GlendoraItalian alenia will be used for storm shadow tests.
GlendoraI dare to come back to the very post starting this thread.
They wanted a ground attack, interceptor, multi-role aircraft
they chose the F-104 over the Super Tiger, Lightning, and F-5 which is also a tiger
Erich Hartmann of suden park also opposed the F-104.
The F-104 was one of the most effective interceptors of its age. (I think nobody still needs interceptors nowadays, correct?)
As a ground attack, multi-role, conventional or nuclear a/c, this type showed its limits.
Then the high accident rate we all are aware – most related to difficulties of using the type in air-surface roles.
The perfect interceptor, the less air surface capable aircraft, IMHO.
GlendoraHopsalot,
I don’t understand why you and MSphere keep naming the AMX a trainer. If it was a trainer why Italy and Brazil had to use the MB-339 and other aircraft as trainers at their flying schools?
The AMX was heavily involved in the Kosovo and Libyan campaigns while 0 MB-339 were used there.
Also 0 MB-339 were deployed in A-stan, while the “Ghibli” is still flying there.
Of the 60 AMX originally delivered to Brazil, only 8 were two-seaters, used, of course for OCU and not for training of pilots to be eventually assigned to other types.
And for me it’s quite obvious the difference between a trainer and an attack aircraft, the former is designed to have system redundancies able to bring back the a/c in case of fault, while the latter is designed to survive damages.
A trainer has a friendly behavior in flight while an attack a/c has a more instable performance envelope.
The MB-339 and M-346 are trainers. The AMX is a (rather ugly, I concede this) ground attack aircraft.
If instead, you were referring to the MB-326, OK you have a point and maybe I misunderstand you. Anyway in the years the MB-326 were built there were less strict definitions, and the number of 167 trainers seem to be a bit too redundant for the training needs of the Brazilian Air Force.
GlendoraLet’s look at this from another angle. If this were a western uav project we’ve seen for the first time, would there be skepticism that it doesn’t have its own propulsion (despite the visibility of a very visible engine nozzle).
In other words, is there a reason that to believe they would have a uav down range if it didn’t have its own propulsion? Conversely, what rationale is there to even show a uav outside if it isn’t complete?
This reminds me of when the J-20 first came out and people were first speculating it must surely be a mock up, then it must surely be incomplete and lack weapon bays. It simply makes no sense in project management.
Yes blitzo, let’s try to take from exactly your last point of view: when the first news leaked about nEUROn and Taranis (projects a lil more complex then the Chinese HALE depicted in the footage), I just thought: OK let’s wait until these demostrators will fly, for the moment they are paper aircraft.
I did not have any flame on the forums about the effectiveness of these demonstrators.
That was exactly the status we are experiencing currently with the Chinese HALE. And skeptisism is a good attitude, exactly in the same manner when such above western concepts were originally presented or leaked.
When a few years later nEUROn and Taranis eventually flew, I did not had any hard on. I just thought that those projects became more mature, and could eventually lead to some solid A/C eventually deployead in service.
Trying to equalize the status of that particular UAV to the J-20 is not a solid argument: one type actually flew and has solid funding and strategic needs which back it up, about the other one we have just the short footage released.
With a clumsy truck tugging the thing.
Pretending to say: China does not need the years of studies and testing the West (whatever the “West” could mean) uses for its new A/C concepts is pretentious. Also, I have seen a lot of mature project never arriving the milestone of the first flight.
Pretending to mock somebody who won’t buy the project on the ground of the evidence supplied until now, it’s laughable. Even more laughable if there are implications such as the ones you and other posted about my supposed “anti” attitude towards the Chinese aerospace industry.
Again, please come back whan you have evidence that that thing could fly. Then, as an aerospace enthusiast, I will not be disappointed at all. But for now I just have to point out some intersting things of the footage released – like the truck involved and no sign of live from any engine installed on the aircarft.
GlendoraI guess, you are not able to see my point.
I don’t have any basic disregards about Chinese, Iranian, Israel aviation. All of these services have in line UAV able to fly. And many more aviations or industries have intersting UAV able to flight.
But you miss that we are discussing about this particular system (or at least I was trying, but some users seem to invoke that if another user write of a particular type, such user is ignorant or racist). Funny that you dismiss any implication at the specifity of this type. You know UAV are not the next generation sensation: we have senn the from years!
But you (and some other users of this forum), just call ignorant or seem to deem anti-chinese a guy who try to analyse the multimedia documents pubblished.
Just because “The Chinese already have other UAVs do runway tests on its own power. “
Well I have some news for you: I dont care about other UAVs, I am tryiing to have a close look at this specific type, and if you call me ignorant for this, good luck in differentiate an albatross from a chicken.
And yes I keep questioning that this particular thing flies as of today.
.
And if you or another user still call me ignorant, I just have a good laugh at your ignorance of logic.
GlendoraNot healthy skepticism. It’s called denial and ultimately envy. There are YouTube videos out of different Chinese UAVs taxiing on their own turbine jet engine power. Maybe this guy won’t be convince by anything until he’s invited personally to see it.
Thank you for appealling me as “this guy”.
Conversely i dont’t think that “this thing” has ever flown as of today.
And no “YouTube” video has shown any different evidence as of today. We know that China aerospace industries have brilliant projects, but still lack strong engine manufacturing capabilities. And for the moment the engine of this particular UAV is represented by that funny truck.
Oh, and of course I don’t feel any envy for my Chinese fellows, nor for their average standards of living, nor for the a/c their industry produces.
Also, as an afiocionado of modern military aircraft I would be more then happy when “this thing ” will eventually fly.
Again, until then, best regards.
GlendoraWhen this thing will taxis, and eventually fly without the help of a truck, I will concede the bird has a decent engine installed.
For the moment it needs the help of that azure thing for making the slightest movement. Unless you have further information
Until then, regards.
GlendoraI appreciate the propeller of this new UAV, as shown in the first frames of the video:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222723[/ATTACH]
I guess these are just details for some users of ths forum.
GlendoraOK!
There is a great document here: http://www.helitavia.com/books/Mil%20Av%20Sys/Wiley%20-%20Military%20Avionics%20Systems.pdf
Visit chapter 9.4.5, Systems Integration. About data buses in modern fighters.
Bye!
This document seems really intersting, thanbk you for sharing, I will read it thoroughly when I will have enough time on my hand.
Nevertheless, at a first spot I noticed a major error: the F-117 is listed under the Air Superiority Aircraft Types
GlendoraBlue Plug drills in Israel to be definitely denominated as Blue Flag. And the excercise will be held very soon!
From the official Israel Air Force webpage linked above:
In a numbers of months, the “Blue Flag” exercise will be underway at the southern airbase in Ouvda, in which other air forces from around the globe will participate. A moment before the opening shot, the Israeli squadrons that are participating in a preparatory workshop in which they will spend four full days practicing taking off and maneuvering in order to arrive at the impending international exercise as ready as possible.
The IDF squadrons involved in the drills will be the following according to the above official page:
The “Edge of the Spear” and the “Knights of Twin Tail” squadrons from the Tel Nof airbase, the “Knights of the North” and the “First Jet” squadrons from the Ramat David airbase, the “Knights of the Orange Tail” squadron from the Hatzarim airbase, and the “One” and “Bat” squadrons from the Ramon airbase will all take part in exercise. The “Flying Dragon” squadron, which will host the international exercise at its home base, will also simulate the “red forces”- the enemy forces. Unlike the “Blue Flag” exercise, the workshop will entail each squadron training at its home base and not being deployed to the southern airbase in Ouvda.
I deem these as the cream of the very best military aviation units at the present time. Only the Hammers from the 69° squadron are missing.
These units will confront and exchange tactics during several weeks wiih aircraft from USA; Italy and Greece:
Over several intense weeks, Israeli, American Italian, and Greek combat jets will share the skies in southern Israeli in a large scale exercise. Also participating in the exercise will be observers from additional countries, who will examine future participation in the coming years
I guess Red Flag drills are still available for the rest.
GlendoraThere are some news from Korea:
South Korea set to go with F-35 fighters
If I understand well, in South Korea there will not be a new “F-X IV” contest but in the next weeks there will be the announce that Korea will buy the F-35 (in numbers below the 60 originally planned):
Within the next few weeks, it is expected to reaffirm that South Korea needs a fighter with the stealth capabilities of the F-35, said a source with knowledge of the process. The sources asked not be named because they were not authorised to speak to the media.
With the South Korean government unlikely to increase the budget, the task force is expected to recommend that the country prioritise aircraft capability and use the same budget to buy fewer aircraft, one of the sources, with knowledge of the South Korean government’s considerations, said.
Seoul originally planned to buy 60 fighters, but that could come down to around 40, with options for more, according to a second industry source.
The task force is also likely recommend that there is no need to assess the capability of the aircraft again, given that the results of DAPA’s two-year evaluation are still valid, according to one of the sources.
A final contract could be signed by the third quarter of 2014 after the negotiations over the offset requirements, one source said.
GlendoraHow much the USS Forrestal costs? One cent deal!
Obviously I am simplifying many things, and you cannot bring the superccarrier at your own place but are bound to scrap her according to the applicable laws. Nevertheless an intersting reading.
Anybody intersted in a deal for the Saratoga?
GlendoraSome pictures of Italian destroyer Caio Duilio on her (his in Italian) way to the Baltic Sea for Steadfast Jazz 13 NATO Exercise
In the meantime, Nave Duilio was in involved in an ADEX with Portuguese F-16s in the Atlantic.
GlendoraI beg to differ: who shot himself in his foot was the USAF not Alenia, IMHO.
Regards
Sign In
