Don’t get me wrong, I think the C-17 (and C-5) is a great plane for what it is, carrying outsized loads into difficult situations.

But how many of the C-17s missions actually need/use such capabilities?

It seems like what they need is a dedicated pallet hauler, like say the 777F, that can
a) carry more pallets
b) carry them farther
c) carry them faster
d) carry them cheaper

I agree with the basics of what you are saying!
But the main concerns that I would have are1
1/ Congress would soon and very easily distort the difference between these pallets
Haulers, with true transport aircraft like the C-17 & C-5, when it comes to budgets
and numbers, which would end up being detrimental to what the US military really
needs.

2/ a smart enemy is not always be so nice and allow its pristine airfields / airports left
Intact for use by its enemy (which the likes of a B777 or B747 needs.

3/ Boeing engineers / designers should be looking at a rough-field landing gear design
that could improve its modified civil designs like the B-767, B-777 and B-747
proposal’s capability to use less that perfect (western style) airports and enemy
airbases!

Yes this may mean some modifications to the landing gear struts, larger & lower pressured tires, and possibly some protrusion of the landing gear bays.

Or why not have a joint Government / Aviation industry / Airline think tank to design an aircraft that could be more friendly to all party’s – A kind of ‘JSF’ (Joint Strike Fighter) airliner, that would benefit by the use of common components, with some tailored changes to suit the user

Without looking at the contract specs…or an An-72 manual, it probably wouldn’t be too bad of an idea. Seems like a neat aircraft.
But after you “Westernize” the systems (and translate all the training and maintenace documents), I doubt if you’d save a lot of money.

I’m all for western aerospace firms making use of the talents inside Russia…but US-Russian relations would have to improve.

It would need to be fitted with Western engines, before the US would except it – this would be paramount due to ‘safety’, and life cycle costs!

What Western turbofan engine would do the job???

Regards
Pioneer

The Tornado ADV has been criticised for its lack of “true” fighter performance. However to criticise the aircraft for this is to misunderstand the mission for which it was developed. The ADV was designed to fly and patrol far from base over the North Sea and Northern Atlantic and to intercept its targets (like Russian cruise missile and bombers) at long range – not to have significant dogfighting capabilities. So the second crewmember is more a RIO!

I agree with what you are saying here my friend!!!

WE must also keep in mind that the Tornado ADV, was another political and economic compromise, in that the British attempted to utilize an existing airframe and engines, instead of designing and building a completely new and specialized interceptor from scratch

I think in the long duration patrols that the Tornado ADV was to do over the bleak & freezing North Sea and Northern Atlantic, the extra set of eyes and the knowledge of another with you would have been psychotically comforting!

But by saying this, the endurance or weapons load (due to the possible no need for drops tanks) if the space used for the rear radar operator was replaced by internal fuel!

I think the Armidale classes were too small and not practical under armed for Australian needs anyway.
For the type of seas, and the range they are expected to operate, I think a small corvette design would be far more practical and useful.

Pioneer

WTF. The YA-10B is even uglier than the A-10A.

No Mr Chan
The A-10 is not ugly, its possibly one of the most purpose built combat aircraft ever built – hence its looks!

Regards
Pioneer

Most up to date Iranian Air Force ‘Order of Battle’?

Does anyone have the most up to date data an the Iranian’s Air Force ‘Order of Battle’
? x MiG-29 Fulcrum’s
? x F-14 Tomcats’s
? x Su-24 ‘Fencer’s
? x F-5’s
? x F-4 Phantom II’s
P-3 Orion’s
etc…………..

Does Iran have the MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’ in its inventory ?????

Regards
Pioneer

I think what separates the world special forces is-
The U.S Special Forces Put to much emphasis on the use of to much technology, always have to be transported right into their target area and have to much inter-service rivalry (and way too many units that label themselves as SF). The United States also openly publicize the presents of its SF in county, which takes away the element of surprise and shock in an operation.

The Russian Spetznes relied too much on large size forces and fire power.
Today’s Russian SF is often used as nothing more than internal security thugs by their government, instead of proper military tasks.

Where the British, Australian and New Zealand SAS and the Israeli Commandos emphasis and train more on The SAS’s and Israeli Commandos also have a very high self discipline that does not want public or media exposure (with the exception of Bravo Two Zero story, movie and books!). They go in do the job and are whisked away ASAP by high command as a standard SOP.small sized units, with what they can carry for miles on foot, and use encourage the individual soldier to use their initiative at all time. They also preach ‘Keep it simple stupid’

P.S. – Is the West German GSG9 unit still around?
Is it still called GSG9?
This is another great SF’s unit, which for its missions it has carried
out, one must remember that it is a civil Police unit!

Regards
Pioneer

[QUOTEIt was a Predator equipped with Stingers in the Southern No Fly Zone. The MiG-25 fired an AAM at the Predator. Before being shot down the Predator launched a Stinger.
][/QUOTE]

I beat the MiG-25 pilot would not have expected this, what from a perceived easy target like a RPV?
But saying this, the MiG-25 pilot must have lowered his speed dramatically to lock onto such a low heat generating and slow target

Regards
Pioneer