TEEJFull-scale mockup of the two-seater J-10S. Note nose and tail.
Larger images of 10132 can be found at the following
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83594&page=4
TJ
TEEJInteresting pictures posted over at sinodefence.
There are no markings or distinguishing features to ID this as being Chinese, but from it second picture, its clear that this design has progressed a very long way. And I have not seen a design like it from any of the other major powers, which leaves only China.
US project.
Subsonic High Alpha Research Concept (SHARC)
http://www.windtunnels.arc.nasa.gov/pics/40×80/40G17.html
http://www.windtunnels.arc.nasa.gov/pics/40×80/40G20.html
http://www.windtunnels.arc.nasa.gov/pics/40×80/40G16.html
TJ
TEEJStill very much in service. See recent images.
TJ
TEEJAppalling!
We all know that air transport could have been found if it was decreed to have been “important”. The fact remains that somebody decreed that this was “not important”. Who actually was this person? What position does (s)he hold? This is NOT a security matter. It does NOT come under the “need to know” criteria. Who dunnit?, and why? If one makes decisions then one has to be publicly accountable. If I’m told (on good authority) that the Standby Herc at Lyneham blew the Floggle-Toggle on No2 as it started up, then fair enough. Over-secrecy breeds distrust.
Rgds
Resmoroh
Squadron Leader Al Pinner gave an interview when the C-160 Transall arrived at RAF Coningsby. This was aired on BBC Look North. He stated that the BBMF Dakota was going to be used, but decided against it. I can’t remember now what the reason was? Could have been cross winds? The decision was made to go with the European Airlift Agreement.
It makes absolutely perfect sense to utilise other NATO and EU spare airlift capacity. When the RAF C-130 fleet is busy why should it be re-scheduled for such non-operational matters? That is why the agreement is in place. The Red Arrows also use this agreement for the utilisation of spare airlift capability.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/factsheeteac_/factsheeteac_en.pdf
TJ
TEEJThanks for the help guys, seems getting good burner pics of this classic is about as hard as finding pic of F-5s using their guns
One from me. Axalp in Switzerland is the place to be for F-5 cannon shots.
See also
http://qa.airliners.net/photo/Switzerland—Air/Northrop-F-5E-Tiger/0468781/L/
http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/vote2005/axalp05_183.jpg
There might be other shots on Peter’s website?
http://www.targeta.co.uk/axalp_intro.htm
Burner shots from Lightning Preservations Group in the UK and Thunder City in South Africa.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Thunder-City)/English-Electric-Lightning/1402936/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/English-Electric-Lightning/1290274/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/English-Electric-Lightning/1222315/L/
TJ
TEEJTEEJScorpion82 & Transall,
Not a problem. 🙂
TJ
TEEJQuestion; why is the single engined Harrier NOT allowed to take part in the flypast, but the single engined Hawks of the Red Arrows ARE allowed to fly over Buckingham Palace.?
Harrier GR.7/9 etc don’t have a Ram Air Turbine. The Hawks have a RAT and Auxiliary Power Unit fitted. As already pointed out you would have to fly a Harrier at heights well above the normal for a flypast.
Hawks took the place of Harriers during the 2007 25th Falklands Anniversary Flypast too.
TJ
TEEJSens,
Yes it is a joint operation, but you are still failing to see why every nation is employing true multi capable platforms. Each nation contributing CAS platforms that can do the job 24/7 day and night. Your theory of introducing smaller limited airframes would be a disaster. They would simply be a complete waste of ramp space.
Seriously Sens, take it onto the Military Aircrew forums such as PPRuNe and see what the answer would be from FACs and Aircrew alike. My last word on the topic as I can see that it is way off topic.
TJ
TEEJThe Hawk can stay airborne for over 5 hours. The high temperature does effect the length of the take-off run. There will more than one Hawk at hand to replace that one at station. Or what does happen, when the bigger fighters have to go for the tanker?! All CAS in Afghanistian is limited to the informations by the ground observer. They give the order, what is to do.
The Talibans or not dumb and they can engage and disengage at will and without the help from the people there nothing could be reached. As long as the present CAS does inflict more civilian losses than losses of the Taliban, nothing will change about that. High tech-weapons in an asymmetrical war are useless. The Taliban did learn their lesson from 2001, when the USA did add fire-power to the Northern alliance, which did the ground war. After that they never tried again to do a conventional war. The military claims in Afghanistan are as reliable as those from Vietnam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6udc-7n7XA
Sens,
You are more than slightly exaggerating on the 5 hours on a Hawk and especially when load carrying. You are still failing to see the advantages of a true multi role load carrying platform able to fulfill all the missions day and night. The Hawk can’t carry a Raptor pod or any other recce pod in service. All you would be introducing is an inferior and limited load carrying platform. What happens when CAS or recce is required in other areas of Afghanistan? The Hawk T.1 force, unable to air refuel, is hamstrung. All the current CAS aircraft have to do is climb to a tanker. How long does that take? What happens when the FAC requires 2000 pound class munitions to be deployed onto a target? He most certainly won’t get that from a Hawk!
Only in your opinion are high tech weapons useless. If ground forces engage the Taliban outside of artillery range then CAS is essential. The main weapon employed is PGMs. Why is that Sens? Once engaged at close quarters the identified compound or area that the Taliban are using is taken out by CAS. The Taliban have no solution to the problem. The Taliban are dying in their thousands as is their will.
TEEJ“In the vicinity of Balocan, Royal Air Force GR-9 Harriers targeted anti-Afghan personnel on a motorcycle using a Paveway guided bomb. The targeted individuals had been emplacing improvised explosive devices on area roadways. The Harrier waited to release its weapons until the individuals left a local settlement so there would be no risk to Afghan civilians. The aircraft later flew a show of force to deter other enemy activity.”
Please read slowly. A multi-million GR-9, which consumes over a thousand pounds per flying hour and Paveway at what price to engage a motorcycle.
There is no shortage of tax-payers money in the UK f.e.
About the pic, you can add rocket launchers, a recce pod or what you may need f.e. With GPS you can pinpoint everything. The main problem in Afghanistan is to identify the correct persons and here a double-seater does offer an extra pair of eyes. To be high or fast is not in need, when the demand of infrastructure to operated the Hawk is similar to the A-10, which is oversize too. To deal with the Afghanian threat even something like a Super Tucano will do.
Sens,
Now the A-10 is oversize? :rolleyes: Sens you really are showing some serious lack of judgement here. Does time on target, loiter capability or endurance mean nothing to you? That is why the types deployed are utilised. A complete package from airframes able to deploy all types of ordnance and sensors and in all conditions. All you would be introducing to the conflict is an airframe that has a limited capability. If the Jaguar was limited by engine performance then think of how limited a Hawk T.1 airframe would be? Commanders would have to juggle assets in order provide 24/7 coverage due to the introduction of inferior platforms.
Imagine a request for CAS being turned down due to the excuse that the Hawks are grounded due to high temperatures at Khandahar? It would simply cost lives and the credibility of the nations deploying such types would go rapidly downhill. A complete waste of limited ramp space, resources and personnel. If a FAC requires CAS then it has to be on hand and near immediate. Imagine having a Hawk airframe having to go off station due to its incapability to air-refuel to extend its mission? That is why the types deployed are deployed. Your ‘simple solution’ would be a disaster.
TJ
TEEJShort answer about Israel, because the high performance items are at hand and for the pilots it could be seen as some life-firing exercise.
Do you have an idea how air-support does function in Afghanistan?
Do you have a number, how many ordonance was dropped in anger 2008?
What was the max in a single mission?
Surprise, surprise. 😉
Sens,
Your Israel reply is laughable. Nothing to do with the ability to deploy PGMs and carry self protection from ground threats? I see that you are avoiding my questions. Please explain how an airframe like a Hawk can provide all the support required for the CAS and tactical recce role? It simply can’t. It has neither the load capability, endurance nor the performance to be of any use whatsoever. CAS and tactical recce doesn’t just take place during the day. Explain to me how the current RAF Hawk can carry sensors and weapon systems that can be employed against any target, day or night?
Could a Hawk T.1 carry the loads, sensors and self protection that these UK Harriers carry? Does it have the capability to loiter or air refuel on convoy protection duties. Can it carry PGMs and a designation pod?
http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/herricksharriers.html
Seriously now, Sens.
Go onto PPRuNe Military Aircrew forum and ask the UK aircrew there if a Hawk T.1 could provide any useful CAS capability in Afghanistan?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew-57/
The max in a single mission would come from types such as the B-52s and B-1s employing JDAMS. I take that you are aware that such bombers provide CAS in Afghanistan?
http://www.deagel.com/news/B-1B-Lancer-Providing-Close-Air-Support-in-Afghanistan_n000001458.aspx
You seem completely bewildered as to how CAS missions are conducted in Afghanistan.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123135971
TJ
TEEJYou can set the requirements the way you wish. As a military I have no problem to understand that the RAF like every other airforce has a general intrest to secure their top-end tools. The natural human behavior is for ugrade and not for downsize. To fight a “Taliban” all above an AK-47 is an overkill in general. The real task of the troops there is to built an Afghanian force for internal security and to give that some fire-support. Otherwise it is a bloody waste of time and money. 😮
Sens,
The task in hand is to take the fight to the Taliban and Al Q. That is being done and Coalition units are backing the Afghan forces to the hilt. Again explain to me how a Hawk can provide ALL the support that the CAS role requires? Sens, explain to me why the Israeli Air Force wasn’t using advanced training types to pound Hamas? A lot of the fighting is danger close where the Coalition and Afghan forces have entered Taliban controlled areas.
Precision guided munitions are the key to winning those type of fights. Explain to me how a Hawk T.1 can provide such support? You really are coming across as naive if you think advanced trainers can provide the necessary all round support. Explain to me how you can beef up a Hawk T.1 to carry a useful load in those conditions? What about defensive aids? What about a designation pod? What about PGMs? It would simply be a complete waste of both ramp space and personnel deployed to support them.
The Hawk T.1 would be required to carry external tanks. What does that leave? The centre-line to carry a gun pod or a dumb bomb. An absolutely useless load which the airframe would have struggled to get off in hot conditions. That is why types such as F-15E, Tornado, Harrier etc are deployed in order to be able to provide the all round support required. It really is laughable suggesting that the RAF deploy armed Hawk T.1s.
TJ
TEEJYou have no problem to boost up a notice. The RAF like other airforces is in urgent need to proof some demand for their shiny toys in Afghanistan. Just all small number of fighters is send to Afghanistian to demonstrate the political will and the try to proof that the Typhoon can be of some use there. It is intresting to learn, why no gun-pod was added to the Harrier?!
People are on short memory always. In the Cold War times the Hawks had a secondary role always for air-defence and Ground-attack and was still offered in that double-role. For the intended role in Afghanistan less than a squadron size of that will be deployed with the gun-pod and rocket-pods for that at hand. The only “shortcoming” will be that they are much cheaper to operate and that they do proof, that there is no need for high performance fighters in the related COIN-role there. 😉
The UK decided to go with the development of the Aden 25mm for the Harrier IIs. The development went pear-shaped and the project was cancelled. Apparently the lugs and fitments of the intended Aden 25mm wouldn’t easily take the Equaliser cannon pod of the US AV-8Bs. The earlier Aden 30s wouldn’t have fitted either. It would have been the bean counters that got in the way on that project when it was decided to leave them gunless. The policy on the cannons was also attempted on the Typhoon, but later they came to their senses.
Sens,
If the RAF Jaguars couldn’t provide 24/7 365 day all round cover, then what hope would employing non-afterburning Hawks be? The study of deploying the Jaguar would only have alleviated the burden on the Harrier force. Due to the limitations of the Adour the Jag was handicapped for load carrying capability in extreme temperatures. The aircraft deployed require to have the capability to operate under all conditions and to carry a useful load. That requirement is for, in the main precision guided munitions such as Paveway IV and Brimstone.
The airframes also have to have the capability to provide photo recce using digital capable pods. The use of Litening and Sniper pods etc also come into their own for recording activity and providing post-strike recce. Try doing that in a Hawk airframe? Remember the current airframes in service at the moment are the T.1s. T.2s are due in full service later this year. Ramp space is also at a premium which limits how many jets can be deployed. What appears to you as ‘Shiny toys for political reasons’ is basic hard facts. The current Hawks in UK service simply don’t have the capability or power to perform ALL the requirements of the task.
TJ
TEEJcarried out the trials as part of the build-up to the operational declaration of the UK Typhoon’s air-to-surface capability.
To free the installed “ballast” for some use in Afghanistan, which is cheaper to impress the Taliban, than to spent expensive smart weapons. An idea born by the deployment of other RAF-fighters there?
So there is still some need for training program to allow future Typhoon-pilots to do the intended strafing runs. 😉
What a pity, that the cheaper to operate Hawks will not be fielded.
Sens,
Please learn to keep abreast of what is taking place. The link was to inform you of when the initial trials took place. 17 Squadron would have conducted those intial trials. During Green Flag last year XI Squadron became fully combat capable and that included 27mm gun firings. Do you not think that those pilots and others on XI Squadron maintain their cannon strafe capability?
The capability to strafe with either rockets or guns is a tried and tested CAS ability. The Joint Force Harriers have no cannon and can only strafe with CRV-7s. The capability to cannon strafe was a desired feature for RAF Typhoons, because its only other current cabability was Paveway. Later on the Typhoon will receive Brimstone.
Sens,
Are you serious? Hawks! I take it that you will be sending your feasability study to the MoD? Maybe the Red Arrows can provide formation CAS over the Taliban! Do you think Taliban would prefer green smoke? :rolleyes:
TJ
Sign In
