RiiStrange that a newer model F-16 isn’t on the table
Out of production in likely timeframe perhaps?
Riithat’s exactly what we did with PAK DA – subsonic flying wing NGLRSki
Noooo….. š
I must say I am surprised. I imagined that Russia would not have the same range and persistence requirements for PAK DA as US has for LRS-B, and that as such a supercruising/supersonic design would be relatively easier to achieve. Also noting Russia’s apparently less-than-complete faith in stealth as a silver bullet e.g. PAK FA, I envisioned an aircraft able to punch its way in and out, the attractiveness of such an approach being only magnified by the proliferation of relatively sluggish F-35s in the coming decades.
RiiYes, unfortunately it seems to be bugged still. They are working out site functionality still.
Best I can suggest is getting the Russian name of the bird, pasting that in the search, and if you manage to get the right search results, select the type from the photo link- then the site properly searches by that type. Links from the photos work, but the search engine apparently does not alone.
Thanks for confirming, it’s nice to know it’s not just me missing something blindingly obvious. Seems I’ll be scrolling through the pages until I find a Su-25, heh. Developed a taste for that utilitarian bird of late…
RiiSuch a meaty looking missile. Almost makes the Rafale look short.
Speaking of which, how is France planning to deploy Meteor on Rafale in air-to-air config? 2x MICA IR, 2x MICA EM, 2x Meteor, centreline tank?
RiiUnless things have changed, NGB was meant to be a low-risk, low-cost program using as much off-the-shelf technology as possible, so subsonic it is.
I don’t think Russia will take that approach with PAK DA tho. Different aircraft for different requirements…
RiiIs anyone else having trouble with searches on Russianplanes.net? I select the aircraft type from the drop-down box and then click ‘search’ but it just throws up what seem to be the latest images, regardless of type, as if the server isn’t parsing the input from the drop-down boxes. Tried using Google Chrome and Internet Explorer.
RiiAll of these things have been discussed aver and over and over not only here but on every other military discussion board I have seen… and still regular posters keep coming up with “just get some low-hour aircraft from the US” co-called “bright ideas”, as if they have had a divine inspiration.
There is no reason why low-hour airframes couldn’t be pulled out of service and transferred so as to meet national objectives such as reinforcing relations with allied states (whilst simultaneously reinforcing their capabilities) in regions of key strategic concern. The military exists to serve the state, not the other way around.
Of course the circumstance described above isn’t that which obtains, in part because Australia is less an ally than a client state with rather less capacity and inclination for independent thought and action than even the actual American states — which are quite happy to play hard-ball with Washington in service of their own interests where necessary.
The other reason is that the need simply isn’t that urgent and not worth burning the diplomatic capital to achieve, but emphasising that factor leaves the impression that we would if it was, and the truth is, we wouldn’t. In Australia there is near-total overlap between the kinds of folks inclined to strategic thought, and the kinds of folks indoctrinated to believe that American and Australian interests are one and the same thing. One is tempted to describe it as a brilliant instance of subversion by a foreign power, but in truth it more reflects the inferiority complex that so defines the Australian character, coupled with the fact that the nation’s emergence coincided with a period of unprecedented levels of foreign cultural input (i.e. a period of American predominance coupled with the technological means to manifest that predominance e.g. television, Australia lacking the protection of a language barrier that partially shields other nations from the onslaught, and lacking also the strong internal foundations of e.g. England) the effect being akin to a child raised in the tradition of a particular religion — he tends to acquire the same religion.
RiiRelevant
During Gulf War II, the Army sent its Apache helicopters to mount a ādeep attackā against an Iraqi unit. Small-arms and anti-aircraft fire downed one Apache, and the other helicopters retreated, some damaged so seriously they had to be grounded for weeks. That aborted mission has become the subject of one of the most controversial postwar debates.
Thereās little dispute about what happened. On March 24, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the Armyās V Corps commander, ordered 32 AH-64 Apaches from the 11th Aviation Regiment to mount an attack behind enemy lines against the Iraqi Republican Guard Medina Division. The corridor near Najaf that the Apaches planned to fly through was modestly populated, so commanders decided against the usual suppression fireāmainly artilleryāused to silence enemy forces that could threaten the helicopters. That opening gave the Iraqis one of their few battlefield victories of the war.
Despite this failed mission, the Army insists the Apache was indispensable during the war, providing critical close air support for ground troops engaged in combat and armed reconnaissance by helping to destroy Iraqi armor and other key equipment lurking on the edges of the battlefield
[…..]
But critics of the multimillion dollar chopper view the Najaf retreat as the Apacheās āLittle Big Hornāāproof that it is too vulnerable to survive modern combat. They argue that the Apache is a relic of Cold War planning that failed at its primary missionādeep attack.
Of course nobody would attribute such issues as may or may not exist to the Apache per se. But by the same token, there was nothing wrong with Prince of Wales or Repulse either.
Riihttp://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120919-f-zz987-001.jpg
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120919-f-zz987-002.jpg
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120919-f-zz987-006.jpg
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120919-f-zz987-005.jpg
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120919-f-zz987-004.jpg…and that particular one:
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120919-f-zz987-000.jpg
Thanks mate, I appreciate it. Some great shots there.
RiiChina has had Su-27s for 20 years and all of the technical documentations and production line for Su-27s for 16 years and they’ve only barely managed to deliver J-11B into service for about 2 years. And based on J-11B performance in the past year, it’s hard for me to call this project a success.
Could you expand on this? Interested but ignorant! š®
RiiIts always the smaller guy bothering about the bigger & stronger ones which we see in online forums.
In Pakistani forums – its paranoid, jealously, bad mouthing & competing with India.
In Indian forums – its paranoid, jealousy, bad mouthing & competing with China
Now explain America’s obsession with Russia, Iran, Cuba… š
RiiNice shot! You don’t happen to have it in larger resolution?
Rii/wince
Seems Russia could stand to learn a few things from France about modern shipbuilding after all.
RiiFrom Operation Barbarossa to the Six Day War, destroying aircraft on the ground has always been the safest and most cost-effective way of doing things. The Taliban join a distinguished lineage.
Rii?!
Rii, that text of yours goes right into the “what have the romans/americans ever given us” category!
No it doesn’t. Don’t mistake rebuking an extremist position on its own terms, with embracing the logic of that position.
If everyone were to call in their ‘IP’ debts, the devastation wrought would be massive across all of humanity, but that subset known as ‘Americans’ would be amongst the worst hit as they have almost nothing to call their own (we Australians, of course, have even less). Indeed one suspects that in such a world there wouldn’t be any (non-native) Americans, all the colonists having drowned in the Atlantic when the Dutch/Portugeuse/etc. called in their shipbuilding IP. The Chinese, on the other hand, would still have a comparatively flourishing civilisation. The point is not that America hasn’t contributed ‘it’s fair share’ or whatever, but that all this IP whining business is stupid and should be dropped. It’s even more ridiculous when one considers that the platforms in question are specifically designed to dispense with words (like ‘intellectual property’) in favour of more immediately compelling arguments, i.e. the argument from force.
QUIVER, n.
A portable sheath in which the ancient statesman and the aboriginal lawyer carried their lighter arguments.
I can just envision Poland attempting to obtain an injunction against the Wehrmacht on the grounds that the British invented the tank. There’s a great Monty Python-esque skit in there.
Sign In
