Cool Hand Luke went this way.

What we have here is a failure to communicate

That’s very nice, and it is good to see it beside your Canberra.

I see that’s an ex-RAF bird from WRE, not a GAF-built example, though. There seem to be several GAF Mk.20s in semi-derelict condition around Australia… was there thought given to acquiring one of those? Or was it simply that this one was easier/cheaper to acquire (a very critical consideration for most museums, I realize)?

WK165 – B.2
Built by Avro 28/02/55. Delivered to RAF 02/55. Transferred to Edinburgh Field 05/03/56. Used for flying radar calibration and ranging tasks out of Woomera. Also used for airbourne photography of weapons. To No4 JSTU 02/63. Released 01/02/69. Struck off charge at RAAF Edinburgh 13/02/70. To Ballarat Aviation Museum 09/02/85. Was in open display and suffered from vandalism and the elements. To South Australian Aviation Museum 06/97. Has undergone major restoration.
Currently on display SAAM, Port Adelaide, SA.

Nice website, too… http://www.saam.org.au/

I found that USAF and US Navy used AN/AAR-38, AN/AAR-50, AN/AAR-51 and AN/AAR-55 FLIR-Only pods.

Do you have info about the usage of these pods? For low-level flight for attackers or navigational aid for take-off landings or for air-air engagement?

The F/A-18 used both the Hughes AN/AAR-50 thermal navigation pod* (on the right lower intake side) and the the Loral AN/AAS-38 NITE Hawk FLIR (forward looking infrared) targeting pod (on the left lower intake side), but the AN/AAR-50 was often replaced by the AN/ASQ-173 laser designation pod.

The 3rd post here has a good explanation of both systems, with photos: http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=198344

* The AN/AAR-55 was an upgrade of the AN/AAR-50.

All 3 pods have been replaced by the AN/ASQ-228(V)1 (for F/A-18C/D) Advanced Tactical FLIR (ATFLIR) that combines the functions of the AN/AAS-38, AN/AAR-50, and AN/ASQ-173 in one pod with a much better FLIR.

The AN/AAR-51 is a navigation FLIR system for the AV-8B (the US designation for the FIN 1010, designed by GEC-Marconi Electro-Optics (now Selex Galileo)).

Some FLIR systems CAN be used for landing… here is a 12-page USAF paper on just that concept: http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100111-102.pdf

“Risk Analysis: F-16 Block 60 FLIR-Assisted Landing Instruction” reviews the evolution of the F-16 Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) system, specifically how the FLIR applies to the newest F-16, Block 60 under contract by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Part 1 of this article examines the history of FLIR systems prior to the F-16 Block 60 series. Part 2 investigates the hazards associated with landing an F-16 at night, in addition to the potential utility of a FLIR-assisted landing. Finally, in Part 3, the authors present an Operational Risk Management analysis of the integration of teaching FLIR-assisted landings to new UAE Block 60 pilots.

Based on this structured risk analysis, the authors recommend introducing IFTS FLIR-assisted night landings during the student’s second night sortie. This recommendation follows the logic that the student is already somewhat familiar with the IFTS from using it as a head’s-down sensor during the day. On the second night sortie, they suggest having the student use the FLIR to identify the runway environment and then to turn the FLIR down before actually touching down. This reduces the risks of having a night landing mishap.

Additionally, they suggest having the student’s first night sortie dedicated to standard night instruments and non-FLIR-assisted landings. This allows the emphasis to be on a night instrument cross-check and normal night visual landing cues, thereby giving the student a solid foundation to build his night habit patterns. If the intention becomes to teach an additional IFTS capability, extra night sorties can be added toward the end of the training program. This recommendation safely incorporates the IFTS in the initial sorties, gives a solid night instrument background to the student, and gives the flexibility to build upon the student’s IFTS procedures with additional IFTS night sorties later on in the program as dictated by the tactical requirement.

JSF is what it is due to the political environment of the mid-1990s.

The Berlin Wall fell.
F-15 and F-16 purchases were curtailed by USG.
A-12 was canceled.
Clinton was elected with his stated “loathing” of the military.
A-X was canceled.
B-2 production was limited to 21.
F-22 program was capped.
The aerospace industry in the US shrank by 75%.

USAF, USN and USMC needed to start development of jets to replace F-16C, F/A-18C and AV-8B. They had to start in the mid-1990s because the development timeline takes 15+ years due to DOD 5000 acquisition rules.

1A. Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) 1983-1994 [DARPA for USMC]
1B. STOVL Strike Fighter(SSF) 1987-1994 [Lockheed “black” program for DARPA/USMC]
2. Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) 1990-1993 [USAF]
3. Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) 1993-1994 [USAF/USMC]
4. Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) 1983-1991 [USN]
5. Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) 1990-1991 [USN]
6. Advanced-Attack/Advanced/Fighter-Attack (A-X/A/F-X) 1992-1993 [USN]
7. Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) ?-1994 [Concept and technology development program, to benefit all other programs]
8. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) [Merging of all programs into one]

http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm

The only way the Penatgon could get a new jet past Clinton was if it addressed the needs of all three services. And all 3 services actively lobbied Congress for funding. JSF was born. Unfortunately, since it is a joint program, it is constrained by the most restrictive requirement – be small enough to fit on an LHD’s elevator.

See above.

And Anon, the president is NOT in charge, even though he thinks he is, that is why there are three distinct branches with the US govt. legislative, executive and judicial.

You might as well add the corporations as another branch of U.S government!

No, just the Banks as the Financial Branch (centered in the Federal Reserve System, with its 12 Financial Districts, each controlled by its own Federal Reserve Bank). They control the Corporations anyway, by controlling monetary policy and the flow of money.

You also need to split the legislature into two branches, as even when the same party controls both the Senate and the House of Representatives they seldom agree on anything without a lot of arm-twisting!

So you could say that just as the Pentagon is the home of the 5 Military Services (USA, USN, USMC, USCG, & USAF), so too is the government a 5-sided beast.

The 5-pointed star (or pentagram?) should represent the Executive, Legislative Part A, Legislative Part B, Judicial, & Financial branches of the US government.

Hmmm… the US as a person, with the Banks and the Courts as the legs supporting everything else, the two Houses of Congress the arms (flailing about), and the President the head attempting to co-ordinate the others.

Right now we are having a bit of issue with epileptic seizures, but hopefully the Doctor (the American People) can figure out some course of treatment to stabilize and control the problem.

Supposedly, Stepwilk posted something here after my previous post, but his post isn’t appearing?

{edit: OK, now that I posted this, the second page appears with Stepwilk’s post. Strange.}

That indicates that the vast majority of the “evidence” is newspaper accounts – most of which were second-hand at best – or personal affirmations from his friends – also neither evidence nor reliable.

and the Wrights?

Complete documentation of the R&D process, including surviving smaller unmanned versions, as well as photographs, etc.

Records of their experiments, including the preliminary glider flights as well as the first manned flights.

As well, surviving slightly-improved models, flights in public, follow-on development versions and production aircraft, and so on.

All of which, save for some iffy early documents as to small-scale experimental versions, is lacking from the Whitehead claim.

Exactly!

And that’s not even mentioning any assistance they may be getting through “informal” channels from the Russian Navy personnel who have or are working the flight deck of Kuznetsov!

There is no need for China to go through the decades-long process of developing flight-deck procedures from nothing… and they would be stupid to do so!

Instead, they have a functional “training” carrier on which they can sort out and codify the differing procedures of other nations, and adapt them into a coherent and uniquely PLAN-fitted set of operational instructions… and do it in just a couple of years, not the decades the “do it themselves” approach would require.

While India adopted RN procedures whole-sale in 1961 when they received the completed INS Vikrant, the intervening 42 years have seen them adapt and modify those for changing aircraft and cultural imperatives, so that their procedures are not 100% like anyone else’s either.