Thanks for proving me right old buddy =)
Originally posted by flex297
Don’t listen to them, buddy, forget what they say.. This should be a MiG-29? That is darn ridiculous…The rear portion clearly shows MiG-25 style fin. The wheels are way too large for a Fulcrum. Last but not least is the single-wing air brake which came with later versions of MiG-29 (M and K) but not with the basic 9.12. Wings have straight tips rather than rounded that come with the Fulcrum.
The front portion is apparently the same aircraft, which has been torn apart. No sign of LERX can be seen. The anti-glare stripe is not straight as with all MiG-29s, it is broke and angled. Only MiG-25 recon, trainer and Wild Weasels used this style of anti-glare stripe.
The radome reminds me of interceptor MiG-25P or MiG-25PD series, the open panels, however, point more towards Wild Weasel MiG-25BM versions.
A MiG-29 is out of question here..
This particular a/c sports the number 25201. In IrAF list, all No. 25xxx are listed as MiG-25s, MiG-29s use numbers 29xxx… PD and P interceptor series got 254xx, recon machines have 251xx, 252xx could be Wild Weasels (not confirmed).
BTW, acig.org lists #25201 as Kilter capable MiG-25BM radar killer. That is what I think, too….
Need any more proofs?
Re: These wreckages were once…..?
Originally posted by Vaiar
Fill in the dots please. It is Iraq BTW.
The rear portion looks alot more like a mig-25 than a Mig-29!
while UK Navy got their SHAR FA2.
……and are now loosing it 🙁
From the front view it looks very like the German stealth design that was photographed in a hanger a number of years ago and featured in AFM.
Yep a fake.
Here is the original:

Looking at it I would think that it was based on a FT-7 rather then a normal F-7:
– Has the enlarged ventral stabs
– Larger spine
– Twin seat arrnagement.
(The last two do not suggest an exact FT-7 traits merely suggestion of using an FT-7 as a basis)
Originally posted by Gavin.O
Joe, can you explain what the “assesement phase” will include? Are we talking about wind tunnel models? Or just trade studies? I assume it DOESN”T mean prototype constuction … but maybe large-scale mockups?–Gavin.
Good question Gavin………and one I don’t know the answer to!
Would guess that it will involve the practical experimentation with a number of possible systems
On the U(C)AV front such experiments would involve the practicalities of thier operation, the network needed and also thier inoperability with manned platforms, ie. operating from.
Also the MoD are becoming increasingly interested in the X-45, so something may happen with that.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by Arthur
Isn’t that the Varyag?
Just did abit of researching…….
Yep definately the Varyag
Wonder if the are installing pool tables or SSMs?
What is that????
Looks like a carrier, anyone got anything more on it?
– Joe
The FOAS requirement still exists.
Neither the JSF or Typhoon wil be able to fill the Deep Strike capability gap that will result from the GR.4 retirement.
The MoD still have it on their site and it has even been updated as recently as last month.
It is very hard to say what FOAS will look like, the compenents being considered are manned aircraft, UCAV and cruise along with supporting network systems. It is quite possible a combination will be evaluated.
The plan is the move from the concept phase into the assesment phase any time now, with the nominal in service date being around 2017.
– Joe
Can’t beleive nobody answered this fully:
c- RAF
It is the HS125, but that’s not the designation it flies with in the RAF. The RAF Jetstreams aren not for nav training, the Navy ones are (sometimes).
Dominie
-1- What aircraft, developed in international programs, are in use with the British military?
Merlin
Lynx
Gazelle
Puma
Jaguar
Tornado
Typhoon
Harrier GR.7
Not including Liscencesd built aircraft though
What apout the Eurocopter Squirrel?
– Joe
Since the withdrawal from service of the WE177 nuclear bomb in 1998, the Tornado strike capability is restricted to conventional weapons.
What happened to them though. Would it be reasonably accurate to assume that they are still kept safely in reserve.
In times of war, where nuclear weapons could be used, is it safe to assume that they could re-enter service?
– Joe
Originally posted by Distiller
HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, Vengeance (no Victor-Vulcan-Valiant here ;-). Each carries 16 Trident II D-5, range 4000-6000nm, up to 14 (usually 8) W-88 thermonuclear warheads (in Mk.5 RV with the dimensions 6ft x 22in, yield 475kT (30x Hiroshima), CEP better than 300ft).
I remember hearing that it no longer sails with a full complement of missiles.
Max life: 100 flights.
Err………this doesn’t seem very practical!!!!!
150 JSF for a country who will operate a likely tiny CVF able to operate 20 JSF at best!
There is a strong possibility that this will be erduced to approximately 110.
Might I remind you that there will be TWO MEDIUM sized carriers, even if they are getting smaller daily.
Also remember the JSF will be replacing all RAF Harriers.