Has the super Frelon ever operated from water?

I’ve seen it inferred that the Israeli Super Frelons might possibly have done so when rescueing sailors in 1967 after the Eilat was sunk.

Does anybody know anything further about the Super Frelon operating from water?

Remember reading an article several years ago, an ex US Navy pilot bought one of the older L-39s for private use and said that the plane handled almost exactly the same as the skyhawk and felt at home in it as it had no vices.

A for beauty, i agree, proportonally the plane seems perfect when compared to other 2 seat trainers.

And extremely maintenance friendly too, from what I can gather.

The construction is modular, the airframe being broken down into only 3 major subassemblies (wing/fuselage/tail unit) to facilitate major maintenance and overhaul. The entire wing, except for the moving surfaces, is in one piece, including the permanent tip tanks, and the swept fin is integral with the rear fuselage; the latter is removable to provide easy access to the engine for servicing. Including detachable items such as nosecone, control surfaces, landing gear, and caopies, the entire L-39 airframe consists of little more than a couple of dozen basic components. This enables any unit to be replaced quickly and easily; plenty of access panels are provided for reaching individual systems or installations.

Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft Vol 1.

Sounds like a well thought out aircraft.
You can see why almost 3000 were built and why it is the most used jet trainer in the world.

It could also largely be for political and budgetary reasons too.

South Africa classed their Valour Class as corvettes originally, purely as a budgetry and political move.

These are vessels approaching 4000 tons, and were bigger than their previous major combat ships:
President Class frigates 2800 tons.
Wager Class destroyers 2750 tons.

Although they have been reclassified now as frigates, they are as large as many recent destroyers.

Sums it all up, actually.
Navies all over the globe play the game.

It’s all very well certain supermarkets saying “we only sell British meat”, although I myself am sceptical of claims such as this.

Britain has a too many people to farmland ratio to feed itself on current trends, particularly wrt to meats such as beef.

The U-boat scourge during WW1 and WW2 demonstrated this inability, even with a smaller population. Modern farming practice can make up for increased population numbers, but will always be behind the curve.

While I have been thinking along the same lines as the OP recently, I do wonder if the gap in the market isn’t for a new lightweight tactical fighter i.e. a new build fighter derived from a modernised F-5E not for a sub-sonic mud mover, as there appears to be a need for cheap supersonic aircraft capable of air policing, with maybe 7 pylons (centreline for drop tank, recce pod or targeting pod, two under each wing, the inner rated for ~500lb, the outer rated for around 350lb, and wingtip pylons for ASRAAM/AIM-9X) with at best secondary A2G capability of mounting a couple of 500lb class PGM’s.

I guess a modern F-5E would be built around something like the Honeywell F125 engine, and as Swerve suggests incorporate Selex Vixen 500E. The problem I suspect in keeping the cost down (when I think about this idea I keep adding base line capabilities that I am sure aren’t cheap or even needed – do we need FBW? While I can’t imagine a fighter without a RWR, does it need any sort of ESM? What sort of baseline avionics fit would be good enough for air policing?)

Is it possible to build a modern F-5E for the OP’s target budget of £20 million?

My gut is that it might be more like £35 million to build a new F-5E, and that wouldn’t include incorporate the development costs, which even with off the shelf components I am guessing the whole aircraft would need still need an expensive programme of static testing, flight tests and certification.

You have just described the JF-17.

It comes in at around the $20 million mark.

When the Backfire first came on the scene, it had an IFR probe.

As part of treaty obligations (START II), these were removed or not added to subsequent production airframes.

I’ve seen it considered that what can be removed can quickly be added back.

Is this the case? How difficult or easy would it be to reinstall the IFR probe?
I’m assuming that the internal plumbing for this still exists?
Are those treaty obligations still in force?

Well, it is obviously a rather rudimentary mockup.

What I don’t understand, is how a nation with such a large population + military base, a largish economy, fails so badly to make a decent propaganda showing…is that model really the best they could do? A more conventional styled mockup made with actual aviation metals would go much farther than this thing.

I agree.

Perhaps there is a touch of disinformation here?