slipperysamBut Alenia isn’t being difficult over resales. It’s being difficult over a single deal, in which it’s been thoroughly shafted. It invested a lot in the USA to be able to support a goodly number of C-27Js in US service, & committed itself to a price based on that number, then had the order cut & cut to the point where it was losing money but still committed to deliver – & then it was told the aircraft wouldn’t be taken into service, but might be sold on!
I’m sure that any normal customer, i.e. one that deals fairly with a supplier, wouldn’t have any problems from Alenia if it wants to sell on used aircraft. Alenia was very happy to support the USAF sale of G.222s (C-27As) to Afghanistan, for example – until it was shafted again.
Its also a good way to kill off “opposition” manufacturers by buying their product, forcing them to cut the price, promising the world and then trying to sell them on very cheaply.
The USAF should really hang its head in shame for what its done to the US army… at the end of the day aren’t they supposed to be aiming for a “common goal” ??? Defence of the nation…. ??
slipperysamThe version with the Mig-27 type nose profile posted above was a proposed torpedo bomber apparently
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221667[/ATTACH]
Q-5B (Torpedo Bomber)
Click to enlarge
Q-5B torpedo bomber for the PLA Navy in test flight (Chinese Internet)
Nanchang began to evaluate the concept of a naval variant Q-5 for the PLA Naval Air Force in 1965. Three basic variant Q-5s were converted into torpedo bombers for trial and evaluations. These aircraft were fitted with special weapon mounts under the wings to carry two torpedoes. Upon successful tests of these aircraft, the PLA Navy finally approved the Q-5B development programme in 1968.
The Q-5B had two special weapon mounts to carry two Yu-2 (Soviet 56-45 copy) torpedoes or 1,000~1,500kg free-fall bombs. The landing gears were enhanced to support the increased overall weight of the aircraft. The cockpit was raised and the conical nose was rounded. The wing area was also increased for better aerodynamic performance. The aircraft was powered by two more powerful WP-6A turbojets rated at 36.8kN (3,750kg) with afterburning. The fuselage weapon bay was removed to give more space for internal fuel. In addition, the aircraft was also to be fitted with four avionics improvements, including the Jia-13 radar, Doppler navigation radar, No.45 optical sight, and KJ-4 autopilot.
The Q-5B first flew on 29 September 1970, but the aircraft could not be commissioned due to the slow progress in the development of the avionics equipments. By 1979 the torpedo was deemed too obsolete and the Q-5B project was subsequently cancelled after only six examples delivered to the PLA Navy.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221666[/ATTACH]
slipperysamThat is indeed a nice looking kit. Just wish I could find one like that in 1:48.
Oh and Jezza, I’ve made J-8 threads before…I’m sure I’ll do so again in the future at some point.
To answer an earlier question, yes there was a nuclear capable Q-5…known as Q-5A, it carried a free fall nuclear weapon under the fuselage in the weapons bay.
free fall bomb attached
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221665[/ATTACH]
weapons bay open…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221663[/ATTACH]
bomb bay tank
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221664[/ATTACH]
slipperysamI would daresay it would be impossible to work out what was “given-away” as opposed to stolen, looted, sold illegally to international arms dealers…… not to mention how much was simply abandoned and forgotten. (englishrussia always makes my jaw drop at the equipment rusting away around the eastern bloc countries)
slipperysamThe gap between the intake and wing.. um… is odd to say the least. Drag comes to mind.
slipperysamThe actual act of 9/11 was unpredictable, but it was clear to anyone that hardline fundamentalists were turning their attention on USA even in the mid-1990s.
However CIA and co stopped paying attention.
As for East Timor, the Australian government was partially responsible for that issue:
1. They supported Indonesia’s invasion in 1975 due Australian fear of Communist East Timor.
2. They turned a blind eye to Indonesian atrocities e.g. Dili/Santa Cruz massacre in 1990s.
3. The Australian intelligence community and government all ignored advice that Indonesia was creating pro-Jakarta militias and that a show down was going to happen. This only came out due to whistleblowers in the Australian intelligence community who were outraged by their seniors lack of action.Australia also does poorly at diplomacy in the Asian region.
Comments by Australian PMs such as John Howard’s “we are America’s deputy sheriff in the region” or Kevin Rudd telling Chinese students that their country is bad and corrupt in Mandarin or Paul Keating calling Malaysia’s PM “recalcitrant” don’t help either.
Seems to me that instead of tanks, we need to spend more money on training capable intelligence services and government ministers capable of any level of foresight.
.
Seems to me the Indonesian relations are already strained due to the new moronic government policy of wanting to “buy back the boats” and “paying Indonesians money to spy” on people smugglers…
slipperysamThis has been discussed several times. So, unless everybody is reading “Internal Documents” it seems a bit odd………..
BTW You never cease to amaze me either………:eek:
What is so odd about reading internal defence magazines?
slipperysamYet, again you disagree with the experts in the Government, Military, and Industry????
Also, just like when Australia deployed 14 Hornets in the First Gulf War. I could see many cases when even a small force of Tanks could be very worthwhile! This is hardly new in the history of warfare…..When few have deterred many!
Again… Australian M1 tanks will never see action anywhere overseas.
Aussie tank crews if they are ever needed overseas will be driving US supplied tanks.
Logistics wise the C17 can only carry one… Hardly a force multiplier sending 1 M1 per trip (because if they in desperate need of supplies the C17s will be needed elsewhere carrying other large loads, given the small numbers of C17s, not all will be available at the same time to shift them. Unless we then fork out a lot of roubles for AN-124s all over again.).
slipperysamSo, you have some secret information on the reliability Abrams Tanks in the Australian Army that we don’t have??? Personally, I doubt that……
Scooter again you never cease to amaze me….
Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
Not everything is released to the media. This doesn’t mean its SECRET, it means its just never been picked up by the media.
The Dept of Defence 9 times out of ten ONLY releases a MEDIA brief if the media already knew about it or its a “good publicity” release (like humanitarian relief).
The ARMY has an internal journal for its mechanics… it isn’t secret.
Its just an internal document… something which SHOCK HORROR I used to read.
OMG!!!!!
Maybe just maybe if someone from the defence side of things makes a comment he may just know what he is talking about.
slipperysamThe colour difference is due to shadows cast…. not photoshopped at all.
slipperysamLook closely at the two photos and you’ll see the outward canted nature of the Magic installation…try to focus on the fins and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
My guess is that it has very little to do with actual drag because I can’t see that weapon being that much draggier than an AIM-9. There is something else to it, but I don’t know what.
I know what your talking about ! Often wondered that same question.
Honestly cant work out why the magic launch rail is canted and the sidewinder launcher is vertical (normal).
slipperysamExcuse me thobbes,
but suddenly I have a question:Are you sure that this “bright spot” will have in the next years enough personnel to fulfill the needs of Navy, Aviation and Army?
I remember that in the past months I read a few reports on possibilities of not reaching the minimum for the people who have to serve on the upcoming systems.
Can you reasure us a bit that also the numbers of the personell involved in the aussie military are bright?
Other then the Navy having issues in manning numbers for their Collins class subs and a few of their ships there has been nothing heard, seen, written anywhere about issues with manning in other services. Retention of members has always been an issue because of the “mining boom” however but numbers coming in will almost equal numbers going out. There is no panic at this stage
slipperysamWhat form would such support take? A personal assurance that the programme is going along well enough. Would such an assurance be believed?
No just the usual flag waving…. and “its the best thing since sliced bread” type of comments.
Tempest414 obviously knows about some of the issues im talking about. The other is the fact, do we need a main battle tank?
Not to mention the logistical nighmare in moving one!
When you consider how poor some aussie roads are, that states like QLD have a narrow gauge rail line, most bridges and rolling stock cant carry it, which leaves airlifting them the only viable option. And when they were ordered we had no C-17s. Now that we do, we can lift one (!) at a time.
But even then, we will never deploy them overseas and our crews will simply use American M1A1s… cheaper to buy a simulator?
slipperysamWhat about those who are responsible for supporting the Abrams, what about if they haven’t heard about massive problems with them in service?
Dunno… Ill ask them when they post up their support.
slipperysamThe point is things change……….:rolleyes:
BTW I’ve can’t find any issues with the M1 Abrams purchased by Australia. Further, I believe while secondhand they were rebuilt to New Standards. In addition the Abrams is used by the US Army, USMC, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. It has a proven Combat Record and is consider the Best Tank in the world by many Experts in the Field. Honestly, I think you criticism has more to do with your prejudice towards American Equipment.
The reason you cant find it is because its never been released to the media or published…… to presume because YOU don’t know about doesn’t mean there is nothing wrong with them. And to simply keep presuming its the best thing in the world since sliced bread without question is er… well a little presumptuous.
This is the military we are talking about, where poor decisions are made and people simply get promoted for it.
Sign In
