Really, the Falklands just proved the value of the Aircraft Carrier. Now the with the advent of the F-35B. I have no doubt we will see an explosion in smaller Aircraft Carriers. As the advantages are clearly obvious to all…….:D

Hi Scooter

I hear what you are saying
But owning a carrier (be it small/light!) is one thing.
But running and operating one as an operational carrier is another.
There is much more too operating a carrier and an air-wing than many would think.
An example of this is the Russian Navy – for although they have 1 (one) very effective carrier and carrier-based fighter-bomber (naval ‘Flanker’s’), they have found it very expensive to operate at sea in its true role and capability!
It spends more time in port, than at sea.
Like wise – the Royal Thai Navy had built a modified variant of the Spanish light carrier (which in turn was a modification of the US Navy’s SCS design concept!).
This has been equipped with ex-Spanish AV-8S’s.
But the Thai Navy has not had the experience or expertise to use this potential design to anywhere near its full potential.

Yes many nations in the future may elect to purchase aircraft carriers or LHD style amphibious ships, as a step in military trend, but as with many examples in post WWII history, these expensive military toys have been purchased for prestige and national pride – often to flaunt in the face of its neighbors.
But it has proven very difficult to operate this kind of hardware, let alone maintain them.
An example of this has been the past purchase of the diesel-electric submarine by many countries during the Cold War!

I have always thought it very sad and degrading to the likes of the Netherlands, Canada and Australia, who had taken years and decades to go through the arduous pains of learning the art of carrier operations, only to discard the lessons, training, infrastructure, maintenance, crew/personal expertise at the stoke of a politicians pen, as cost saving measure.

It was once stated (I can not remember were?) that the Royal Australian Navy would require 10-years to regain the experience and knowledge of operating aircraft carriers, if it chose to return the aircraft carrier to its order of battle.

Sad really!!

Regards
Pioneer

Regardless if you class this propaganda or not.

One thing that I have always been amazed by is the way in which the Americans have always liked to promote and advertise their advanced military technology and weapons/systems to the world.
I know its all about being a democracy and all that stuff!
But in so many occasions the Yanks give the Soviets/Russians (and more recently the Chinese) a reason and cause for the development of weapons and systems to counter this threat and the technology that comes with it!

For example the Soviets were very happy with developing their fighters along the lines of higher and higher speed and climb rates i.e. MiG-23, MiG-25…… until the United States began to promote new fighter programs like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 – emphasizing their design philosophy encompassing thrust-to-weight, agility and maneuverability. This in turn with promoted combat performance of the F-15 and F-16 (more times than not in the hands of the Israeli Air Force) rang alarm bells in the Soviet Union that their design philosophy was going in the wrong direction. In a crash program and complete turn around, the Soviet aviation Bureau’s were able to create the likes of the MiG-29 and Su-27 family of successful and very capable fighters, that in realistic terms have surpassed the likes of the F-15 and F-16.

No I think the Americans need to take a page out of the Soviet/Chinese military’s book, which has been preached for so many century’s by the likes of Sun Tzu.
The Americans need to keep much more of the military R&D and production programs, platforms and systems full capabilities closer to their chest, only to be reveled in time of war/conflict.
For the Americans more than any other Western country in the world (bar the Nazi Germans during the length of WWII) – have experienced the shock and unknown capability and quantity of a given Soviet weapon/system first hand, and at a cost.
I.e. the MiG-15 during the Korean War
The SA-2 ‘Guideline’ SAM during the Vietnam and Yum Kipper Wars
The SA-6 ‘Gainful’ SAM during the Yum Kipper War
The ZSU-23-4 SPAAG during the Vietnam and Yum Kipper Wars
The AT-3 ‘Sagger’ ATGM during the Yum Kipper War
The BMP-1 MICV
The BMD airborne MICV
The TEL (Transport Erector Launcher) missile designs and capability
Etc……………………………..

Hats of to Soviet ability in operational security!!

The way in which the United States promoted its capabilities, tactics and weapons systems they employed during the 1st and 2nd Iraq Wars, clearly opened the eyes of the Russians, Chinese (PRC) and even the likes of Serbia and Iran.
The well known fact about the Russians and the Chinese is the fact that they have and do learn from history!!

At the end of the day the United States has on a few occasions shown the world, that it has the ability to carry out and achieve a tight operational security, in keeping some of its weapons systems/platforms existence and or their true capability from the world and most importantly from its potential enemy’s
These programs were –
The F-117 Nighthawk
The F-22 Raptor

Regards
Pioneer

Did the Israeli Air Force ever look at the Super Sabre?
Or were they still committed to French designed aircraft at the time/era???

Regards
Pioneer

The following is another photo of Tejas’ frontal view.

Photo courtesy : Livefist, by Mr. Shiv Aroor.

Nice pic of the Tejas
Who knows they may get it into service one day!!

I think it quite funny, that the bloke on the left-hand side of the pic (the one with the cloth semi-across his face) is allowed to be near the aircraft!

I now that our air force (RAAF) ground crews go off their nut if we walk out onto the tarmac or near their aircraft while their engines are running, with our bush hats on.
I have seen first hand a bush hat being ingested into the turbine of a Blackhawk helicopter on ops.
And with this the loadmaster going of his brain about it – lucky for the no.2 gunner of our section there was no damage to the turbine. Although he had to go without a hat for almost five days!

Regards
Pioneer

I too would have to say the venrable Douglas C-47/DC-3

Regards
Pioneer

Aircraft are best compared by operating empty weight or by maximum take-off weight. In these terms the Suchoi 24 fails miserably against the older F-111, in terms of
– range
– radius
– war load.
Any claims about smaller fuel volume are academic. One rather has to ask why the similarly heavy (in terms of OEW) has substantially less fuel volume.

I further doubt that a 1991 Suchoi 24M/MF can have the punch the F-111F displayed during GW#1. Or that a Suchoi 24M/MF can fly the mission the 48th TFW flew in 1986.

In short: the Suchoi 24 falls short in technology and capability despite being younger. it still was a major capability improvement for the Soviet forces, as it represented the first all-weather capable fighter bomber with useful payload-range characteristics and useful defensive electronics. It filled a gap between the smallest bomber and the largest fighter-bomber.

I tend too agree with Schorsch about this F-111 vs. Su-24
I would like to add that the Su-24 has greater thrust and PWR than the older (and original design concept) F-111.
Then again the Soviets had the advantage of learning from the mistakes the United States had made from the TFX program, in requiring a so called one aircraft does all, too the detriment of the entire TFX program some what!.
Instead the Soviet’s wanted and built a dedicated Strike aircraft that became the ‘Fencer’

The thing I do like with the Su-24 over that of the F-111 design is the more versatile designed main landing gear that allowed for the under fuselage to be utilized to carry the majority of weapons (this was attempted by General Dynamics in their FB-111H proposal).
The Su-24 had a built in gun/cannon.
The Su-24 saved weight and complexity of using ejector-seats and not an Escape Module’
I also like the Su-24’s more conventional and practical air break arrangement, over that of the F-111’s large and under fuselage space-consuming air brake arrangement.

At the end of the day the Soviet learned much from the efforts – both good and bad, that the United States had too experience first hand with the cutting edge technology that was the TFX program.
For if the United States (USAF and USN) had the advantage of 10-years grace, I think the F-111 would have been a very different aircraft as to what we know!
For a start it would have been designated A-111 and built in far greater numbers than the F-111 we know today

But that just me!

Regards
Pioneer