That number of 27 should be the number the USAF has in service, not the total number of airframes assigned to the test program and everything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the USAF S/N denotes the year the contract was laid for an aircraft and the number of the aircraft delivered that year, not the number of the aircraft in the type. For instance: AF S/N 01-027 could be a F/A-22, while S/N 01-028 could be a C-130J as it was the 28th aircraft delivered that year. IIRC, even test program aircraft have the standard AF S/N format.

Not if you’re in a Harrier or a helo 😀

A helo I can understand except both of your hands are pretty much full while in a hover; and the Harrier is a plane that will kill you for your inattention. That and the neighbors would get really pissed. 😉

But you can’t assume the missile will hit the plane somewhere far away from the pilot, leaving him unharmed so he can eject… What if the missile explodes right into the cockpit!

But on the other hand, you can’t assume the missle’s going to hit the plane at all or explode if it does. How whould you like to be the guys who has to walk back to you base with your parachute under your arm knowing your plane continued flying on without you for another 50 miles? 😀

Brings to mind the story of the F-106 pilot who IIRC thought he couldn’t recover his plane from a spin and punched out. The disturbed air from the missing canopy recovered the aircraft from the spin and it made a gentle unpiloted crash landing in an open field of snow with very little damage. Stranger things have happned.

I would imagine it’s REALLY difficult to stay in a WiFi hotspot long enough to post while flying. :p

I got some question … y is it that the Rafales and MiG-29s have their butts in a lower position when parked than when they are taxing??… this more so for the MiG-29s, I just hate to look at MiG-29s when they are parked at, the butt seem like that of a duck, ready to have a sweep of the floor … really $hity, something that i hate to see on the MiG-29s. As can be seen from the pic, the rafales too have such a case, so whats the reason behind it, more so rafale, as normally, they have their butt at a higher level than that of MiG-29s.

Hydraulic pressure drainoff in the main struts? Would there be less wear on the struts if it didn’t have to use hydraulic fluid under pressure to hold the aircraft up while at rest?

Makes me sick to my stomach that the French will benefit from this contract in any way, shape or form.

Normally I don’t feed the trolls, but I do want to add this…. The USAF has been re-engining KC-135s with the CFM-56 since the early 1980s, so this is nothing new.

BTW… the CFM-56 is a development of the GE F101 engine used in the B-1, as is the F110 and F118 used in the B-2 and U-2.

Do they? So a laser radar (in near optical frequencies) couldn’t detect these aircraft either? Amazing!!! Funny how they are visible to the naked eye then. RAM is optimised for the frequencies the enemy is using. RAM formulated for metric wave radars would need to be several metres thick to be effective.

LADAR is not the same as RADAR. There are no countermeasures against visual detection (which LADAR falls under) that we know are in use other than standard camoflage paint schemes.

Oh, and this proves that the US air defense system is better than the Russian one, and therefore our equipment is better. Why? We were actually able to intercept the Cessna 😀 If we shoot the next one down, we might be as good as the Cuban Air Force!

I was wondering who would be the first to make those references. 😀