The US may as well pull the Hellfire armed predators out now if the rules have changed.

?

The IDF used both FAEs and Hellfires when assaulting the Hizbullah bunkers on the Lebanese border. They’re not mutually exclusive weapons.

If we are going to have a world in which the only new books are going to be those written by amateurs for the love of their subject, we are going to be much the poorer for it.

Many of the aerospace books in my own library were written by professional authors who made a living by writing, and were released by publishers who sold enough copies to make the project profitable.

I would actually argue the opposite. Most books I have read which were written by ‘professional authors’ I have quickly thrown out or sold on eBay; often they’re just collections of manufacturer’s press releases and air force PR. Or translations of original books in other languages, without any attribution by the ‘author’…

I won’t mention names but if they have more than 20 books to their name, or they’re available second-hand on Amazon for $0.01, then they’re probably in this bracket.

Other authors who write for the passion of their subject are much more worthwhile. Duncan Curtis, for example, has written only two books abour the NA Sabre but both are excellent because he conducted his own research through archives ( edit: and conducted first-hand interviews ). Other stunners are the C-119 and C-135 Aerofax written by former crew, both of which correct a lot of legendary ‘fact’.

As an experiment I’ve just watched a 777 go overhead at 33,000 ft and could distinguish the livery and read the underwing registration ( A6-ETG ) using only basic optical assistance ( a pair of stabilized bionoculars ).

It was recognizable as a commercial twinjet at about 20 miles distant and a 777 at about 10 miles.

An MD-11 just went over at 37,000 and was even more distinctive. Reg was PH-MCS.

So the firing parties have no excuse as to mis-recognition, given that Buk is fitted with a powerful EO system.

… it wouldn’t matter how much Armour you had even a Cobra, Hind or Apache would only be going one place after being hit by a SABOT round or a couple of hundred 23MM.

That’s a fair point. The AAFS / Cheyenne had been specified and designed to be resistant to 23mm around the cockpit bath and the dynamics, which was diluted slightly for the AAH / Apache specification. But neither could do much against SONGSTER and the later Soviet barrel-launched missiles.

Completely?
Maybe it’s the time for another popular fairy tale “L-159 is variant of L-39” style: ČZ vz.58 IS a kalashnikov…

Well at least the vz58 and the AK had completely different operating principles.

The L-159 is essentially an L-39 airframe with local reinforcement. Same aerodynamics, even the same wing profile: NACA 64A012.5. Aero even stated that this was how it evolved.

Some nice avionics and a more powerful engine.

Over to you for the full explanation of how this is completely different from the 1968 original other than in the marketeer’s imagination.

Edit: I omitted to mention the ‘completely redesigned nose’ and the change to B-type ejection seats…

Although an old post, just for the record, selling a civilian version and converting it for military use is hardly unprecedented for Japanese military hardware. Check YS-11s for instance, sold as airliners to Olympic Airways, then handed over to HAF.

Interesting.

The other way around the ‘ban’ was to export the airframe without systems and have the customer install those ( e.g. KV-107s to Sweden in 1972 ). I mean, a helicopter without engines isn’t a weapon, it’s just a hunk of metal…

The Swiss were equally creative with their export workarounds.