That’s a wingtip from another Su-30MKM, where the photo was taken. The four vanes on the nose are some kind of antennae. Similar configurations have been seen on Slovak MiG-29’s.
Best c/s of any fighter in the sky, btw
looks like Uganda scheme
Looks like USAF SE Asia c/s. Perhaps they are unpaid Ugandan machines that were resold?
I still don’t get the point of placing the ship in the river. What are the advantages outside on invading West London? A show of force?
Not en masse and they certainly never exported them. Only a handful of big-nose MiG-21s were made in China. The F-7 and derivatives took the roles that would have been for the MiG-21MF/bis copies (F-7III).
It is possible the two different design teams reached similar, if not the same, conclusion. I think Chinese intel got a look at the Ye-152. The similarities are too great. With exception to the nose, the aircraft are almost identical. The smaller F-13-style nose dominates Chinese versions of the MiG-21.
not a question of comparable helicopters, its a question of ability to export.
obviously Dhruv is a big boy like the J-10 of helicopters, and Z-11 is the Tejas of helicopters.
I am sure france can export the originals to Argentina. It would not be the first time they sold military hardware down there. Z-11 is probably cheaper and or subsidized on credit, like the Mi-171 purchases.
I am more than willing to help that guy with placing watermarks on his photos.
I figure the aircraft would stick right against the blue/grey sky. More so than the RoKAF F-15K’s. I don’t like grey c/s with toned-down markings, but they are effective. I can only figure the green is to help hide the aircraft on the ground.
…and the MiG-23 is not even that good a warplane. Below is a shot of number Un and the boys (good quality).
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/kju020112/k34_RTR2X58N.jpg
A couple of better shots of ‘Miss D’
Awesome color scheme, great work!
wanshan, let’s wait until that thing does something to compare.
the A-4, with modern electronics, especially if reengined, would be hard to beat in its weight class, by any nation. And if you add DSI… 😀
Joke set aside, it may really need inlet modifications if it was to become supersonic, which it certainly would with more than 50% of thrust increase
What about airframe stability? Do these updates include placing the airframe itself at zero hours? That would be expensive, perhaps even prohibitive, when comparing the cost to newer, surplus types. Operations at sea tend to shorten the lives of aircraft through corrosion and general wear-n-tear. Going into the question, the Skyhawks are already 30+ years old. We can place all of the advanced tech we want in an aged design, but if the airframe is compromised, what’s the benefit?
^^^ Exactly, so PLA-AF which operates 350 J-7 isn’t even interested in acquiring any state of the art JF-17. 😉
They do have the J-10, the forthcoming J-20 and they are license-building the J-11/J-15. Maybe there just isn’t a place for the JF-17 in the PLAAF? I don’t see the Chinese exporting the J-10, though there is a good market for it. Pakistan has ordered the type, but I’ll wait until delivery to count it as ‘in service. Even then it will take time for the aircraft to be a combat-ready asset.
Tight Squeeze
Looking at the size of HMS Ocean and the width of the Thames where it’s moored, I would like to see how they plan to get the ship out of the river. I’m not a sailor, but are they planning to drive the ship out backwards?
[QUOTE=JSLLL4;1869051]Good point. JF-17 has a more technologically advanced airframe. Don’t forget that JF-17 is the world’s first plane that incorporates DSI, both in the prototype stage and in the operational stage.
The U.S. tested a DSI intake on an F-16 in 1996, the first nation to take such a notion into the air. Makes me wonder where the data from those tests wound-up. The F-35 is the first completely new design to come out of a the U.S. since that time. Today’s F-22 layout was already designed and cut by 1998. The Thunder and other Chinese designs use DSI, but they were not there first.
Left Field
A far-flung option could be to weaponize the T-45. A newer, stronger wing and single seat could make for a compelling type to operate from small carriers.