Yes, the Kfir was avaliated, but the deal was never signed. It’s still regarded as an option as an interim fighter, but it’s more and more unlikely.
Where, Sean? I just view the video twice but haven’t spotted anything. Can you tell me which minute/second it should be
That smokey scene from 0:40 until 0:48, although it´s not very clear.
I won’t even bother to watch it. I bet it’s that piece of junk pulling its nose up, climbing a couple meters and turning on its tail. NOT the cobra. Or would it be the hammerhead, which too is NOT the cobra? Anyways, the F-16 CANNOT pull the cobra. Keep dreaming, merrikan…
Regardless of your bad education, I´ll suggest you to actually watch the video. It´s very much like a Cobra, in a TVC-equipped F-16.
I’ll try to organize things.
WHAT IS (kynda) SOLID
– There’s an agreement between the governments (and military Chiefs of Staff) of Brazil and France
– There’s nothing signed yet.
– It’s a LEASING contract – planes will not be sold. Hence, the low price.
WHAT IS RUMOUR
– It’s the first step for the acquisition of Rafales in the future, with a better price.
– It’s more probably Mirage 2000C, and not -5, although some sources in FAB say “C” and others say “-5”. But, as you people have already clarified, the -5 version is not clearly available.
I´ve been reading “Tupolev Bombers”, by David Donald. It doesn´t explain exactly WHY they adopted this system, but it surely was a dog:
It must have been hard to invent something as imperfect as the wing refueling system, which ultimately killed dozens. The tanking process was complicated by the fact that the commander of the aircraft in his left-hand seat could not see the wing of his own aircraft and had to be guided by the marks on the hose and by commands from the gunner.
There must have been a lot of odd intercom chat during these crazy hook-ups. 😀
This was the Tu-16Z, of which 114 were converted from other versions. Interistingly, there was a version with a conventional hose-drogue unit:
(…) The Tu-16N was designed for refueling the Tu-22 blinder using a standard hose-drogue unit and probe receiver system. This was tested on Tu-16N no. 1881401 and several aircraft were retrofitted in 1963. The Tu-16 NN was based on the Tu-16Z but had a fuselage HDU and the wing refuelling system removed. It differed from the tu-16N in having aerodynamic plates on the wingtips. Long-range aviaton retrofitted a total of 20 aircraft. The Tu-16D was a Tu-16 retrofitted for receiving from a drogue-equipped tanker system. Tests were successful.
Hope you enjoy 😎
if you get a chance to see a Russian hooker there, go for it! take pics too.
😀 :diablo: 😀
It’s a matter of great controversy. Many people defend the P-99 as a indigenous solution, but most say FAB wanted a plane with more endurance, because the Brazilian coast is huge.
Now there are rumours about a P-190, a patrol military version of the Embraer 190 airliner, in case P-99 shows itself not to have the necessary endurace. But it’s a very preliminary study.
It’s clearly a bomber. It’s big, it weights more than 120.000 t (a Flanker has a MTOW around 32-38). Having variable geometry wings doesn’t make it a fighter, since there are huge bombers with VGW: B-1, Tu-160, for example.
In Sweden gas is about $5,80/gallon last I checked….
Presuming I’ve made all conversions right… 🙂
Regards
Don’t worry, it can get worse: in Brazil we pay something like US$ 8,00 per gallon, if one puts purchase parity into account… :rolleyes: 😡 On the other hand, the absolute majority of new-built Brazilian cars can be fed with either gas or sugarcane alcohol (the so-called “flex” engines, no pun intended with our Slovakian friend 😉 ).
About US and gas: when I visited Mississipi, there was a lot of old ladies driving F-150-sized SUVs. The price of gas was something like 1,13 USD/gallon. But there are big differences between prices, aren’t there? I mean, gas can be more expensive in California or NY than in Mississipi or Texas, due to differences in state taxes.
Condor, i think you got my point on rationalisation (mis-spelled, i think its rationality) wrong. I am not interested in Peruvian-Bolivian-Chilean geopolitics, i am talking about it in precisely military and operational terms. And contrary to wut you claimed, the whole part of my point is about 10 f-16s NOT, NOT,[U] being the Death Star workingh for the CHilean AF.
If you are making judgements about the industrial or technical capabilities of a certain coutry, but says you’re not interested in the region, it automatically becomes… prejudice. Simple as that.
OTOH, I agree that 10 F-16 are not the Death Star, since there are other factors in a conflict like support, logistics and training. The fighter is only a piece in a machine.
Funny: for some US material defenders like Phantom II, it’s better to have Subpar Hornets than Flankers, because they have support, are modern and rational. But then, when someone buys 10 isolated US fighters, they become the Death Star. 😉
great, cheers!
What the heck?! I didn’t know this was possible… or would it be a fake? 😮
Any comments?
Hmm, this smells a lot like April 1st joke… :p :dev2: :p
Oliver wins school meals cash
TV chef Jamie Oliver secures promise of an extra £220m on school meals in England.
Polly Curtis and agencies
Wednesday March 30, 2005

TV chef Jamie Oliver speaks to Tony Blair after delivering a petition to Downing Street demanding better food for pupils. Photograph: Russell Boyce / WPA / Reuters / PA
Kelly serves up 50p pledge on school meals
The government today promised £220m to bring the minimum spent on school dinners to 50p.
The education secretary, Ruth Kelly, also promised to reintroduce guidelines on nutritional standards in school meals for the first time in 20 years.
The announcements came as the prime minister, Tony Blair, promised to make education Labour’s “number one priority”.
The three-year funding package was given a cautious welcome today by the television chef Jamie Oliver as he left Downing Street, where he had presented Mr Blair with a 271,000 signature petition to improve school meals.
Oliver’s high profile campaign to improve school dinners has focused unprecedented attention on what children are eating at school, and was being heralded as the motivation behind Ms Kelly’s announcement of new money and regulations.
The total funding for school meals will now add up to £280m; £220m will go directly towards the food on pupils’ plates, with a minimum of 50p being spent on primary school pupils’ meals and 60p on secondary pupils’. Oliver found that the London borough of Greenwich, where he took over catering for some schools last year, spent just 37p on meals for each pupil.
A further £60m will be spent on a School Food Trust to offer support to schools on improving their food. Minimum nutritional standards will be developed by an expert panel and made mandatory by September 2006.
Ms Kelly also wants parents to become more involved in what their child’s school is serving and has ordered a “toolkit” for parents on how to get involved in the new trust, to be published in May.
However, today’s announcements acknowledge that a promise made last week to rebuild school kitchens is part of the existing Building Schools for the Future programme, under which every secondary school and some primaries will be rebuilt or refurbished over a period of 15 years.
Moreover, Ms Kelly refused to go so far as saying junk food would be banned in schools – the main proposal made by Oliver in his campaign – but the School Food Trust would be able to make such a recommendation.
The education secretary said on GMTV this morning: “I think in primary schools, for example, there is a very strong case for restricting choice. But what they need to know is how to cook healthy food, which is far more difficult than just banning junk food.”
“There’s significant money but there’s also training and kitchen facilities and staff going into schools who will be able to cook freshly prepared ingredients. They will be able to prepare vegetables, they will be able to serve it to children, and we will see a really dramatic increase in the quality of food in school dinners that are served, particularly in those areas where they are not currently serving good school dinners at the moment.”
Ms Kelly acknowledged that there was “bound to be some waste” while schools brought in new menus and found out what children “will or will not eat”.
“It will take money in the initial stages to transform what happens in our schools but of course it’s about raising the quality of catering staff and professionalising their service, as well, and that’s what they want to see.”
Oliver welcomed Ms Kelly’s announcement but vowed to remain “the voice of the dinner lady”. The chef said, outside No 10: “The response from the public and parents and kids and teachers has been phenomenal.
“I think I am going to stay very much removed from the government, or any government, and I’m going to try and remain the voice of the dinner lady and the parent – but it is certainly very positive.”
Mr Blair, the education secretary and ministers are today expected to emphasise their party’s education polices in advance of the coming election, which is widely tipped to be announced next week.
Ms Kelly was speaking today at a Fabian Society event, where she will defend her government’s record on improving opportunities for pupils from the poorest backgrounds. The schools minister, Stephen Twigg, is speaking at the National Association of School Masters Union of Women Teachers’ conference in Brighton.
In a speech, Mr Blair will say: “Education is New Labour’s first priority and will continue to be the cornerstone of our programme for government.
“We are determined to increase the personal prosperity of hard-working families across the country. This determination drives us to raise standards in every school, for every child.
“The sustained investment and reforms we are putting in place are designed to help pupils, parents and teachers to achieve at their best.
“Our ambition is for this generation to be the best educated and trained in our country’s history – with every child stretched to the limits of their ability, no child written off or left behind.”
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolmeals/story/0,15643,1448161,00.html
2. British Typhoon pilots are courageous, however cuts made by politicians have resulted in reductions of no gun and no missile, leaving them only with dumb bombs and fuel tanks as weapons.
😀 😮 😀