Steve TouchdownThanks Steve!
I’ve tried to compile a similar list myself. I’ll go through your list asap. The four UH-1Hs should be 72-21601 to -21604, but I’ve got no information on an UH-1M, or U-10s for that matter in RLAF service. Very interesting indeed.
Re the T-28s, there are no less than 287 on your list. Some of these are listed on http://www.utdallas.edu/library/special/aviation/AirAmerica. The loss rate for the RLAF T-28 squadrons were, at times, staggering.
Regards,
Jan
Hi Jan,
no problem whatsoever: always glad to be able to add a few bits & pieces on the more obscure side of aviation when the chance arises.
The Air America archives are a fantastic resource and I’ve gone through the Bell 204 and 205/UH-1H material several times out of my own interest.
I just took a quick look at the Helio Courier pages and found the following, which may possibly relate to the “1970 MAP transfer”:
1969: 3 Helios were released from Vietnam operations and assigned to Laos, and their registration changed from B- to XW- (Minutes ExCom-AACL/AAM of 13 May 69, in: UTD/CIA/B8F3), probably XW-PGA/PGB/PGC
Reading some of the exploits of the USAF 6th SOS the old Helio Couriers certainly seemed a popular and well-used aircraft in that part of the World!
Something that I found on the Aeroflight site where your article is hosted was a mention of the RT-33A and the RLAF:
Between April and September 1961, USAF RT-33A T’Birds flew photo reconnaissance missions over Laos. The RT-33As wore RLAF markings, but were never operated by the RLAF as such.
Would you happen to know any more about this at all, Jan? The RT-33A is something that I’m in the middle of doing some work on myself at the moment, so this is of definite interest to me. The USAF never (directly) operated the RT-33A so I was wondering if this was possibly a Thai AF joint-op, as they certainly did use the RT-33A variant of the T-Bird.
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
p.s. if any of those individual batches of MAP/MDAP deliveries require further investiagtion just let me know and I’ll dig-up what I can. Sometimes that’s been the only way that errors have been discovered in the unprocessed data.
Steve TouchdownHi, my name is Jan, a Swedish aviation historian. I’m new to this forum.
I’ve written a short (6,000 words) article on military aviation in Laos after 1975. The article can be found at http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/aa-eastasia/laos/laos-af-history.htm
Some parts of the article are assumptions on my part (ie the state of the MiG-21 fleet). If anyone can add information, I’d be very grateful. I am currently compiling a book on military aviation in Laos from 1955 until the present day.
Regards,
Jan
Thanks for posting the link to your excellent article, Jan, it was a very interesting read indeed.
I see that the book you are working on goes back even further in time, which should be even more fascinating given the situation in that pasrt of Asia since WWII.
One thing I have been trying to collate (when I get some free time!) are US MAP/MDAP deliveries since around 1950 onwards. I haven’t been able to spend any time on Laos as yet, so this is just purely raw data from US sources and there are definitely discrepancies that need to be ironed-out and corrected (most notably dates as the system became corrupted and anything betweeb 1950 and 1963 is always shown as ‘1963’, unfortunately).
Anyway, here’s what came up for Laos although, as you mention in your article, some of this equipment will have passed-on to other recipients such as Thailand or possibly South Vietnam:
Qty Year From Type
11 1966 NAVY HELICOPTER UH-34D
7 1971 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34G
7 1969 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34G
6 1971 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-41D
9 1970 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
11 1970 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO AC-47
7 1970 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34G
5 1971 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34D
5 1964 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-47
5 1971 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
1 1964 ARMY AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1E
1 1964 ARMY AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1E
3 1963 USAF HELICOPTER CH-34C
4 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
6 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
9 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1D
4 1973 ARMY AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-41B
3 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
10 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-123K
2 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-123K
2 1965 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17A
15 1965 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28A
18 1965 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28B
5 1965 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
4 1965 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
7 1963 USAF AIRCRAFT UTIL U-6A
13 1963 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-47
10 1963 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1E
4 1963 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34D (HUS-1)
20 1963 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34D (HUS-1)
4 1963 USAF HELICOPTER HH-19
2 1968 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34D
9 1968 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1F
4 1969 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
3 1970 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-10
1 1972 USAF HELICOPTER UH-1M
5 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
5 1973 NAVY AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28B
1 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28B
5 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
15 1966 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
1 1967 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17A
1 1966 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17A
2 1967 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-47
2 1966 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-47
7 1967 NAVY HELICOPTER UH-34D
8 1966 NAVY AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28C
12 1967 NAVY HELICOPTER UH-34D
5 1971 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17B
1 1970 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17B
1 1969 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17B
2 1969 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
5 1968 USAF HELICOPTER UH-34D
17 1973 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
22 1972 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
7 1970 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
7 1969 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
9 1966 NAVY HELICOPTER UH-34D
9 1965 NAVY HELICOPTER UH-34D
2 1964 NAVY HELICOPTER UH-34D
52 1967 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
14 1965 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
8 1969 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-47
16 1967 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
4 1973 ARMY HELICOPTER UH-1H
29 1966 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
36 1971 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28D
7 1972 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1D
4 1972 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-41B
2 1968 USAF AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
2 1968 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17B
5 1968 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-47
5 1963 USAF AIRCRAFT UTILITY U-17A
8 1963 USAF AIRCRAFT TRAINER T-28A
7 1963 USAF AIRCRAFT CARGO C-47
6 1967 ARMY AIRCRAFT OBSERVATION O-1A
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownCheers, Arthur…shall certainly take a peek into that.
The reason this intrigued me so much was that I noticed the date on which he supposedly made the “90%” comment and realised it must have been contemporaneous to the actual LIVEX taking place. Whatever his political position, I find it incredible he would be in posession of factoids like the article claims.
Even spookier the comments appear to be made at a “hearing” that there’s no record of, huh? :confused:
Cheers
Steve
Steve TouchdownSome other recent photos from the Enterprise taken over the past week or so (just click on the links):
James Shelbourn’s taken aboard ship over the weekend
Neil Dunridge & Gary Parsons’ shots taken at sea for Air-Scene UK during the JMC
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
p.s. Floody also posted some shots in the Gen Discussion forum
Steve TouchdownThe NATO E-3 accident happened on 14/07/96 at Akrotiri, a multiple birdstrike caused crew to abort the take-off run at high speed resulting in the aircraft leaving the end of the runway via a stone pier and ending up in the water, no serious injuries.
-Dazza
Just a minor correction, Dazza: the accident was at Aktio/Preveza, which is on the west coast of the Greek mainland and was (is still?) a NATO forward operating location (FOL) for the AWACs.
Parts of it still lingered on the dump there for a few years, but no sign of any significant remains by 2001.
Cheers
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownI’m certainly not going to try and defend the USAF and their performance at Gwalior during “Cope India” back in February. However, this figure being bandied around that the F-15Cs lost in 90% of the dogfights seemed improbable.
Has anybody that’s followed this episode actually got the original quotation or source of where this figure came from?
I’ve so far traced it back as far as this:
Although service officials have been reluctant to detail how the Indians performed against the six F-15Cs from the 3rd Wing that participated in Cope India, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) said in a Feb. 26 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that U.S. F-15Cs were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF.
Cunningham should certainly know his stuff, as he is a Vietnam War USN F-4 Phantom fighter ace.
However, what I can’t rectify is any directly attributable quote supposedly made by him. Even stranger is that, according to the schedule on-line, there were no Defense Subcommittee hearings on Feb 26th (bear in mind also that this was a day before “Cope India” ended).
Subcommittee on Defense:
Upcoming Related Events *View by Month & Year*
Recent Related Events *View by Month & Year*
February 200412th – 09:30 AM – 2359 Rayburn
Secretary of Defense
Hearing25th – 10:00 AM – H-405 Capitol
Central Intelligence Agency (CLOSED HEARING)
Hearing
So am I just a born cynic…or is all not as it would seem regarding this often-repeated claim?
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownAhh, Jagan, you left the best part out:
What Makes Indian Pilots Better Than US Pilots
* Smart on tactics
* Better at anticipation
* Far more skilful in aircraft than what Americans were in theirs
* Better equipment: India’s Su-30s proved better than America’s F-15C
Steve TouchdownI bet 100 bucks that the group is going to return via the pacific, inorder to establish a around-the-world with AAR record of sorts for the IAF.
I’ll take that bet, Aditya…but it would hardly be fair of me to do so 😉 😀
Cheers
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownYes but their newest, the C-17 is total crap, it’s much smaller than An-124, it’s like three times more to buy(not exaggarating) and it’s more expensive to run than the An-124(that’s why they hired the Ukranians to airlift their troops cuz the C-17 is too expensive to run).
28th June, 2004:
93-0603 C-17A 437.AW arr.1324lt
96-0004 C-17A 437.AW arr./dep.0226/1012lt
96-0005 C-17A 437.AW arr./dep.0744/1316lt
96-0008 C-17A 437.AW arr./dep.0229/1237lt
97-0043 C-17A 437.AW dep.1231lt
97-0044 C-17A 437.AW arr./dep.0314/0855lt
98-0057 C-17A 62.AW dep.1915lt
99-0061 C-17A 62.AW
99-0063 C-17A 62.AW arr./dep.1232/1758lt
99-0165 C-17A 62.AW
00-0172 C-17A 62.AW
00-0173 C-17A 62.AW arr./dep.1340/2256lt
00-0178 C-17A 62.AW arr./dep.0843/1642lt
00-0181 C-17A 62.AW dep.0522lt
00-0185 C-17A 62.AW arr./dep.0044/0711lt
01-0186 C-17A 62.AW arr./dep.1058/1658lt
01-0188 C-17A 437.AW arr./dep.0053/0502lt
01-0189 C-17A 437.AW dep.0554lt
01-0190 C-17A 437.AW
01-0191 C-17A 437.AW dep./arr.back 0359/1516lt, dep.again 1955lt
01-0195 C-17A 437.AW arr./dep.0057/0608lt
01-0196 C-17A 437.AW arr.1629lt
02-1102 C-17A 437.AW dep.1355lt
02-1106 C-17A 62.AW arr.1637lt
02-1107 C-17A 62.AW arr.1701lt
02-1108 C-17A 62.AW arr.1951lt
Charleston AFB, SC? McGuire AFB, WA? No: Frankfurt/Rhein Main AB on a single, typical day.
There are no issues with the C-17A that have meant that the An-124 has been called upon that I’m aware of. It’s lack of C-5A/B Galaxies due to some engine problems and the need, sometimes, to shift outsize cargoes.
I think I read somewhere that the USAF C-17A fleet is approaching a combined total of 250,000 hours already, with a serviceability rate in the mid 90%.
99 Squadron RAF sure love them and mission rates have been as high as 250% per month over what was intended.
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownNo, the 7 carriers to the region was nothing more than a CMFer who’s generally over exaggerates things, when in reality the 7 were going to various areas.
Exactly right, Wachenroder
one of them, the Enterprise, is in the Solent off Portsmouth and I would imagine half her crew are en route to London for July 4th R&R!
The HST is in the Atlantic (another exercise starts July 11th with Morocco), the Reagan is in Chile, another carrier is in the Gulf on ops supporting OIF.
Which leaves three others, one of which is off Hawai’i.
So much for 7 CSGs steaming towards China!
“Two dozen” Stealths may also be way over the real figure too: I believe 10 are confirmed to have left Holloman for Gunsan.
Ciao!
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownRots more raffs for ELP et al 😀
Do they seriously put the people that write this on a salary?!? 😮 😮
Russian fighters superior, says Pentagon
The American military amazed Moscow and the Russian media by saying that Russian-made fighter planes were superior to their American equivalents. How can these flattering revelations be explained?
General Hal M. Hornburg told USA Today that India’s Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multi-role fighters have been successful against F-15 C/D Eagle aircraft in mock combat. In fact, the Indians won 90% of the mock combat missions.
USA Today reported: We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were, said Gen. Hal Hornburg, the chief of the Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings…The F-15Cs are the Air Force’s primary air superiority aircraft…[and] the results of the exercise [were] wake up call.
The Inside the Air Force official newsletter also discussed the “Russian victory,” and reported even more details. F-15 C/D Eagle fighters were pitted against not only Su-30 MKI fighters but also MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and even the older MiG-21 Bisons, which also performed well. The fighters not only defeated the F-15s but the French-made Mirage-2000 as well. According to the Washington ProFile Web site, the results of the exercises surprised the American pilots.
Meanwhile, Russian military experts and aircraft designers did not seem surprised by these victories. The Sukhoi general designer, Mikhail Simonov, has repeatedly told RIA Novosti and other news agencies the Su-27 Flanker and the Su-30 MKI, a modified version of the Flanker, which are now in service in the Indian Air Force, were developed in the 1980s in response to the F-15 Eagle. Moreover, Soviet designers had stipulated far superior specifications. Consequently, Russian experts were not particularly surprised that the performance of the fighters matched their specifications.
Why did an American general publicly admit this fact four months after the exercises?
India’s Su-30 MKI fighters and F-15 C/D Eagles from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, engaged in mock combat exercises in February 2004. However, no one mentioned that India won three of the four exercises at the time.
Russian fighters first defeated their US rivals when Sukhoi and MiG fighters had just started being shown at international aerospace shows in the early 1990s. At that time, several Su-27 fighters, under the command of Maj.-Gen. Alexander Kharchevsky, the head of the Lipetsk center for retraining air force pilots, went to Canada to demonstrate their impressive potential. (President Vladimir Putin flew in a Su-27 to Chechnya.)
Instead of missiles and artillery shells, Russian and American fighter planes used aerial cameras to record their mock air-to-air battles. American fighters were disappointed to learn the results of exercise – their cameras had not captured any Su-27s. The Russians, however, had filmed their rivals’ vulnerable points from just about every angle.
Russian pilots owed their impressive success to the Su-27’s spectacular performance and its substantial thrust-to-weight ratio. The fighter’s unsurpassed performance has already become well known throughout the world because no other fighter (except MiG fighters) can execute such impressive stunts as Pugachev’s Cobra and others.
The F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 have wide turning radii. Russian fighters, on the other hand, can turn on a dime by merely switch on their afterburners.
Apart from in Canada, MiG-29 fighters also fought mock air battles with South Africa’s Mirage-2000s. Again, the Russia planes defeated their enemies.
Chief designer Arkady Slobodskoi, the supervisor of the MiG-29 program, said, “if our plane is within range of an opponent and has a direct shot, the enemy can be considered destroyed. It only takes 5-6 machine gun bursts.”
The United States, which is aware of the impressive combat potential of Russian fighters, had even purchased a squadron of MiG-29s from Moldova after the Soviet Union disintegrated. (That squadron was deployed at an airfield near Chisinau.) Germany, which had obtained a number of MiG-29s after reunification, helped repair the Moldovan fighters. Both Germany and the United States now use these aircraft to train their pilots, so that the pilots can cope with the 7,000 Russian fighters in the world. Britain’s Military Balance magazine estimated that India had more than 500 Russian-made fighters. It was therefore not surprising that Indian pilots could defeat their American rivals, despite the U.S. Air Force’s intensive combat-training programs.
On the other hand, American pilots have not confronted any serious adversaries for a long time. The U.S. Air Force dominated the skies over Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Iraqi planes were grounded during both campaigns. Therefore, mock combat is the only way to amass experience.
The long standing American Air Force mentality prevents its pilots from confronting their Russian counterparts because any possible setback would be detrimental to morale. An American Air Force pilot must be convinced that he can and must defeat the former “theoretical enemy.” At the same time, these problems do not exist for mock combat exercises against Indian pilots because any defeats can be explained by inadequate training.
Why did the United States inform the world about its setbacks? Neither Russian, nor U.S. generals like to do this.
The explanation lies on the surface: The U.S. Congress discusses defense spending for the next fiscal year every June and therefore, top American military officials started talking about events in February 2004 now.
Pravda: 30th June, 2004
Steve TouchdownThe delay being referred to is that of technology transfer to BAES. Quite how the rest of totally irrelevant side issues figure into the equation, I have absolutely no idea. Nor do I care much to be honest.
The point of the whole piece and, I’m fairly sure, Phil’s understandable attitude, is that goal posts are being moved and the UK is in danger of not getting what it paid for. Simple as that.
Fine, let the US be as protectionist and inward-looking as it wants. But do the SDD and R&D without the UK’s £1.4billion investment.
Service – Navy, RAF
Description
Requirement and Background
In 1996, the UK began the formal procurement process to examine options for a Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA), to succeed the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012.
However, in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review White Paper, it was confirmed that the RN and RAF Harrier forces would be combined into a new Joint Force 2000. Therefore, the FCBA requirement was widened to include replacement of the RAF’s GR9 and T10 ground attack Harriers from around 2015, thus providing the UK with a joint land and sea based expeditionary air-power capability. To reflect this change, the programme was renamed Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) in 2001. FJCA is to replace current Joint Force Harriers with a multi-role fighter/attack aircraft. The word”Future” has recently been dropped from the title, the IPT is now known as Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) IPT.
The US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has been identified as having the best potential to meet the requirement, resulting in signature of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 2001 to enter the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase of the JSF programme as a Level 1 partner. The UK has thus committed some £1.4Bn to the US programme, while approximately £600M will be spent on non-SDD work. This was in the light of successful UK participation in the Concept Demonstration Phase of the JSF programme, which involved test flying 2 development aircraft types, the Boeing X32 and the Lockheed Martin X35. This flight test programme supported an extensive assessment of the ability of each contractor to develop and deploy a family of advanced strike aircraft to meet the requirements of the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the UK. Following the conclusion of this source selection process, it was announced in October 2001 that Lockheed Martin had been selected as Prime Contractor to take the programme forward. The UK participated fully in source selection.
It was announced on 30 September 2002 that the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of JSF has been selected to meet the requirement, in preference to the Conventional Carrier (CV) variant. The decision has been welcomed by UK industry.
Associated Equipment
JCA is closely associated with the CVF programme and there are also strong linkages with the Maritime Airborne Surveillance Capability (MASC) programme and also with the RAF’s Future Offensive Air System (FOAS).
General Characteristics/Technical Performance
On entry into service with the RN and RAF, JCA will be required to operate in all weathers, day and night missions for air defence of the fleet and of ground forces and for the offensive air support of ground forces, ranging from close air support to long-range air interdiction, as well as anti-surface warfare and tactical reconnaissance.
Key attributes of JCA in comparison to current Joint Force Harriers include:
*- Supersonic
*- Improved survivability
*- Internal and external weapons carriage
*- Improved supportability
*- Increased range relative to Harrier
Costs/In-Service Date (ISD)/Major Milestones/Quantities
Costs
It is currently anticipated that the total procurement cost of JCA will be up to £10Bn depending on the number of aircraft required. Subsequent costs will be determined by whatever through life support strategy we decide to adopt. This makes it one of the Defence Procurement Agency’s largest acquisition programmes over the next two decades
Major Milestones/ISD
*- 2001 SDD MOU Signature
*- 2001 Source Selection decision
*- 2002 Variant Selection decision
*- 2010: First aircraft delivery
*- 2012: In Service Date
Quantities
The current planning assumption is for up to 150 JCA.
Commercial Aspects
The SDD contract with Lockheed Martin was signed in October 2001. Its overall value is some $20Bn (£15Bn).
UK industry has extensive involvement in the JSF programme. BAE Systems is teamed with Lockheed Martin while Rolls Royce is involved in providing STOVL-specific items of propulsion equipment. Other elements of the UK aerospace industry will also provide key components for the JSF.
A prime contract has also been awarded to Pratt and Whitney to develop the main engine for JSF (F135). An interchangeable engine (F136) is being developed by General Electric and Rolls Royce, as a downstream competitive alternative to the F135
International Collaboration
The UK is the only Level 1 partner with the US in the SDD Phase of the JSF programme. Other international partners at Levels 2 and 3 are the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Australia and Turkey.
Future Contracts:* At the present time, direct contracts from the UK are not envisaged, but it might be worth considering contacting Lockheed Martin or lower tier JSF contractors such as BAES who may be interested in your capabilities.
Point of Contact* – jcaom@dpa.mod.uk*
Related Link – http://www.jsf.mil/
Last Reviewed:*June 2004
Last Updated:**May 2004
JSF issues might be worse, panel says
Lockheed Martin’s F-35 joint strike fighter may be more overweight than previously known, according to the preliminary finding of a review that deepens the headache for program officials who are trying to cut costs and keep the aircraft on schedule.
The House Appropriations Committee said the problems “may be greater than previously recognized,” particularly for the most complex of three F-35 versions — one capable of vertical landings for the Marines and the British Navy.
Lockheed, which will build the F-35 in Fort Worth, is relying on the F-35 and the F/A-22, a fighter partially built here, for future growth.
The Pentagon in April said that the F-35’s estimated cost rose 22 percent in a year to $244 billion, including purchases of 2,457 planes. Lockheed also delayed the first flight until 2006 to study ways to shed weight.
“The committee is concerned about the impact, if any, these new findings may have on program costs, schedule and … the successful transition to production of all three F-35 variants,” the House committee said.
Lockheed spokesman said that the company has more than 500 engineers working on weight-loss efforts for the Marine and Royal Navy version.
June 29th, 2004
Steve TouchdownTry the following link, theres loads of info there.
-Dazza
Nice one, Dazza
the thread included the two WMV clips I had seen before on the ‘net that Indian1973 will love 😀
http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/Jag01a.WMV
http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/Jag02a.WMV
Great stuff!
Steve Touchdownawe…you fair people :rolleyes: This about “yanks” is all ok….now i’ve seems to remember a few posts back about blah blah blah of self righteousnesss, how this is a airforce/military forum, not politics, blah blah, blah. :rolleyes: Interestingly, UK haven’t even start to construct the carrier yet (heck the inservice dates for those are 2012 and 2015 assuming all went well), which by the way would take another few years to become fully operational….and F35 is already late? Give you five years of pilot training on land with the actual aircraft still means that the F35 should be there on time when the carriers are fully operational. Seems more like the British carriers are late…and then there’s the rafale. Don’t you think when you start to build the aircraft carrier then it’s still not too late to decide if the F35 is late. Like you said, you can always buy the Rafale….later. :rolleyes:
You didn’t even bother to read the article in Phil’s link did you? There isn’t even a mention in it about delivery dates or late-running programmes.
Steve TouchdownThe Jags in the two pics are Royal Omani Air Force Jaguar S aircraft.
Presumably the Hunters and Strikemasters in the background are also ROAF aircraft….so it’s probably Thumrait AFB.
Great shots though 🙂
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Sign In
