Why can’t they change their mind? The BAF has obviously reviewed the future threat battlespace, and like a host of other nations including Russia and China, have decided that different concepts/mission/capabilities are required for future operations. In the BAF case they consider SEAD/DEAD a viable mission set in the future which, given the large number of advanced SAM systems proliferating around the globe, seems a wise decision.

Because such capability requires at least local offensive ambitions.. well, they have shown little interest in offensive activities back in mid 80s with 160 F-16s in hangars and Russians stationed around Berlin, why should they do it now, with no enemy in sight and mere 34 jets on order? Forget any sustained campaign with such number of aircraft, that’s hardly enough for permanent QRA service plus few airshow specials..

Each of the three types listed was a very modern, if not cutting edge, design when originally acquired. And while the F-104 had its issues, nobody has ever described the Mirage V & F-16 as ‘mediocre fighters’.

So, you’d call a radar-less Mirage VBA with downgraded avionics a cutting edge aircraft in 1968? Huh? :confused:

IOC for the AARGM-ER is scheduled for 2023 and it’ll be operational on the F-35C and by extension the F-35A. Also, while the Eurocanards don’t have any ARMs integrated, they as well as the F-35 Blk3 are capable of performing DEAD with other standoff weapons (Blk 3F: JSOW, SDB I; Blk 4: JSM, SDB II).

Even if it gets integrated, by no means does that automatically translate into BAF getting some for their aircraft. The history shows it clearly – BAF has shown zero interest in suppressing enemy air defenses, the sudden SEAD requirement serves a single purpose – to get BAF into buying the F-35, using capabilities they will most likely never exploit as an excuse..

Belgian F-16 will have spent most of their lifetime as relatively simple and unsophisticated aircraft.. Their deliveries commenced in 1979 (Block 1) and ended with follow-on order in 1991 (Block 15OCU). The MLU program was launched in 1997 but it wasn’t until DT&E M3 update (2003), until they got capabilities for laser guided munition and M4.2 update (2005) until they got Sniper pods and AGM-88 with HARM Targeting System. It took BAF 26 years after the purchase until they got a robust SEAD capability and almost 30 years to integrate GPS guided munitions on their F-16s.

And frankly, even after that I have never seen a Belgian F-16 ever carrying a HARM missile, I am not even sure if they ever got them.. They must have missed SEAD missions quite badly, I’ll tell you that..

MSphere!! Can you repost two pics of Central African Republic Mi-24 Hind with a Republican guard guy wearing red beret?

Sure, buddy.. Here it is.. Mi-24V, yellow #02, code TL-KJN

[ATTACH=CONFIG]258042[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]258043[/ATTACH]

I knew SM3 had the N035 Snow Leopard radar.

No.. In fact, BARS was never considered, AFAIK..

Which variant of N001 does the SM3 use? The multi role VEP variant?

Yes, but with improvements on the radar antenna, transmitter and receiver module

How is the SM3 different from the SM2 and SM? I thought SM3 shares most of the mission sensors and avionics of the Su-35S.

– Al-31FM1 engines with more thrust and double service life
– strenghtened airframe and landing gear
– 12 pylons instead of 10
– max. loadout 8 tons instead of 6 tons
– SUV-P-RM weapon control system instead of SUV-P-R
– improvements on the radar
– L265M10 Khibiny-M ECM Suite instead of SPS-171 (L005S) Sorbtsiya-S
– added compatibility with Izd.170-1 missile

Pot/kettle..

Another Tajik Mi-24V (note the flag on the engine cowling)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]257871[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]257872[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]257873[/ATTACH]