Why do these idiots keep propagating this BS?

I can think of instances when the aviation industry press gets the facts wrong, so it is no surprise if a general media outlet makes an erroneous statement.

In any event, the B-70 program was moribund by the early 1960s, “not the late 1960s.”

It is easy to make this sort of mistake, because the MiG-25 spent so much time in development. Some might even say that Canada, Britain and the United States planned on having aircraft comparable to the MiG-25 in service by the early 60s, but cancelled the requirements as obsolete in the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Perhaps the Soviets were wrong in producing an aircraft in the class of the MiG-25, and the Americans, British and Canadians were all right to cancel theirs?

The MiG-25 probably never was very capable in terms of look-down/shoot-down capabilities. The MiG-25 recon derivative was never terribly effective either, due in part to poor endurance and optics that were a joke by American standards. Enthusiasts will paint the recon MiG-25 as a “poor man’s SR-71” when in fact the Soviets regarded it so poorly that they were willing to give them away to 3rd world air forces for free.

Maybe the types sole positive contribution to the Soviet Union’s defense was the false belief among NATO planners that the MiG-25 was an air superiority fighter in the same class as the later F-15. Perhaps the misinformed propaganda regarding the MiG-25 had a deterrent effect in the short term, but it also had the unintended effect of promoting an American defense build up that the Soviets could never hope to match.

It is also said that the most parts of the SNECMA M53 engine were reverse engineered from the GE F-404…anything on this ?

I think your reference is to the M88, not the far earlier M53.

The M88 was “interchangable” with the F-404 in the Rafale A demonstrator – and it actually flew with both the M88 an F-404 for a while.

However, the M88-2 is 200mm smaller in diameter than the F-404 and over 500mm shorter, not mention 100kg lighter, despite having roughly the same mass flow.

what is the range/Combat radius of a EF Typhoon?

I know there are a lot of weapon/fuel configurations e.c.t, but in general how does the Typhoon’s range compair with a Tornado F.3 or F-15E for example.

If the range is not too good, then we must fit them with CFT’s when they become ready. It is pointless having a combat aircraft with a rubbish range in todays world.

Thorny

The Typhoon should have an inferior range compared to even the notoriously short ranged first generation F/A-18 Hornet, let along the F-15E or Super Hornet.

Even the Rafale, which carries around 300-400 liters less internal fuel than the Eurofighter, has better range performance.

The Saeqeh will fly at 1.7 Mach, or about 2,083 kph. It will weigh approximately 4,700 kg. http://www.irna.ir/en/………032342363736.htm

Doesn’t anyone remember the picture of the F-5E with twin vertical tails that appeared in AFM?

Other than the twin tailed converted F-5, the only all new airframe than Iran has produced is the peculiar fiberglass trainer called the Dorna. Neither aircraft is particularly impressive.

Iran has also showed an array of “domestically produced” helicopters that are little more than repainted 35 year old Bell helicopters.

Does Italy still make mini, small, midget submarines??

Didn’t COS.M.O.S go bankrupt?

In any event, I never have found very much information about COS.M.O.S built minisubs, which are used by Pakistan, South Korea and Colombia?

How much would a 4000 tonne freighter be worth at auction?

Wouldn’t the sale of this vessel be more worthwhile to the Australian taypayers than using it as a target?

Of course, the material condition of the vessel might have deteriorated in the three years that it has been in Australian custody.

For a country like Iran, with no intentions of attacking another country….

This statement in laughable.

Iran has repeatedly broadcast its intentions to attack Israel.

Iran has supplied roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents.

Iran has sent its own “Revolutionary Guards” to join other foreign and domestic terrorists in Iraq.

As much as I love the Vulcan, it never really was a truly long range bomber with a 2000 mile range (at best). Those of you who studied the Falklands war (I know, we use it too much as an example) will know that the Vulcan missions to Stanley required 6 or 7 refuellings. Today with limited resources that would be unacceptable, and the RAF would always want to have the ability to deploy more than 1 aircraft at long ranges which would be impossible with those sorts of fuel figures.

The V-bombers were conceived as “medium” bombers, roughly in the same class as the earlier and less advanced B-47.

Truth be known, the Victor B.2 was probably superior to the Vulcan B.2, but relative few were produced in comparison.

The B1 is a great idea but I suspect a non-starter. The USA only has a very limited number of these and I suspect few if any would be released, particlarly now the B2 has been cut back.

Its been said on here before that the nature of long range bombing has now significantly changed, with the availability of stand-off weapons and the aircraft can now be made in a different way. My gut feeling is that they are looking at procuring a few stand off bomber derivatives of the Nimrod (they are not short of airframes) as reported in the Newspapers a year or so ago. An enlarged weapons bay and the removal of most of the MRA4 systems would give them a known and understood option that may not be too expensive now most of the devopment money has been spent. Something like this with the new engines would have a 12 hour endurance at full loads which would make it truly long range with stand off weapons and if stormshadow could fit, then that would be a better option.

It wouldn’t however be stealthy and that might be the rub………..

Think about the role that the B-52H currently plays – a JDAM platform that loiters over largely undefended airspace.

A Nimrod MRA4 derivative with a vastly simplified avionics fit could easily take on this role.

The biggest question mark is price? I would serious doubt that even the re-instatement of 6 or 9 Nimrod MRA4s would be economically or politically possible. BAE Systems has fumbled the MRA4 program, and it is just fortunate that the overall unit buy was scaled down and not cancelled outright.

The only way the RAF could possibly gain a long range strike platform is through the premature drawdown of a current aircraft or the partial cancellation of an ongoing program.