Impressed as I am by the military might of Israel and the USA I think that:

Any raid by Israel will be perceived as being a raid sponsored by the USA regardless of what the actual truth of that is. The Iranians are pretty much guaranteed to get their revenge by totally destabilizing Iraq and that is the last thing either the US Dems the Reps want at the moment. They want stability in Iraq so that they can pull their troops out ASAP. Their opinions on what the time line should be may differ but basically both Reps and Dems want out. If anybody is holding the Israelis back, politically, it is the USA on account of Iraq. If Iran does get raided by Israel without the Israelis getting permission from the boys in the White House it is likely to aggravate the Americans immensely. I don’t think they are in the mood for a massive Iranian effort to reverse what progress they have made in suppressing the Iraqi insurgency and it would be such an easy goal for the Iranians to achieve. One more thing that should not be forgotten is the effect just the raids on Iran all on their own (lets forget about any possible destabilization of Iraq for the moment) would have on world oil prices. If you guys think $4 per gallon of gas is a steep price think again :D.

Whatever you choose, it will be a basic design from the 50s with some refinements later on. In former times you was in need of some performances to make effective use of your then limited avionics and weapons. Today the capability of avionics and state of the art weapons had outperformed “flying performances” multipel.
Despite new built, the F-7G is outdated, without state of the art avionics and weapons.

You are basically repeating what I tried to say before, which is: Who the hell would buy a MiG-21 in this day and age? The question Flex confronted me with is: If somebody held a gun to your head and forced you to choose between a MiG-21Bis/-93 or an F-7G what would you buy? Personally I’d pick the F-7G and screw BVR capability of the Bison since I’d simply feel safer in a new built F-7G than a 30+ year old refurbished MiG-21Bis with an engine of similar vintage. A MiG-21-97 would be a slightly better proposition since it at least can presumably be had with a brand spanking new RD-33 engine. Also the F-7 isn’t quite as bad as you describe it, the Pakistani ones have western made avionics don’t they?

Under any other circumstances than if somebody held a gun to my head I’d choose something other than a MiG-21/F-7. Depending on how much money I had to play with I’d go down the price ladder. A moderately ambitious starting point would be in the same general class of aircraft as the MiG-29/35. From there one might take a look at cheaper stuff like the FC-1, perhaps it would be worth taking a look at Israeli upgraded F-5Es Like Brazil and Chile did. Failing that perhaps an armed trainer like the Hawk/M-346/Yak-130/L-159?

… not that having better quality manufacturing in today’s computer age than back in the 60s is such big achievement..

That’s not what I was trying to say. Obviously 60s technology is inferior to modern machining but then again even during the 60s Soviet manufacturing quality was awful compared to contemporary aircraft like the Northrop F-5 (Which I would pick over any MiG-21 or F-7 even if the F-5 is also a 60s design).

However, if one is actually forced to buy a member of the MiG-21 family and one isn’t stuck with the option of upgrading because one already has a bunch of MiG-21MF or Bis fighters sitting on the tarmac screaming for something more modern than an RP-21 and AA-2s. If one really had to choose between a MiG-21 and the F-7G. Why would one pick a reconditioned 30+ year old MiG-21Bis when one could get a new built F-7G made with modern machine tools?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that a MFI-9B rocketed a MiG-17 on take off during the Biafra war. That always struck me as a funny scenario, the MFI is a kitplane.

It has the right sort of look, but it is simply not an attack helicopter – the payload capability simply isn’t there. It might be uprated, and perhaps carry a machinegun or grenade launcher, but it will still be no more of an attack helicopter (in fact much less so) than helos like the Gazelle and Squirrel (or early Kiowas).

In effect, if it is a technology demonstrator for a larger helo, then it is great. If, on the other hand, they expect to stick a GPMG on the side and call it an attack helo, then that’s their right, but by most normal standards, that’s not what it is.

I don’t think anybody expects this little chopper to give the AH-64 Apache a run for it’s money. However, with an on board speed measurement device, a small FLIR turret mounted and DVR equipment installed it would for example make a nice little police chopper.

The intended military roles are:
pilot training, reconnaissance, patrol and light attack.

Some civillian uses that have been suggested for the CH-14 are:
pilot training, forestry (fire fighting) and wildlife management, cinematographic work, general agricultural work and general civilian police use.

😀

The return of the king or M Radzi Desa did it again!

Myanmarese MiG-29 and F-7M in sparkling quality..
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1280430/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1280429/L/

Nice picture, but I think this is an F-7B, AFAIK the F-7M moved the pitot-tube to the top of the nose. I read somewhere that Myanmar’s F-7s were upgraded by the Israelis. Note the blade antenna behind the cockpit, and the missile rail looks a bit like the ones used for the Python 3/PL-8.

Interesting info on the hardpoints and that’s a neat picture of the camera pod. I wonder how they wired it to work? A switch on the control stick perhaps?

In any case it seems that using the inboard most rocket rails found on the Swiss variants (i.e. the two inboard of the 230-gallon tank hardpoints) would be the best place for AIM-9’s, thus leaving you room for tanks and offensive weapons (i.e. rocket pods, Mavericks, or bombs).

The RhodAF recon pod was hand controlled by the pilot, it worked very well despite the primitive controls.

IIRC. the original Mod 228 wing only made provision for

Any hard-points between the inboard pylon and the fuselage like on the Swiss Hunter depicted above or this Omani Hunter depicted below were non standard later additions. This is where most Hunter operators seem to have put the Sidewinder. For the Rhodesian it was simply easier to cram the Winder between the two standard pylons and fixing the Winder’s launch rail to one of the eight rocket rail attachment points. Keep in mind that the RhodAF Hunter squadron usually operated in two sections. Some 6-8 aircraft would fly CAS while 2-4 flew CAP in case Zambian F-6 or Mozamobiquean MiG-17/21 pilots got ambitious. So mixed loads of AA missiles and ground attack munitions wasn’t an issue for them. In a pinch they could still have fitted mixed payloads.