns you please consider the USAAF`s thoughts and research of such platforms!

Regards
Pioneer

Without doubt my favorite AEW/AWACS project utilizing an MP/ASW airframe –
The Lockheed CL-520 land-based Fleet Air Defense Aircraft study!:dev2:!

Regards
Pioneer

I’m i would really like it personally if the Chinese had no respect for U.S. tech or air power, and sent 20 Sukkoi fighters at 20 F-22 raptors during a Taiwan flare up. jessmo24

One thing is certain. The Chinese have closely studied and learned greatly from history, which encompasses Imperial Japan`s loss and failures, the United States military`s use and exploits of advance technology warfare!
They took in what the United States did and achieved in the Cold War (the importance of economic strength not being outstripped by arms expenditure and large sanding armies), Gulf War I & II, and the NATO`s military actions against Serbia (predominantly lead and initiated by U.S airpower). Nor would the Chinese forgotten the lessons of the Korean War! The Chinese remember and utilize the teachings of Sun Tzu, which would not simply conceive sending 20 Flankers against 20 Raptors! Never under estimate your enemy (or potential enemy! Regardless of your perceived strength and envisioned superiority!
By the way it should be noted – as per the teachings of The Art of War, one only needs to see the importance and effectiveness of the Chinese intelligence system, and just how effective it has been in penetrating the United States military and the United States Arms Industry.
This effectiveness really has the Pentagon worried!

Will US airpower degrade in the coming years? No, what will happen is that slowly other forces will begin to catch it up in terms of ability, especially in the field of networking. But its going to be decades before a true peer that would be capable of taking on US Airpower and potentially beating it will emerge. I would suggest China will be it, but they have a very long way to go. pjhydro

Unfortunately I have to agree!
Even more unfortunate, is the fact that the United States is to slow or ignorant to see and act on it!! (No offense intended to my American colleagues!!). The United States military history post WWII has again and again proven it can not tolerate large casualties. Its use of technology as a clinical way of minimizing its own casualties, may not be workable or tolerated against an adversary the likes of the PRC in the future!

I think it’s called the military-industrial complex… Loke

I could not agree more!
The continues corporate takeovers and absorption of many of the United States defence industries i.e As per the U.S Aerospace Industry – from North American Aviation, Douglas, McDonnell, Lockheed, Vought, Ryan, LTV, Fairchild, Republic, Martin, Curtiss, Beech, McDonnell Douglas, Hughes, Vertol, Rockwell, Bell, Sikorsky, Grumman, Northrop, Hiller, Convair, General Dynamics etc…. has lead to a few key and so ever powerful and influential monopoles – Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman Bell and Sikorsky!
One only needs to see the aircraft programs in progress today, and the more common cost blow outs, which the Pentagon seems more and more excepting of. Truthfully how many U.S military programs are derived from actual military needs, and how many of them are fueled by the political and military influential U.S Defence Industry?
What of foreign defence companies even play-field, in their endless battle to gain often warranted (and sometimes cheaper!) and fair opportunities to provide the U.S military with weapons and weapon platforms?
Its funny from my prospective, that the likes of the PLA are able to aquire (often illegal copy!) what weapons they deem as both wanted and needed – regardless of politics or country of origin!!

The economic isolation the US dollar is facing means that as long as China and Russia and other nations decide to stop financing the US dollar, the US economic growth will be more limited. As new economic models appear globally and new military designs come from Russia and China, it is difficult to say the USAF will remain the most powerful air force. cessna

There is not much I can add to these well spoken words.
Again the PRC is not as backward or naive, as we for many decades denoted! Once again they have had the intelligence to study the United States strengths and weaknesses. They have obviously studied the winning factors of the United States financial and industrial might in defeating the likes of Imperial Japan and then the Soviet Union.
It is obvious to me that the leadership of the so-called new Russia, has only changed its cloths (and flag), with its wanted to be, when it was the Soviet Union. I think the PRC both sees this and will encourage it to its own advantage.

Still on Stealth you can have stealth fighters but they still need tankers and AWACS support which to my knowledge dont still come in the LO shape and flavour. Kill the big planes and the little ones lose their long legs and powerful offboard datalinked sensors… Hammer

I think you are defensibly on to something here Hammer!
Again through years of observation and study (which would have been very apparent and driven home to the Chinese, during the Vietnam war), the Chinese would both appreciate and respect these powerful Force Multipliers, such as airborne refueling, JSTAR, AWACS ……. (and of course GPS!). There is no doubt the PLA were just as astonished with what happened to the likes of Serbia and Iraq (kicking the door down!). After all the ironic thing was that the United States was blasé (stupid enough in my eyes! to openly promote to the world how and why they did it! (Talk about giving the dog a bone)
There is no mistaking why the PLA has been so interested and at great expense pursued the likes and power of the Flanker, the monster K-100/K-172, Kh-31/YJ-93 and S-300 / FT-2000 systems
I would also put my enemies spleen on the line to confidently say, that the PLA, unlike the Serbia and Iraq are going to hold back its intuitive and forces if attacked, with the fuzzy hopes that some fairy is going to kiss their d%*@, and save the day at the eleventh hour.
Nor would the PLA allow U.S Patriot and Aegis system freely pick their numbers off or allow the United States forces a free and safe sky over their own front or rear echelons!

Regards
Pioneer

The Syrians had mainly MiG-23MS and -MF as fighters (both downgraded versions of the -M), and Suchoi 7 as fighter bombers. All operating outside friendly radar coverage. The Israelis normally had local advantage in numbers. The -MLD was quite new at that time and wasn’t exported to Arabian nations at that time.

The Bekaa Valley air battle was largely decided by weapins technology (all-aspect IR-AAM) and support (AWACS). The aircraft are secondary, the Israelis themself say it that way.

Syiran AF had no confirmed air-to-air kills.

Add to this Schorsch, the Israeli`s brilliant use and employment of RPV to activate Syrian Air Defence systems, which in turn were prioritize targets for both air and ground-launched ARM`s!

Regards
Pioneer

Although I suppose it is too much for the partisan supporters of the RAF/FAA on this forum to understand, the Army is the service which is taking the casualties in increasing, and totally unacceptable, numbers. If NATO is going to continue fighting the Taliban in this civil war in Afghanistan then the Army is going to need far more of the total resources allocated to Defence. If on the other hand, we opt out of the war between an entirely corrupt Afghan government and the insurgents and concentrate on fighting Al Qaida – which is our enemy .

We will have to see.

Regards

Orion, I both like and agree with the way you think and say it!!

Regards
Pioneer