dark light

Fulcrums

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 52 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: "probed" 707/KC137 #2643861
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    More here on Canadian Forces’ CC-137’s: Click

    in reply to: "probed" 707/KC137 #2643865
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    The Canadian Armed forces used to have a Boeing 707-based tanker. Dunno about the probe on the nose though. These have since been replaced by Airbus A310 derived MRTT’s referred to as ‘Polaris’.

    http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/refueler.jpg

    Caption:

    The Boeing CC-137 was the Air Force’s main air-to-air refueling asset. Seen here is one of the Boeings with a CF-18 from CFB Cold Lake, Alberta. The CF-18 is on loan to AETE from 410 Squadron.

    in reply to: USN C17 trials successful #2644008
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    It’s definitely a PS. That guy on the deck is a dead giveaway. I don’t care how big the tailhook or arrestor cables are, there is no way that plane in the attitude shown is going to stop in the 60 feet required to avoid ‘collecting’ him.

    in reply to: BAE Hawk MK100 users #2646085
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    Canadian Armed Forces (leased):

    http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hawk/wallpaper/NFTCHawk-3.jpg

    in reply to: Aero India Thread #2652677
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    Nice pictures!

    BTW, in this picture: http://www.protonriver.com/ae2005/BackEndBusiness-Su-30MKI.jpg

    Is that a commom practice to hang the potato mashers on those two lined-up pylons between the engines? Never seen ’em hung on those pylons before …

    Rockgordon, your link got ‘compacted’, so to see the picture, type in “http://www.protonriver.com” in your browser adddress bar follwed immediately by: /ae2005/BackEndBusiness-Su-30MKI.jpg and hit enter.

    As for the R77’s along the centreline, I don’t see why that should be an issue, considering the hardpoints under the engines have bombs mounted on them and there could be other munitions mounted under the wings.

    in reply to: Indian AF – News & Discussions – Jan 2005 #2660464
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    “Funny thing is that the USAF brought the AIM-9X but the IAF had/has no equivalent

    If this is his true meaning or he is ironic. When he is ironic, I would like to read, what is the IAF equivalent to that or this was a posting with no info?! 😀

    Ah, now I understand – sorry for being slow on the draw there. 🙂
    I think the closest thing that the IAF has to the AIM-9X is the R-73RDM2 slaved to the helmet mounted sight on their Bisons, Fulcrums and Flankers. I haven’t compared the performance parameters of the latest Sidewinder and Archer side by side so don’t know if they are in fact “equivalent” or just similar in operational concept.

    in reply to: Indian AF – News & Discussions – Jan 2005 #2660515
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    Like ….? Some text is missing! 😮

    Sens – can you rephrase your question? It’s probably for Harry but still, I don’t get it. :confused:

    in reply to: MiG-23/27 Flogger and MiG-25/31 #2661114
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    Do you have the link to the article.

    Here ya go: Incredible Adventures – Edge of Space 🙂

    in reply to: Indian AF – News & Discussions – Jan 2005 #2661117
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    ^^^ I’d take that Jane’s foreign report with a grain of salt. Some things are true but there are also many discrepancies. Seems to contain a lot of sensational reporting by the Israeli equivalent of our DDM.

    in reply to: Small Airforces pics part 3 #2613200
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    Actually, a single PGM costs as much as hundreds of unguided rockets.

    in reply to: Countries without an Air Force #2614781
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    The UK (well give it another 10 years with more government cutbacks)lol

    Sadly, Canada seems to be heading in that direction too.

    in reply to: RAF Jaguar overwing Sidewinders #2614798
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    It was many years ago, but I remember reading somewhere that HAL’s involvement was solely as a contractor or consultant for retrofitting RAF Jags with the overwing missile installation setup. The reason for this was that the Indians had operational experience with this configuration on their Jags.

    The concept/design was definitely not HAL’s, it was a BAE and SEPECAT design right from the start. HAL just executed the design on their production line and the IAF was the largest Jaguar operator with the overwing Magics in operational service.

    in reply to: IAF MCRA : Mirage-2005/9 vs MIG-29SMT #2617378
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    ^^^ :p LOL!

    Fulcrums
    Participant

    I doubt very much if the UAE will buy anything from IAI. When I lived in Dubai, the locals there would get offended at the mere mention of the word “Israel”. I think it has something to do wirth solidarity for the Palestinians or something like that.

    I’ll never understand that region… :confused:

    in reply to: Israel, India to hold joint air force maneuvers #2625286
    Fulcrums
    Participant

    Your an Indian when you recognized the HUD of MIG-21BIS.

    So what? If you must know, I was born in India but I am a Canadian citizen now. This does not stop me from maintaining an interest in the country of my origin. I am very proud to be of Indian descent and I am also very proud to be Canadian.

    F-117 and B-2 are in bomber category…

    True. However, the F117 is actually a fighter, albeit used in an almost purely Air-to-Surface role.

    Now, how about switching the discussion back to the Indo-Israeli air force exercises, eh?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 52 total)