Can’t disagree with that, the Il-76 is a magnificent aircraft.

Put four fuel efficient and more powerful Rolls Royce turbofans on it and a glass cockpit
And it would make it a world beater hands down in the West!

Regards
Pioneer

So the F-16 is a more versatile and multi-role aircraft, than that of the Mirage 2000-5EI in Taiwan service.
I have read that the Mirage 2000’s SNECMA M53 engine is a fuel guzzler (more akin to a turbojet, than that of a turbofan!)
I am very tired of hearing that poor old Taiwan has to settle for second best when it comes to the purchasing of weopan systems – minimal offensive capability, by the West to appease the PRC!

One has to remember that Taiwan used the purchase of the Mirage 2000, as political leverage to gain the sales of the F-16, which it had always wanted in the first place, from its so-called ally – the United States.
It’s amazing how American weapons industry lobbying can tern its Congress around, when they are missing out on sales and $.

Saying this I think Taiwan is right to want and push for indigenous design and development of its military equipment!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought it would have been interesting if Israel had of teamed up with Taiwan to continue its development of the Lavi, before Israel hoped into bed with the PRC.
A great opportunity missed?
And the J-10 may never have been?

Regards
Pioneer

Well that “High Ranking Airforce officer” was a dumb assz cause the Mig-31 does have a cannon. The Mig-25 is the bird without a cannon.

Countries I would like to see fly the Mig-31BM

1) Iran (100 examples should be good)
2) Syria (60 – 80 examples should be good)
3) Libya (60 – 80 examples should be good)
4) North Korea (40 – 60 examples should be good)
5) Cuba (40 – 60 examples should be good)
6) Cyprus (20 – 40 examples should be good)
7) New Zealand (20 – 40 examples should be good)

Garry,
I know you don’t think New Zealand should have an Air Force but you can’t tell me that you wouldn’t like to see 20-40 Mig-31s patroling the skies and sea around New Zealand??

I would still be happy to see the RNZAF with A-4 Skyhawks, than the nothing it has know – Sad days!!!:(
Added to this the RNZAF would only be able to afford to fly a couple of their MiG-31’s (due to their flying cost and limited crews) once a year – say the Queens Birthday

because there are a lot of loads that a C-17 is too small for

hardly

not only are there plenty of missions that only the C-5 can do, there are even mission the C-5 can’t do, which is why we have to continually rent those An-124s

it’s not just the weight

neither make a military transport larger than the C-17

a military transport has a few key features
– high wing so the body can be low to the ground (for easy loading and unloading)
– rear ramp and optionally nose ramp (for easy loading and unloading)
– more landing gear (for better weight distribution so it can work from bases with weaker runways)
– outsized and unobstructed cargo hold (something like the A380 wouldn’t be good because the 2 decks are structural and cannot be removed)

the C-17 is actually a very inefficient plane. For being such a large plane it simply doesn’t have that much cargo space (C-5 carries 32 pallets, C-17 only 18*), its aerodynamics are lacking (not unlike that other Boeing product, the SuperHornet) and its short range means that it often relies on tanker support, which is hugely inefficient

If you could fly a full load from the US to Iraq without refuelling, that would be a massive gain in efficiency right there.

*not saying military transports are just used for pallets, but to give an example of the difference in floor space between the two

– Also eliminate the C-17’s wing-box protrusion of the main cargo compartment (like that of the C-5, An-124 and IL-76). This will give far greater ease of loading and unloading of oversized payloads
– What about a fuselage plug arrangement (like that of the C-141A to C-141B arrangement?
– More powerful engines
– A raised cockpit arrangement (like that of the C-5 and An-124), so as to give a nose door/ramp arrangement

Regards
Pioneer

Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon’s, Labour, and the ADF?

I don’t know gents:confused:

I am some what concerned by our new Defence Minister – Joel Fitzgibbon!

(And yes I voted for Labour!):D

He has come out the other day (on radio) stating that the ADF has to take on school children, under the ‘work-experience’ program.

The ADF have protested this directive under the terms that this could have OH&S and security ramifications.

The Defence Minister – Joel Fitzgibbon’s response to the ADF was along the lines of –
‘I have had many years of business experience’!
‘I know that work experience can be a burden on businesses’
‘If needed I will enforce this directive to the ADF, to take on ‘work experience’

Since when has the ADF been a business?????????????
Not in my 20 years of service!
When has any military been run like a business????????

This on top of the Defence Minister gobbing off about the F/A-18E/F purchase by the previous Howard dictatorship.
Fitzgibbon’s gobbing off about a review and reconsideration of the Super Hornet purchase………………………………..
Just to turn around in the end and confirm the he was still going ahead with the purchase of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the end, as the best capability, and choice

Wow – Is Joel Fitzgibbon, Australia’s own Robert McNamara?????????
What with another ‘Defence Review’, Super Hornet Reconsideration, His business world experience……………………………………..

Regards
Pioneer