My pleasure to help. I love this thread and glad to contribute.
Cheers 🙂

I’m getting fond of this thread as well, here’s a photo gallery from a website I stumbled upon, plenty of great small air force (and other military) pics you may or may not have seen already, I don’t know…:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=490398

What makes you think they were not? :confused:

Well, I can recall years ago reading How Nigeria’s, and Bae’s, problems stemmed from the Nigerians’ inability or unwillingness to pay for the Jaguars delivered in the 1980s. The NAF Jags spent most of their time in storage due to the British refusal to provide servicing to them, and because they hadn’t fully paid for them the Nigerians weren’t allowed to sell them on to another country… or something like that?:confused: Did the Nigerians eventually pay up in the end?

Present status is: on the scrapyard.

If the NAF never got much flying from them there shouldn’t have many hours on the airframes, why did they scrap them? I am reminded of the Libyan Mirages which had seen so little flying in the LAF that they were almost in “as new” condition when they were resold to the Pakistani air force!

Well how many have been used? Styx and the Exocet? And perhaps the Sea Skua launched from Brittish Lynx helicopters during GWI.
I´m still wondering when Styx was first operational in an air-launched version.

Well I guess the Styx gained greater fame in its Chinese incarnation as the Silkworm. I believe The Iranians used a lot of them in the ‘Tanker war’ during the Iran-Iraq war. While the Iraqis fired several hundreds of Exocets in the same war. The Exocet’s probably more high-tech (later technology) but the Silkworm had a much larger warhead… making it more effective against tankers??

KC-135E and R, for two, the U-2 (TR-1A variant) and the F-14B/D for others.

All KC-135s were originally equipped with Pratt & Whitney J-57-P-59W turbojet engines which produced 10,000 lbf of thrust dry, and approximately 13,000 lbf of thrust wet. Wet thrust was achieved through the use of water injection on takeoff.

In the 1980s the first modification program re-engined 157 Air Force Reserve (AFRES) and Air National Guard (ANG) tankers with the Pratt & Whitney TF-33-PW-102 engines from 707 airliners retired in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, (now retired) was 14% more fuel efficient than the KC-135A and could offload 20% more fuel on long duration flights.

The second modification program re-engined 500 with new CFM International CFM56 (F-108 for the military designation) engines produced by General Electric and Snecma. The re-engined tanker, designated either the KC-135R or KC-135T, can offload up to 50% more fuel (on a long duration sortie), is 25% more fuel efficient, costs 25% less to operate and is 96% quieter than the KC-135A.

There were 33 TR-1As produced. The TR-1A was an improved version of the U-2R, which was an improved U-2 with longer wings and underwing fuel pods. They were, like all U-2s, completed with one Pratt and Whitney J75-P-13B engine.
35 TR-1As & U-2Rs aircraft completed an upgrade to the General Electric F-118-101 engine in 1998, to provide better fuel economy, reduced weight and increased power. They all also received a new sensor/avionics suite.

48 F-14As were re-engined with GE F110-400s replacing their Pratt and Whitney TF30-P-414As, and redesignated F-14B (38 new-builds as well).

18 F-14As were upgraded to F-14D with the same engine replacement and a complete replacement of virtually all avionics (37 new-builds as well).

I’m sure there are numerous others.

Singapore and and New Zealand A-4 Skyhawks had their J-52s replaced with F404.
The South African Bazler DC-3 had its radials replaced with PT-6 turboprops.
You also had those civilian DC-8 freighters that had their original engines replaced with CFM56s, I think some of them are still flying.

And on an obscure note, Lend-Lease Curtiss P-40 fighters supplied to the Soviet Union during the war sometimes had their worn out Allison V-1710s replaced by, if I recall, Soviet built M-105 engines (the same powerplant that powered the Yak series of fighters).

-The AWG-9 of F-14A, in service, had capability to guide 2 Phoenixes at one time, not 6.
-In service, it had less than 10 targets Track-while-Scann capability.
The 24 targets TWS was demonstrated only on ground tests.

-The APG-71, of F-14D, a much better system than AWG-9, had 10 targets TWS, but it was still very primitive compared to Zaslon phased array radar of Mig-31.

What makes you say that the Zaslon is more advanced than either of the American radars? I doubt if the electronics or processing power of the 1970s era Zaslon are an improvement on the 1960s era AWG-9. Just because the Zaslon has a PESA antenna doesn’t make it automatically any more capable, does it? … Is the AN/APQ-164 on the B-1B more capable than the Obzor-K on the Tu-160 because the AN/APQ-164 has a PESA antenna? I’m pretty sure that the avionics on the Tu-160 should be capable enough of doing the job that they were designed for, regardless of what type of antenna it’s equipped with.

Did you ever ask yourself why AIM-9, AIM-7 and AIM-120 all have achieved kills in Iraq, except Phoenix.

Not just Phoenix! How many kills did the R-73, R-27, R-23, or any other Soviet missile achieve in that war or any other conflict in the last 20 years? What does that say about the abilities of Soviet/Russian A-to-A missiles? To use your yardstick, its not a good recommendation for Soviet tech at all, is it?

The Serbs captured a U.S. Army Humvee in 1999. They didn’t give it back and put it in a museum. I can’t imagine the Russians giving back the Humvees. Considering all the media hype generated in the U.S. media over the Humvees (especially on Republican forums!), it will be regarded as a poke in the eye to the U.S. Spoils of conflict.

TJ

Well, it’s not like the Russians were short of Humvees. Having lived in Moscow, I’d say that there are more Hummer H3s (yeah, yeah, I know, there not really the same car) in that city per head of population than probably any other city in the world. H3s are/were actually assembled in Russia, in kaliningrad on the Baltic.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060406.001/hummer-h3-production-start-in-russia

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060406.001/photo1/hummer-h3-production-start-in-russia

But an obselete Russian weapon is far more potent that a new bling,bling, bling U.S weapon. Russia strategy in warfare is also far more efficient than the U.S and Isrealis.

Just how potent has the Russian aviation been in this war?? We’ll have to wait many months before we can see a proper assessment been carried out I suppose.

Remember the U.S and her allies in the second Iraqi war never face a single aircraft from the Iraqis, not even a helicopter.

Because the American and Coalition airforces had spent the previous 13 years using their ‘bling,bling,bling’ weapons to annihilate Iraqi air power perhaps…:rolleyes: