Interesting statistics, thanks for that. If true, this means the LRAAM project is potentially a lot further ahead than I initially realised, which changes the calculus somewhat. I would really like to get hold of that book, but last time I tried contacting Pierre Victor I was told it was out of stock and that he was unable to provide me with any information as to when a new run would be printed. Any idea how to get hold of a copy?

I also think the nukes discussed may have been theoretical designs rather than actual devices. In order to achieve the level of miniaturisation required for missile delivery, SA would’ve had to create a far more sophisticated implosion-type weapon than the six gun-type devices actually built. Sure, it was feasible, and I don’t doubt that SA was pursuing more advanced designs (hence the RSA-4), but it may have been as much as a decade before we overcame the technical difficulties associated with building one.

Therefore I think the proposed ramjet’s intended use was probably conventional. As sealordlawrence said, it would’ve been quite well suited to a number of roles.

Well, the F-35 HMDS is a development of the J-HMCS, which is already in successful squadron service. Plus, both Israel and South Africa have been operating HMD/HMCS helmets for close to two decades, so it’s not like the CG problems are new or haven’t been dealt with before.

As for Elbit, it’s actually the prime display contractor on both the J-HMCS and the HMDS through VSI, its joint venture with Rockwell-Collins. Incidentally, BAE Systems has developed an Alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (AHMDS) for the F-35 as a risk-mitigation effort. It’s based on the Eurofighter Typhoon’s existing Striker helmet, but there’s still no word yet on whether the UK will adopt it in place of the HMDS.

The Cobra helmet is a development of the Striker intended purely for the Gripen, though both are broadly equivalent in capability and design. In contrast to the J-HMCS and HMDS, which use a magnetic tracking system, the Striker, AHMDS and Cobra use an optical tracking system from South Africa’s Denel Optronics.

So far as I know, the T-129s are to be built locally in Turkey. The five year period is to allow for AgustaWestland to transfer enough tech and expertise to make that possible.

As an educated guess, I’d say most sub-Saharan African countries use local pilots rather than mercenaries. There seems to be a popular misconception that most African air forces use mercenaries, but so far as I know the number of air forces actually doing that number less than 10. This probably includes Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and Guinea.

As for the reason behind it, TempestII is absolutely correct. Few African countries have either the infrastructure or the funding to maintain proper air forces and the training they require. So when they do get in trouble and need fighter aircraft and attack helicopters to repel a rebel movement or go to war with one of their neighbours it becomes necessary to buy the equipment off the shelf while hiring mercenaries to fly them. It’s also more cost-effective, since you only need to spend money when you need the stuff, rather than maintaining an expensive force permanently.

But again, not many African air forces actually do use mercenaries and most use their own pilots to fly their aircraft.

Isn’t 2009 a little late? They’re already starting to receive Gripens, and any decision they make down the road will mean that the current jets might have to be upgraded at additional cost to adapt their AAM choice.

The logical move might have been to simply adopt the AIM-120 (this is of course subject to US export approval, I don’t know where South Africa might stand on that issue inside Congress) as it is already integrated fully, or perhaps to adopt the MICA and have both IR and ARH BVR AAMs.

I understand fully the desire to integrate the indigenous A-Darter, keeping Denel on the cutting edge and potentially leading to export sales once the weapon is fully developed, but putting off a BVR AAM until 2009 seems a little odd if you ask me.

Sorry about that, I got my dates mixed up. The decision date for the SRAAM is 2007, with first deliveries only expected in 2009. I’d presume the decision on a BVR missile will be also be made in the 2007/2008 timeframe.

You’re right that it is leaving it slightly late, but the timescales aren’t that bad. The first JAS-39C single-seaters will be arriving in 2009, with the first example entering an OT&E period in which new weapons can be tested and qualified. Deliveries will continue until 2011, with the aircraft only becoming operational in 2012. In the meantime, the Cheetahs and their R-Darters will remain operational.

Thus the SAAF only needs a replacement BVRAAM from 2012/2013 onwards. Within this timescale the Meteor makes sense, especially because only minimal integration work (aside from a software upgrade) will need to be done. That makes it unnecessary to procure a BVRAAM right now, whether it be the MICA or AMRAAM (though I don’t forsee any export problems with the latter). If the Meteor’s in-service date does slip due to unforseen delays, it will also be possible to resume the R-Darter’s integration process on the Gripen (it was about 50% complete when it was halted) for use as an interim measure.

Denel Aerospace Systems is also reported to be developing a new BVRAAM, which will incorporate elements from the Umkhonto SAM and R-Darter and technology from the S-Darter and T-Darter design studies. The first prototype is due to be unveiled next year sometime, while it’s likely that the missile will be a joint venture between SA and either Brazil or India. This might be part of the reason for the delay in choosing a BVRAAM.

As for the A-Darter, were it not for the Brazilian decision to get involved and contribute funding, it’s likely it would’ve been cancelled in favour of the IRIS-T. The SAAF is still reserving judgement, funding development of the A-Darter but delaying the final commitment to either the A-Darter or IRIS-T for later this year.

I’m pretty interested in Project Protector as a whole. New Zealand seems to have acquired a useful bunch of ships for a very good price, from the looks of things. I think it’s definitely an approach other small nations could learn from.

But yeah, thanks for the pic.

probably want to stop covert recon missions into Iran if you don’t wanna get caught.

15 men in RIBs 10 miles or more from the Iranian coast involved in covert recon missions? How effective is that going to be? And further, what could they be doing recon-wise that couldn’t be done much more effectively by aerial surveillance aircraft operating 12 miles or so off Iran’s coast? I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make much sense, despite what the Iranians are claiming.

Even if we’re generous to Iran and accept that the Brits were in Iranian waters (a highly dubious claim), not even the Iranians are claiming that the boats were close to the Iranian coast. They’re getting their knickers in a knot over a claimed breach of their 12-mile territorial zone, not close-in covert recon.

Even if the British sailors had mistakenly entered Iranian waters, according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas a mistaken entry of that sort qualifies as ‘innocent passage’ and may not be interfered with. If the marines were conducting ship boardings within Iranian waters it does complicate matters, but it seems unlikely that they’d make a mistake that sloppy after the fracas in 2004. My call? I think Iran might’ve taken these guys in order to try trade them for the Revolutionary Guards personnel caught in January while in Iraq assisting the insurgents.