Yeah!

Someone set up us the bomb

All your base belong to us!
You are on the way to destruction…
You have no chance to survive make you time hahaha

I’ve got a great SWF file with the intro of the computer game, and an extremely catchy/annoying piece of music behind it. Anyone in for this 1,6 mb, just let me know.

Somehow i don’t think this one will survive the Webmaster’s good taste… but whenever i start rhyming, things tend to get out of hand.

That most magnificent man,
who proved that one can,
Still satisfy your ****
By finding that rare chick
Who frequents, quite insane,
a place devoted to the airplane.
Because most are not so fortunate,
in relieving oneself on the internet.
Flood definately steals the show:
surfing the web with just one window!
While the rest of us has to switch screens,
Between combat jets and horny teens
Floods uses this place for inspiration
Both aviation-wise and masturbation.

And now we wait for the child first-born
Through aviation cyberporn!

L’Anarchie pour le UK.

I would try and get a transfer. Those Guard tankers usually fly back for the weekend…

The boom-method nowadays used by the whole USAF is a reminder of the day when SAC was the dominant force within it. They needed tankers for their huge bomber fleet, and obviously the boom method was far more effective for this than the low-capacity probe method. Also, because bombers were big aircraft multi-aircraft refuellings (like probe-equipped fighters can do from multi-hose equipped tankers) was out of the question anyway.

Being the dominant arm in the USAF, it was SAC which got to buy the KC-135s from Boeing. And since SAC didn’t need any probe-equipped tankers, none were bought. Obviously, TAC was not happy about this since they were operating quite a few probe-equipped fighters from the 1950s on, which were perfectly capable of drinking fuel from a KC-97. The F-100 and F-104 for example have always been probe-refuellable fighters, and the F-105 prototypes also had retractable probes (so there are more than just the A-7 and F-4). Of course, when later light combat aircraft like the F-5 and A-37 were found in need of a refuelling capability, it was simply impossible to cram a boom receptacle in those small airframes so they got probes as well.

Although i doubt SAC was deliberately a selfish ass in their preferred way of refuelling, it’s interesting to note that MPRS KC-135s only really entered after SAC and TAC were merged together to form Air Combat Command.

Is the Russian A-50 equipped with IFR?

Yep.

Pulled this one back on topic as this visit seems to have inspired some Tom Clancy-wannabees into launching PLAAF Tu-22M3 theories…

While according to the article the Chinese delegation visited the Sukhoi parking lot at Zhukovskii (which is not that far from Tupolev’s area, but with some trees in between) for obvious marketing reasons, a similar visit to the Tupolev ramp would not have made any sense at all. For the simple reason that while upgraded Flankers (with sales potential) operate from Zhukovskii, i can’t think of any use of the few Backfires there for anything which might interest a potential export customer. If you want to get some up, close & personal experience on the Backfire, they would have gone to a base like Ryazan or Solcy.

I personally would think that the Chinese delegation would have some interest in seeing the organisation of a central flight test establishment like Zhukovskii where not only the state test agency is based (LII), but also the individual design bureaus.

Lavi mythology

Originally posted by DeepSpace
[B]I think we should remind you WHY the Lavi was cancelled. The Lavi was cancelled because of US pressure on Israel, and the US gave us 60 F-16C/D Block 40 (30 C’s and 30 D’s). Why? because the US was afraid that the Lavi will take up the place of the F-16 in the light fighters market.

The Lavi was cancelled primarily because it was going to be hugely expensive, and it would not have been Israel but the US coughing up that money. If you don’t read the book ght of the Lavi: Inside a U.S.-Israeli Crisis by Dov S. Zakheim, at least read the review at http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1196/9611055.htm . Don’t forget the subtle mentioning of the 730 US firms providing support in the design and development of the Lavi either.

Don’t remember that US assistance only came in with the post-1982 Lavi, when it was suddenly decided to become an advanced multi-role fighter in stead of the relatively simple A-4 replacement it was originally ment to be. Indigenously, Israel could well have been able to design a relatively simple attack and CAS aircraft, but when the requirements for the Lavi were increased, so was the amount of expertise Israel lacked in designing and developing such an aircraft. Which were Pratt and Whitney PW1120 engines; graphite epoxy composite materials; electronic countermeasures (ECM) parts; radar-warning receivers and their logarithms; wide-angle, heads-up display; programmable signal-processor emulator; flight-control computer; single-crystal turbine technology; and computer and airframe system. (see http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/3fal90.html ).

What’s the problem with somebody making an error, or not knowing something completely? We’re here on a public forum not only to debate and have fun but (IMHO) also to help others with an interest matching our own. Now what’s wrong if you can help someone expanding his knowledge (and hence his base of opinion)?

There is nothing idiotic about mentioning the J-2 or J-4 if you aren’t all too well informed about Chinese MiGs, especially if you consider these errors are very widespread and long-lasting. It only becomes idiotic if you stick to such errors after being corrected.

GoldenDragon,
Thanks for that.