Interesting. The JHMCS at least the earlier version if not II is on the PAF F-16s. Recently there was a rumor that PAF was using MAA-1 Pirhanas with the JHMCS. Does anyone know if that is possible? If not, it would be a good way to eliminate that rumour and the reliability of the source…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAA-1_Piranha

Other articles mention a helmet sight and off-boresight capability.

It seems to have a seeker from Kentron, which has manufactured a range of AAMs over the decades that are slaved to helmet sights.

I’ve no idea whether the seeker is from the Kentron Darter V3B or V3C model, but looking at the off-boresight angle given, I suspect the V3B.

The follow on MAA-1B seems to have had the V3C seeker, with greater gimbal movement and off-boresight angle.
I’m not sure what the status of this missile is though, as the new A-Darter has been chosen by Brazil.

So it appears that the Piranha uses a helmet sight, but I’m not sure about the JHMCS.

Can you ‘dig’ this? What you read below is the reality of the flightdeck and there are no shortcuts for any person or nation who wishes to become proficient with carrier operations. Pointing out a PLAN gaff is not a dig. Even the most experienced navy suffers accidents. China is just starting out on a long climb. And re-furbishing an old carrier is the easiest part of the climb.

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — A sailor lost his lower right leg after being pinned under the wheels of an F/A-18 Hornet on the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier on Wednesday.

The 19-year old sailor is a “blue shirt” airplane handler in the carrier’s V-1 division and was on the flight deck at 6:15 p.m. when the accident occurred. His name is being withheld for “privacy reasons,” said Kitty Hawk spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Terrence Dudley.

“The Hornet was basically being parked on the flight deck,” Dudley said. “The case is still under investigation but we know that the sailor managed to get his leg trapped under the wheels.”

I’m aware that the flight deck is a very hazardous place.

I didn’t call yours a dig, but if you look earlier in the thread, there are a couple of those.
I merely pointed out that you assumed that they weren’t wearing steel capped shoes, when my link shows that you get all kinds of steel capped shoes, many of them coincidentally made in China these days. You simply cannot assume they aren’t steel capped because they aren’t black in colour like they all were back in the day.
Thus, you actually have no real proof that it is a gaff or not, which is my entire point. It’s an assumption. They may or may not be soft shoes.

The news report you linked above sounds as if wearing steel capped boots wouldn’t have saved his leg.

Either way, it will be interesting to see how they get on over the next few years.
I suspect any indigineous carriers will only be laid down in the next few years, and benefit from their experience gained between now and then.

Yeah, because you simply don’t get steel toe capped trainers. They don’t exist.
What are the Chinese doing?
Don’t they know…… etc etc.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=trainers+with+steel+caps&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.ZWU&biw=1311&bih=597&wrapid=tlif137353457350310&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=d3neUa2_AuqR7Abc7ICACQ

Unless you’ve gone and felt what shoes the guy is wearing with your hands, this is not a good argument.

That’s truly rare. The hunter was a good plane, its record in the subcontinent doesn’t do it justice.

The Hunter was a good plane.

However, it’s weak point was that it had a poor fuel capacity, and even though later versions added extra integral fuel, it was never the Hunters strong point.

wilhelm-

The F-5 doesn’t have the capacity to generate much more than the 2.5kW and it takes four times the fuel flow over its cruise flow rate to reach that sum. The F-5’s used a 24v system that didn’t have much battery backup capability either. So antenna size may be important, but the system still needs its power which on small jets like the F-5 is no trivial task.

Are you sure?
2,5kW is roughly the power a domestic lawnmower uses.
I can see that batteries, inverters or ancilliaries systems may struggle in that tightly packed airframe, but the engines should surely not struggle with a 2,5kW power requirement.

Antennae size is way more important.

The average radar doesn’t use that much in relation to engine power, as can be seen above in in Mspheres post.

The F-5 has a particularly slender radome.

As wiki (I know) says about the AN/APQ-153 radar of the F-5:

Required to fit into the tight confines of the originally radar-less F-5, the system offered relatively simple air-to-air modes and a short detection range.
The antenna was necessarily small, a 12 by 16 inches (30 cm × 41 cm) parabolic dish.

The replacement AN/APQ-159 for the F-5:

The APQ-159’s primary upgrade was the addition of a new planar phased array antenna, replacing the -153’s parabolic dish. This made the antenna smaller front-to-back and allowed it to be pointed to higher angles within the nose. It also greatly reduced the sidelobes, which improved gain and allowed the range to be greatly increased from the -153’s roughly 10 nautical miles (19 km) to the -159’s 20 nautical miles (37 km).

Indian Navy Sea Harrier LUSH

Thanks MSphere.

I thought I’d left something out.

That’s not a bad record, leveraged out of the original Lavi programme.
Just a side note. I think the original Lavi radar was the Elta 2035, with the 2032 being a derivitive.
It’s difficult to confirm though.

They should, just as British military planners have ignored the potential flashpoint to their west for several decades, except as a source of terrorists. Can you imagine it? There’s a state which until 1999 had a constitution which declared that its territory included part of the UK, & whose politicians regularly referred to that claim on British territory, & yet we didn’t plan to defend against an attack from it.

The Falklands is a potential flashpoint ONLY AS LONG AS THE ARGENTINEAN MILITARY MAKES IT ONE. If they do not plan to make it a flashpoint, there is no need to plan for it. Why is this so hard to grasp? It’s like Morocco deciding that the Canaries is a potential flashpoint, & planning for it. That would turn it into one. It’s a self-created problem.

The fact is that Argentina and Britain have gone to war over this within our lifetimes.
Argentina has not relinquished their claim.
Britain deploys far more forces there than in 1981, and also poured money into the new airbase, Mt Pleasant.

It’s not like Morocco and the Canaries at all.
Morocco has not even officially expressed a claim, let alone gone to war.

Argentina has not relinquished its claim.
They try to retain a carrier aviation capability, the current government parsimony notwithstanding.
Britain maintains far stronger forces in the area than before the war, yet Argentina “They should, just as British military planners have ignored the potential flashpoint to their west for several decades”.

Pull the other one.

I’m flabbergasted at the naivety on display here.
Britain has plans around the Falklands too, and part of that involves having a minimum amount of seaborne airpower and submarines available.

I understand some will wish that the Argentinians don’t consider the Falklands in forecasts, but anybody with a knowledge about how the military implements it’s future strategies and requirements will find this simply laughable.