Defence Talk Forum http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ Global defence forum on topics for military aviation, air force, army, navy, missiles, defense technology, space and nuclear forces as well as post military pictures and videos. Discuss world security issues in areas such as war on terror, piracy and nuclear weapons threats. en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:23:35 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/imagize/misc/rss.jpg Defence Talk Forum http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ The F-16 replacement of the Royal Netherlands Airforce. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-16-replacement-royal-netherlands-airforce-9776/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:37:59 GMT I need you opinions on this.

We currently own 86 F-16's that need to be replaced.
The MoD's favourite is 85 F-35A's but it is getting clear that we are not able to affor 85 units, it has leaked that we will onlky be able to buy and operate 55 planes and that while we might be able to buy the other planes we will not be able to operate them.
The F-35 budget was around 6 billion for the purchase and 10 for 30 years of service.
SAAB offered their Gripen NG at 5 + 5 billion BTW.

So what do you people think that's the best solution?
Feel free to suggest more then 1 type. ]]> IPA35 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-16-replacement-royal-netherlands-airforce-9776/ Polish Navy http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/polish-navy-9775/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:10:30 GMT I kindly invite you all to: BALT MILITARY EXPO organised under the Honorary Patronage of The Polish Minister of National Defence is an event with established international renown and the only trade show in Poland dedicated to the technology and equipment needs of the Navy. BALT MILITARY EXPO... I kindly invite you all to:

BALT MILITARY EXPO organised under the Honorary Patronage of The Polish Minister of National Defence is an event with established international renown and the only trade show in Poland dedicated to the technology and equipment needs of the Navy. BALT MILITARY EXPO include many international corporations (last edition from 12 countries) and all most important companies from Poland.

The aim of the exhibition is to present cutting-edge weaponry, equipment and accessories based on the latest technological solutions to serve defence, security, safety and emergency rescue at sea and on the coast, to the Polish Navy and other types of forces, and for the services of the Ministry of Interior and Administration.

Balt Military Expo 23-25 June 2010

best regards

Chris ]]> BaltMilitary http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/polish-navy-9775/ Italian Navy AB 204 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/italian-navy-ab-204-a-9774/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:35:02 GMT Hi all

Does anyone know when the AB 204AS was taken out of service by the Italian Navy?

Can't find any info via google

Thanks ]]> groundsar http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/italian-navy-ab-204-a-9774/ Hello from Balancer http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/intros-off-topic/hello-balancer-9773/ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:32:21 GMT Hello everybody!!! I am a 24 year old graduate of a foreign affairs department(School of international relations) of the State university in Saint-Petersburg, Russia. Global defence/weapons/world politics - it is one of my hobbies. I used to only read threads of the forum, a week ago ... Hello everybody!!!

I am a 24 year old graduate of a foreign affairs department(School of international relations) of the State university in Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

Global defence/weapons/world politics - it is one of my hobbies. I used to only read threads of the forum, a week ago decided to participate in the forums' discussions too.:)

English is a foreign language for me , so pls excuse me for some mistakes which can be in my comments:rolleyes: ]]> Balancer http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/intros-off-topic/hello-balancer-9773/ China Close To Testing Next-Gen Fighter http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/china-close-testing-next-gen-fighter-9771/ Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:35:44 GMT A Chinese fighter of nominally the same technology generation as the Lockheed Martin F-22 will soon enter flight testing, while a jet airlifter larger than the Airbus A400M should be unveiled by year-end.

Beijing’s fighter announcement suggests a serious failing in U.S. intelligence assessments, mocking a July 16 statement of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that China would have no fifth-generation fighters by 2020. Industrial competition looks more remote than strategic competition, however, since China will want to fill domestic requirements before offering the aircraft abroad, even if it judges export sales to be a wise policy.

The new fighter “is currently under development,” says Gen. He Weirong, deputy air force chief. “[It] may soon undertake its first flight, quickly enter flight testing and then quickly equip the forces.

“According to the current situation, [the entry into service] may take another eight to 10 years,” he adds.

No details of the aircraft were given, but it is almost certainly designed for supersonic cruise without afterburning. In April, Adm. Wu Shengli, the navy chief, listed supercruising fighters among equipment that his service needed. Notably, all the other equipment on his wish list looked quite achievable by the end of the next decade, matching the timing that the air force now suggests for the fighter.

China classifies aircraft of the F-22’s technology level as fourth-generation fighters, although they are called fifth-generation aircraft in the West. China’s current advanced fighter, the J-10, is locally called a third-generation aircraft, which in Chinese terms means that it is comparable with the Lockheed Martin F-16.

Work on “the fourth-generation aircraft is now proceeding intensely,” He says.

Whether the upcoming fighter is really comparable with the F-22 remains to be seen. Low radar reflectivity would not be surprising, since aircraft and missiles with stealthy shapes are now popping up in many countries, including South Korea as recently as last month (AW&ST Oct. 26-Nov. 2, p. 42). But sensor performance, information fusion and maximum supercruise speed would also be assessed critically in measuring a claim to have caught up with technology levels that the U.S. did not deploy until 2005.

The existence of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter, usually tagged J-XX, has been rumored for years without official confirmation.

If the aircraft does go into service before 2020, then at that time China may well have jumped past Britain, France and other Western European countries in terms of deployed, domestically developed combat-aircraft technology. That will depend on how quickly those countries move to field combat drones to replace current strike aircraft, says Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Brookes takes seriously the Chinese objective of technology equivalent to the F-22, and he sees no reason to doubt that the F-22 would be the standard against which they would judge their design. The know-how can be imported.

“The Russians have the technology and the Chinese have the money,” he says. “If they really set that as a target, then I think they can do it.”

The aircraft may not bother Western manufacturers in export markets, Brookes suggests, simply because an equivalent of the F-22 would be a destabilizing export that China would be prefer to keep to itself.

Even if China decides that it wants to export the fighter, Lockheed Martin should by then be well entrenched with the F-35, which should be mature and reliable at that point. Other manufactures may not be so well placed, however.

Gen. He made his remarks during an interview on China Central Television as part of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the air force of the People’s Republic of China. (The general’s surname is pronounced as “her” but without the “r.”)

China is probably working on two fifth-generation concepts, says Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. One of those concepts, appearing most commonly in bits and pieces of evidence that have turned up from time to time, would be a heavy twin-engine fighter probably of about the same size as the F-22. The other is a single-engine aircraft probably closer to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Gen. He could be referring to either of the aircraft when predicting an entry into service during the next decade. Fisher’s bet is that he is talking about the twin-engine concept.

Like Brookes, Fisher believes China is realistically aiming at the F-22’s technology level. “One has to assume that the People’s Liberation Army is confident in its projections, as it almost never makes such comments about future military programs, especially one that has been as closely held as its next-generation fighter.

“As such, one has to be asking very hard questions: How did the U.S. intelligence community get this one wrong? And inasmuch as no one expects the F-35 to replace the F-22 in the air superiority role, is it time to acknowledge that F-22 production termination is premature and that a much higher number is needed to sustain deterrence in Asia?”

In his July 16 speech, Gates said that even in 2025 China would have but a handful of fifth-generation aircraft.
The new Chinese fighter could come from the Chengdu or Shenyang plants of Avic Defense.

Gen. He says the Chinese air force plans to emphasize development of four capabilities: reconnaissance and early warning, air strike, strategic supply, and air and missile defense.

The J-10 began large-scale service entry in 2006, state media say.

When Wu raised the prospect of a supercruising fighter, an easy answer seemed to be an advanced version of the J-10. That looks less likely now that He describes the future concept as a full generation ahead of the J-10.

“I believe the Chinese have a difficult road if their design is tied to the J-10,” says a U.S. Air Force officer involved in the development of the F-35. “Significantly reduced signature requires more than coatings. It requires an integrated design philosophy with the right shaping, the right structure and the right surface coatings.”

Fisher assumes that China is developing improved fourth-generation fighters in parallel with the fifth generation.

The existence of the airlifter has been known for several years, if only because pictures of it have appeared fleetingly in presentations by the Chinese aviation conglomerate Avic.

As expected, it turns out to be a product of Avic’s large-airplane subsidiary, Avic Aircraft and, more specifically, of the subsidiary’s core plant, Xi’an Aircraft.

Avic Aircraft General Manager Hu Xiaofeng says the airlifter is in the 200-metric-ton class and will be unveiled at the end of this year.

In fact, its design has already unveiled in pictures shown by state media. The four-engine aircraft adopts the universal high-wing, T-tail configuration. The wing is mounted on top of the circular body, rather than passing through a deep segment of it and cutting out much of the usable cross-section. In that respect it is like the A400M, Ilyushin Il-76 and Kawasaki C-X but unlike the C-17, whose embedded wing presents less frontal area.
The main gear of the Chinese aircraft is housed in very protuberant sponsons, like those of the C-17.

A photograph of the cockpit shows five electronic displays of moderate size and conventional transport-style control columns. Engines are not revealed but would presumably be imported from Russia. A wind-tunnel model shows the engines are enclosed in long nacelles, like those of the Perm PS-90 from Russia.

The PS-90 has a standard maximum thrust of 35,300 lb. in its latest version. The C-17, with a gross weight of 265 tons, is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117 engines of 40,400 lb. thrust.

The airlifter’s fuselage appears to be of conventional metal construction. The aircraft will be significantly larger than the A400M, which has a 141-metric-ton gross weight.

Hu says it has been independently developed in China. However, his parent company, Avic, has a long history of cooperation with Ukrainian airlifter specialist Antonov.


With David A. Fulghum in Washington.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...xt-Gen Fighter

Admin. Up until this point you were doing fine. Don't however try to bait other members or trot out silly comments or you will end up being treated as a troll. It wasn't necessary and you have polluted your credibility by posting such drivel. Take it as a warning - and from a Mod who has asian blood coursing through their veins. ]]> cheetah http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/china-close-testing-next-gen-fighter-9771/ Longarm. The missile system for special operations. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/longarm-missile-system-special-operations-9770/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:52:56 GMT The missile system for special operations. Release 2009-07. Abstract. This document describes the tactical missile system for special operations. The missile system is intended for the unexpected hidden attacks of the stationary and mobile targets. The additional reconnaissance of target may... The missile system for special operations.
Release 2009-07.

Abstract.

This document describes the tactical missile system for special operations. The missile system is intended for the unexpected hidden attacks of the stationary and mobile targets. The additional reconnaissance of target may be executed after the missile has been launched.

The basis of concept of the missile system consists of such principles:
* The line-of-sight "launcher - target" is absent;
* The locations of launcher and gunner are diversified in space;
* The additional reconnaissance of target and the aiming are being executed after the missile has been launched;
* The construction of missile system consists of the electronic components and materials being freely purchased at the market;

Considering the principles mentioned above the design of missile system is like that:
* The teleguidance of the II kind is used;
* The missile is equipped with the electrooptical (CCD/IIR) seeker;
* The link between the missile and the gunner's Missile Launch & Control Device (MLCD) is realized through the digital wideband radio link;
* The image of terrain in the field of view of the missile seeker is being transmitted to the display of gunner's MLCD through the radio link;
* The CCD/IIR seeker of missile has a correlator built with using the Digital Signal Processor (DSP). The correlator is used for the realization of principle "Fire & Forget" and for attack of targets being shielded with the jammers working at the bandwidth of the radio link "MLCD - missile";

================================================== ===================
The concept of design and using of the missile system:
* To develop and produce secretly the components of the missile system at the geographically distributed production network;
* To deliver secretly the components of the missile system to the region of attack;
* To assemble and prepare the missile system for the fire;
* To locate secretly the missile system at the zone of missile launch;
* To execute the hidden attack of target;
================================================== ===================

The principle of design of the missile system - the distributed development, testing, production and distribution of the units and devices of missile system.
The principle of using of the missile system - the attack of the stationary or mobile target with the guided missile. The firing is mainly being executed beyond the line-of-sight "gunner - target".

In accordance with the concept of the concerned missile system and with the typical targets to be destroyed by missile system, the Low Speed High Manoeuvre - LSHM missile is used for this missile system.

So the versatility and the flexibility of tactical usage of the missile system are achieved.
************************************************** ****************************

The appendix A1 describes the Very Low Speed High Maneuverable – VLSHM missile. The distinction of missile is the very low speed of flight coupled with the high maneuverability. This feature enables to discover and attack the masked targets. The VLSHM missile is based at the Low Speed High Maneuverable – LSHM missile with exchanging the two units: WBU and FMU.

Actual URLs are:
File download: Long_Arm_2009-07_en.pdf
RapidShare Webhosting + Webspace
Hotfile.com: One click file hosting ]]> longarm http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/longarm-missile-system-special-operations-9770/ info on fighters http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/info-fighters-9769/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:38:12 GMT What do you guys think is the best and most up to date place on the net to read about fighter craft? What do you guys think is the best and most up to date place on the net to read about fighter craft? ]]> charles34 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/info-fighters-9769/ su-33 vs f-18 superhornet http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/su-33-vs-f-18-superhornet-9766/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:47:07 GMT I am curious if anyone knows how the f-18 super hornet does vs the su-33. the reason I ask is if there was ever carrier battle these 2 jets would probably be the most likely to fight it out. So please respond I am curious if anyone knows how the f-18 super hornet does vs the su-33. the reason I ask is if there was ever carrier battle these 2 jets would probably be the most likely to fight it out. So please respond ]]> charles34 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/su-33-vs-f-18-superhornet-9766/ <![CDATA[Israel fears of Iran & it's acquisition of 5 S-300s]]> http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/israel-fears-iran-its-acquisition-5-s-300s-9765/ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:01:23 GMT Have any of you up here ever wondered that since israel is deathly afraid of Iran and the idea of Iran recieving the rest of the S-300s that haven't been delivered, why hasn't israel focused more on attacking Iran while they are vulnerable rather than Palestine? Israel's greatest fear is of Iran
being a nuclear nightmare, yet Iran is most vulnerable to an attack right now while they lack S-300s. This is why I feel that israel doesn't want Iran attacked due to "nuclear fears." Either Iran
is going to be attacked or it isn't. To say that the S-300 is a "game changer" should be the
main reason why an operation is carried out while they are progressing in their nuclear
programs and still lack the S-300 system.

The israelis make a pretty bogus claim that they knocked out Syria's nuclear site, though up
until the attack no one knew anything of Syria even having a nuclear program, raw material or
even the know-how of nuclear physics. Yet, they feed the claim that they effectively destroyed a nuclear site with a few ATSM. If you believe that israel REALLY attacked a mythical Syrian nuke site, then the question for you is why haven't israel even budged against Iran's nuke sites?
Especially, when Iran is the one that is going through with a military upgrade along WITH it's
well-known nuclear program. Is it israel not capable of doing it and feel that they need time to
convince the USA that "Iran is a threat?" Is it because they feel a war is needed on standby, so
playing Iran up to being a villian serves the purpose? Most of all, if Iran is a nuclear threat why isn't the nation regarded a a nuclear threat by israel? The lack of manner that israel is showing Iran makes one wonder if "the threat" is real.

When Iraq was claimed to have weapons of mass destruction and wanted to rule the world according to the C.I.A., did the USA fiddle and play around with Iraq just as israel is with Iran?
During the Cuban missile crises when Cuba had a range of nuclear missiles that could certainly reach the USA we stood them down until Russia withdrew their missiles FROM Cuba.
I don't agree with the things the USA do, but wouldn't you agree that israel isn't handling Iran
and it's nuclear program in a professional way? It's almost 2010 and we hear the same things today that we heard in 2001 from the IDF. Had it been the other way around, the West and israel would be calling Iran a "warmonger" nation. China doesn't play around with Taiwan in that manner. North Korea doesn't play around with South Korea in that manner. They are serious
about where they stand in their political/military situations. They regard them as private matters and warn the USA to stay out. Israel isn't nearly addressing their conflict against Iran in such
measure

Instead of keeping the tense situation between the two between the two, they want the USA, UK and pals to get involved. Then periodically we hear Iran is a year away from nukes, about
to recieve advanced SAMs, they need to be attacked. If Iran hasn't made nukes in 2006 when israel claimed they were 1 year away, then Iran has no intention of building one. Plus, if israel were to attack Iran, what they have now apparently is as much an effective preventative to thwart Israelis from attacking as much as the S-300 would be. In my opinion the S-300 is just the icing on the cake. I doubt israel would be serious about a war against Iran with or without the S-300
system. Israel experience with Hazbollah forewarns what a conflict with Iran would bring and reveal that every nation isn't a Palestine. Meaning that military conflict isn't even an option on
the table for israel. In my opinion the IDF and prime ministers of israel know that they are not seriously interested in a war against Iran and therefore should be more professional about the matter. ]]> Military Defense Ibizan Hound http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/israel-fears-iran-its-acquisition-5-s-300s-9765/ <![CDATA[Australia's Defence Future.]]> http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/australias-defence-future-9762/ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:55:33 GMT The future plan for the Defence of Australia, some may remember an artical by Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph March 25 2008 01:08 PM. Now the title was, " Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4 bn wish list." When I saw these headlines this grabbed my attention so I bought the paper and read it. The wish list contained the purchase of a third Canberra class assault ship, a forth air warfare destroyer, plus cruise missiles ( tomahawk ). The navy's wish list is very constructive and affordable for Australia's defence structure.

My belief is that Australia should always have one aircraft carrier, that can be used for deploying strike aircraft to a battle field. Australia once had two aircraft carriers at one point, and then in 1982 decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the purchase of a British Invincible Class Aircraft carrier. Now this deal fell through after the Falklands War. But ever since their has been no move to restore an aircraft carrier to the Australian Navy. A third Canberra Class assault carrier fitted out as an aircraft carrier would benefit Australia's defence by ten fold. Australia is ordering the new F 35 joint strike fighter, the B variant would be able to be used on the aircraft carrier. Not acquiring a third Canberra Class ship would be a wasted opportunity for the Australian Navy. Australia could buy 120 F 35 joint strike fighters, 90 of the C variant ( which has a longer range than the A variant ) and 30 of the B variant model.

Regarding the forth air warfare destroyer, a forth Hobart Class Destroyer would add some depth to the Australian Navy, and my personal belief was that when the decision was made by the then Howard Government back in mid 2007 to chose the Spainish version over the US version, was that the Howard Government was making plans to purchase a forth Hobart Class Destroyer, this was rumored within the Australian media. Now the Hobart Class Destroyer is to replace the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate.which had six units in service at one point. The Australian Government is currently planning to replace these six Adelaide Class Frigates with only three Hobart Class Destroyers. How can you replace six ships with three ships, this is a cheap cop out by the now Rudd Government. A forth Hobart Class Destroyer should be ordered now, and it is not too late to order a forth air warfare destroyer. Plus a fifth air warfare destroyer would be better, but four would be acceptable.

Tomahawk cruise missiles to arm the Hobart Class Destroyers is a must, and maybe the Australian Government requiring a licence to build a Tomahawk variant in Australia would help the Australian Defence Industry. If Australia can afford to buy twelve new submarines when the Government has only barely four submarine crews for the six Collins Class Submarines. The Australian Government can afford this wish list. ]]> Military Defense DEFENCEMASTER05 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/australias-defence-future-9762/ USMC future IAR - A flawed concept? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/usmc-future-iar-flawed-concept-9761/ Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:33:40 GMT With regards to the USMC adopting a "Infantry Automatic Rifle" with 30-round Magazine that can fire from both open and closed bolt, to substitute their older Minimis. What is your idea of this concept?

IIRC the Brits are now back to arming their squads with Minimis too, after having tried a concept of two LSWs per squad and no belt-fed weapon at all for some time.

Personally i think we will find the Marine Corps going back to belt-fed weapons rather sooner than later. From my experience, i would never substitute belt-feds with Magazine-feds in my squads, it would too drasticly reduce the capacity of supressive fire. ]]> Rythm http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/usmc-future-iar-flawed-concept-9761/ Britain may sell one of its 2 QE class carrier to India http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/britain-may-sell-one-its-2-qe-class-carrier-india-9760/ Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:08:14 GMT One of Britain’s new £2bn aircraft carriers could be sold off under cost-cutting plans being considered by the Ministry of Defence. India has lodged a firm expression of interest, the Observer has learned. The sale of one of the two 65,000-tonne vessels would leave the Royal Navy with a single... One of Britain’s new £2bn aircraft carriers could be sold off under cost-cutting plans being considered by the Ministry of Defence. India has lodged a firm expression of interest, the Observer has learned.
The sale of one of the two 65,000-tonne vessels would leave the Royal Navy with a single carrier and could force Britain to borrow from the French fleet, which itself has only one carrier and is reluctant to build more. Last summer the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, proposed to Gordon Brown that the two navies co-ordinate maintenance and refitting so that one was at sea at all times.
According to senior defence sources, Whitehall officials are examining the feasibility of a sale as part of the strategic defence review that will start early next year and is expected to result in savage cuts.
The carrier programme has already been delayed by two years to push back spending commitments, which itself will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run. BAE Systems began work in July on HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is due to come into service in 2016. Preparatory work on the Prince of Wales, due for launch in 2018, has also started. The two carriers will replace the ageing Invincible class and are three times the size.
There were fears that the government could scrap one altogether. But it is understood that the financial penalties would be prohibitive. About 10,000 jobs in Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Fife and Glasgow depend on the orders.

MoD may sell aircraft carrier to India to limit cuts IDRW.ORG


Guys how bad is it in Britain now that they might want to sell one of their new carriers...first the nuke sub and now this!!#@
Anyways i dont think the government would buy it though it might just be a fluke show.....they shouldnt but it its too costly(considering how much they have already shelled out on the goshkov ]]> Zaitsev http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/britain-may-sell-one-its-2-qe-class-carrier-india-9760/ Dubai AirShow 2009 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/dubai-airshow-2009-a-9759/ Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:50:23 GMT I am going to Dubai Airshow tomorrow.
It's 15-19 Nov.

Can't wait for the show. It's $50 fee for 5 days pass.

F-22 is going to be there YAY me.

if you are using twitter lots of people are tweeting about it like pics and video. Search for #DXB09
in twitter.

Some of the interesting twitter for Dubai Airshow 2009:
Dubai Airshow (DubaiAirshow) on Twitter
Defence Aviation (defenceaviation) on Twitter
Thales Group (thalesgroup) on Twitter

Enjoy ]]> icekid http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/dubai-airshow-2009-a-9759/ First pictures of Pakistan Air Force IL-78 aerial refuellers. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/first-pictures-pakistan-air-force-il-78-aerial-refuellers-9758/ Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:43:00 GMT Aircraft No. R09-001

You can clearly see the white spots on the tail and rear fuselage where PAF's signs will later be painted. I believe these pictures are from final flight testing in Ukraine. Anyways, enjoy!!:dance:dance
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg il-1.jpeg (249.9 KB)
File Type: jpeg il-2.jpeg (260.2 KB)
File Type: jpeg il-3.jpeg (254.9 KB)
File Type: jpeg il-4.jpeg (218.3 KB)
File Type: jpeg il-5.jpeg (210.4 KB)
File Type: jpeg il-6.jpeg (164.4 KB)
]]> owais.usmani http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/first-pictures-pakistan-air-force-il-78-aerial-refuellers-9758/ Holiday Italy - 2009 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/holiday-italy-2009-a-9756/ Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:41:30 GMT Hi all,

In September 2009 in went to Italy with my girlfriend and son for our family holiday.
I just sorted out hunderds of holiday photo's. Among them also some aviation shots.
Here is a small selection of these shots.

More shots of this holiday, including a few family shots, can be found at my website: Fly-by* Military Aviation Photography

On our way to Italy, we made a lunchstop at Alpnach:


The second day of our ride to Italy we had a lunchstop at Arezzo:


At Arezzo we had some luck as they towed a AB412 of the Vigili dle Fuoco outside:


During one of our city trips to Roma, this AW109 came overhead:


When we drove from Roma to Tuscany, we made a lunchstop at Viterbo:


Hope you like these shots! A full report, including a log can be found at my website: Fly-by* Military Aviation Photography

Best regards, Rob. ]]> r.e.hendriks http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/holiday-italy-2009-a-9756/ Turkish Navy ESM http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/turkish-navy-esm-9754/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:47:00 GMT Hi All

A couple of questions on the Turkish Navy

I seem to remember that the Turkish Navy awarded a contract to Aselsan about 4 years ago to upgrade the ESM on the Dogan Class - I have been looking around but can't find any info on how the programme is going and if the new systems have been installed - any clues anyone?

Has there been any indication as to the prefered ESM for the new MILGEM Corvettes - again I have had a look around but can't find any details.

Any help greatly appreciated

Groundsar ]]> groundsar http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/turkish-navy-esm-9754/ J-10 (FC-20) for Pakistan After All? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/j-10-fc-20-pakistan-after-all-9752/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:53:09 GMT Pakistan Buying Chinese J-10 Fighters (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pakistan-Buying-Chinese-J-10-Fighters-05937/#more-5937) It looks like a deal for 36 fighters has been signed. This is surprising. So now Pakistan will be flying the F-16, JF-17, and J-10? Pakistan Buying Chinese J-10 Fighters

It looks like a deal for 36 fighters has been signed. This is surprising. So now Pakistan will be flying the F-16, JF-17, and J-10? ]]> Feanor http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/j-10-fc-20-pakistan-after-all-9752/ Is the F-35 doomed? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-35-doomed-9750/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:31:09 GMT It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning: Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35... It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please. ]]> djpav http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-35-doomed-9750/ Hide and seek http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/hide-seek-9749/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:28:42 GMT I am interested in how the "game" of Radars vs. Stealth is developing.

Specifically I would like to use it to get a better understanding of the importance of VLO objects in millitary applications - and those objects that are not VLO.

Are f.ex. the F18, eurofighter, Raf or gripen made obsolete by not being VLO?

Can a VLO anti ship missile, with a highish degree of probability slip undetected through the defense around a ship, and hence render larger surface combattants , well, obsolete?

How stealthy can you make a ship - say a frigate?

How effective are modern radars? Do they attain sufficient ressolution at sufficient ranges to detect these VLO objects in time? I think specifically on AESA types of radars.

How does the, I think it's called, frequvency agility of these AESA radars affect the stealth properties of the VLO object? I am thinking that the object should look different, in different wavelengths/frequvencies. A follow up question is, how agile are these radars, in which spectrum can they emit electromagnetic radiation?


As I understand the math/physics, the AESA radars are "low probability of intercept", where "Low" should be read as "unlikely".

Is the following scenario realistic:
A VLO object f.ex. an air plane or ship achives 100% advantage on a non-VLO object, by remaining undetected while using it's ASEA radar to scan the non-VLO object that can't intercept let alone know that it is being scanned?

Can the technology behind AESA radars be used to devise radars of practical dimensions that operate in f.ex. the near meter bands, and can modern DSP (digital signal processing) be used to make such long wave radars effective (that'll be sufficiently surpressing the noise in that region of EM). If so, can that technology be used to completely negate most current stealth (Ie. that an object which is VLO in the, say, millimeter band isn't VLO in the, say, meter band) .

any input would be greatly appreciated. ]]> Palnatoke http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/hide-seek-9749/ World war 3 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/world-war-3-a-9745/ Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:19:10 GMT Well what do you think world war 3 will be like if it happened oh say 2010 who do you think will be involved and what will the most dangerous weapons used be(lets say nukes are not a option... yet) Admin: multiple emoticons deleted. please read the forum rules on posting etiquette before... Well what do you think world war 3 will be like if it happened oh say 2010 who do you think will be involved and what will the most dangerous weapons used be(lets say nukes are not a option... yet)

Admin: multiple emoticons deleted. please read the forum rules on posting etiquette before posting again ]]> Military Defense uncleiroh13 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/world-war-3-a-9745/