They’re cashing in on political capital. This spending spree has little to do with defense. Like it was stated earlier, the QEAF would take years to become operational to combat readiness on the new equipment. The Qatari government is spreading money all around the world to influence their position in the world, politically.
What kind of manufacturer warranty does a P&W jet engine have?
What device are they using onboard the F/A-18s to capture the video? Seems really stable for something shot through a HUD.
Its a DARPA off-shoot pretending to be a UFO.
Interesting how they obscured the tilt mechanisms.
Surprised India has looked into buying Su-34s yet. They do so for everything else.
Sure. Just like Windows 10 and macOS, the F-35 phones-home often. Gripen looking better?
Kind of thought the DPRK was a no-fly zone already. For several reasons.
The U.S. was always averse to buying military equipment from foreign suppliers. It has in the past, but only when no suitable domestic alternative existed. There’s also the political aspect to consider.
The Gripen makes sense for commonality and cost, but I don’t get the Su-35. Finland does a decent amount of work with NATO (Response Force, and PfP), though not an actual member. How compatible could the Su-35 be made to those requirements? At what cost? Would the Russians sell it to the Finns given the amount of Western hands that will wind up all over it? I’m not suggesting the Finns would just hand one over to the U.S. or NATO, but it would be an interesting participant at a future Red Flag event. Nor am I suggesting the Su-35 contains some super-secret, high-tech kit that American industry and intel services would drool over, but it probably does have a few tricks up its sleeves.
I’ll bet the Soviets got a few with the MiG-31, but if they did, they wouldn’t release that to the public. I read the USAF stopped flying over Soviet territory when the MiG-31 entered service (Sled Driver).
Viggen only confirmed foreign aircraft to get a radar lock on an SR-71…
Older Mi-8’s had a smaller “saddle bag” inside of the main landing strut. I think that provided room for the inboard station to be used. Mainly, for carrying UV-32-57 rocket pods for a total of six with four to six AT-6 missiles on top.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]255834[/ATTACH]
Adding the door to that side of the fuselage probably required the saddle bag to be redesigned with the cabin heater moved somewhere else. I’ll bet that inner pylon is structurally integral to the whole setup, so removing it could compromise strength. Just a thought.
Looks like a recce pod/fitting
Indeed. I could not any pics of a ZA/ZO without those tanks fitted. Perhaps the additional weight puts a great penalty on the aircraft’s range?