but why only Thailand and Vietnam – what about the other countries in the region: Laos, Cambodia, Burma?

Laotian Z-9:

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?181232-Laos-Military

But can a Mi-26 lift its own weight at higher altitudes? The Chinook obviously can’t…

Like the photo of the Tu-134 been lifted, btw – it must have been stripped down.

Chances are the IAF might just upgrade the present 4 or 5 Mi-26s to the T2 standard, applying the new avionics package and the other upgrades available. India was never interested in buying anymore Mi-26s after the original batch in the 1980s anyway. A useful machine for any extreme lifts, especially in the mountains, but not for much else.

In fact I see a good reason for India to buy more Chinooks – if a C-47 gets stranded in the mountains you could of course use the Mi-26 to lift it out. But what sort of helicopter are you going to use to rescue a Mi-26 that is itself stuck 3,000 metres up??:diablo:

Oh, after MiG lost the PAK-FA tender they lobbied the IAF hard for the LMFS which also lost-out to Sukhoi’s T-50, and guess what?

Where do you think MiG 1.44/E-271/LMFS technical data ended up? I’ll give you a clue, starts with ‘Ch’ and ends with ‘du’. It’s not called flaming, it’s called deductive reasoning.

If the RuAF and IAF rejected the above, then the J-20’s a de facto 3rd hand fighter!

I could see (if I wanted to) definite F-14 and F-15 parentage in the basic Su-27 airframe design – at least they had good taste in the Soviet Union.

However Jo is right about their respective AF strength. India has a clear qualitative edge here. And when FGFA and MRCA have entered service IAFs surperiority will increase further.

I’m not sure the IAF has the technical advantage – what about the PLAAF’s Updated Su 27s, Su-30, J-10, J-11, plus JH-7A – that’s a pretty impressive line up if you ask me.

mhmm, what were we arguing about? Oh yes, should the shah have bought all those American planes in the 1970s? :rolleyes:

The F-14 was an outstanding jet for its time, but it has a structurally complex airframe that has been plagued with structural weaknesses and high maintenance.

You might want to tell somebody that in the IIRAF that, they’re still flying them, 35 years after deliveries began, and 32 years since technical support from America dried up. Iran’s Tomcats are doing alot better than most countries’ MiG-23s ever did…:cool::rolleyes:

2 facts that caught my eye concerning the ‘Miracle on the Hudson’

a. Airline pilots don’t receive simulator training in ditching their aircraft.
b. There is no fuel-dump facility on the A320.

Bearing in mind that the A320 had only burned of about 2-3 minutes worth of fuel before the bird-strike, along with the fact of the full capacity load of 155 passengers and baggage, Sullenberger had a very heavy aircraft when he hit the water.

Another interesting fact, both the A320 and the Nimrod both broke their backs.

Tell me, why would a Nimrod or a P-3 be able to survive “ditching at night, in a rain-squall, with 25-knot variable winds (bf6),” etc, compared to an airliner type?

Did you not read the first page of that thread? http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/362452-hearing-problems-flying-s92.html

The cooling fans were mentioned.