All is in the tittle. So, let’s comment and debate.

Burns 90% of the fuel of a C-5 for 60% of the payload. That’s what a big thick ‘tactical’ wing will give. A wing that isn’t required for > 90% of missions.

How about a proper strategic airlifter to supplement the A400?

Even a second-hand 767 will carry 50% more pallets thana C-17 and at half of the fuel burn. Fewer tankers, fewer intermediate stops, more payload delivered for distribution.

If the Soviets had there version of AWACS in place and the the Iraqis has the same lack of one, same results.

According to one reference ( though Yefim Gordon does not list his upstream source ) a pair of A-50s flew back-to-back patrols over the Black Sea throughout the 1991 conflict to obtain intelligence over Allied and Iraqi operations. So they definitely had the capability.

Overland range against a small target was about 250 km, presumably not in look-down conditions.

The V280 Valour is aimed at the Blackhawk replacement requirement:

Gee, I hope they’ve given it a bigger cabin. Those UH-60s out in Iraq / Afgh. were packed to the gills just transporting a squad with all its modern kit; armour, helmets, NVODs, water, IED detection kits, UBGLs, ammo, water, ammo, food, ammo…

They had plenty of rotor-lift but not enough space; ‘bulked-out’.

Edit: no, this was not staged. The Army ordered units to replace the seating in the cabin and this was the result.

Compared to photos of Merlins with a few Toms sitting in the corner of its cabin.

IAF crash rate is more an artifact of inadequate training than any airframe issue. Attrition is currently half of its rate in the 1970s.

F-104 attrition rates were less than their F-84 predecessors.

No, they did not.

3 howitzers vs 100 artillery

Only four dead(2 marines and 2 civilians) vs Ten NK soldiers dead.

No howitzer operator died.

Effectiveness is not determined by how many people died.

The NK artillery suppressed and then neutralized the SK emplacements. Whether or not the gun crews were injured or killed is irrelevant when their artillery pieces are smouldering, twisted wrecks. Or when they cannot operate the remaining pieces because of the intensity or accuracy of incoming fire.

Compartively few Iraqi air force pilots died during Desert Storm. Would you therefore say that the Iraqi air force was victorious?

Incidentally, here are the burst firing rates for some artillery pieces in NK service:

M-46 130mm gun: 6 to 8 rounds per minute ( an advantage of fixed rounds )
D-20 152mm howitzer: 3 to 4 rounds per minute manual; double if auto-rammer installed
D-30 122mm howitzer: 4 to 5 rounds per minute

A good crew will be able to sustain that burst rate for three or four minutes before dropping back to a continuous rate.

The M-46 emplacements north of the DMZ have Seoul within range.

Sorry I don’t read Farsi. We’ve all seen those photos before.

“Don’t” read Farsi? You make it sound like it’s some objection on principle.

There is very little in the article about the “aircraft” itself, mostly it’s just politicking about how the country had to achieve self-sufficiency in military aviation. Claims that the dastardly USA didn’t even allow Iranian pesonnel to perform maintenance on the Shah-era aircraft! Uh-huh.

It then goes off on a rant about achievements during the Iran-Iraq war.

Best quote, regarding flight testing in general:

It is said that the checklist is written in the blood of aircraft pilots. 😮

Libyan Tu-22… partly.

I haven’t found the original source without the horizontal white line artifacts yet but this version was found in this document about French Nike Hercules and Hawk batteries.

From the context I think this is at the ( amalgamated ) 402 Régiment d’Artillerie’s HQ at Draguignan.

Vague recollections surfacing of a photo in AFM years ago.

French ALAT AS.355 fitted with door-mounted M621 cannon for air defence of the Ariane facility in Guiana, the main threat being anticipated to be malevolent light aircraft.

Light aircraft piloted with malevolent purpose, that is. And in this case it would be seeking them out, not defending.