willedoo

It will be a big problem in the future. We like to call them smart weapons, but the problem is that the perceived opposition is rapidly getting smarter than we are. At the moment we're on the edge of losing air superiority, and we're also falling behind in electronic warfare and missile technology. Hard to pinpoint any one thing that has caused this. Lack of R & D for one. Nations like Russia and China will be driving military technology into the future unless there is some cultural change in the West's way of managing the military/industrial complex. Wall Street and corporate profits do more driving than science and technology. Blinded by money, they've lost sight of the ball. Recent showcasing of a lot of cutting edge new military technology by Russia has at least got our wheels in motion. If oil got back to $120/barrel and stayed there, we would be in big trouble. Although they are no longer a communist system, things are still very centralized. Former state owned design bureaus are now corporations, but often the state retains significant ownership. If the Russians want a new plane, bomb, or missile system, they just get on and develop it. They don't have a whole pile of different companies all trying to elbow each other out of the way to get their snouts in the trough. While we're busy trying to divide up some future pie, Russia and China have their sleeves rolled up and are hard at work. Recent world events have been a real wake-up call for us.

The Chinese might figure that there's not much to tap into. Last thing I read on the weapons subject, the F-35 has a capacity of two bombs and two air to air. And there's the machine gun, but there's hardly a 4th. Gen. fighter that couldn't beat the F-35 in a visual range tangle. At the moment, if the Chinese are shaking in their boots, it's from laughter, not fear.

It must be plastic or some other light material, going by the lightness of the trolley it's sitting on.

All packaged up and ready to go:

Folland Gnat at Bournemouth. Technically not abandoned, but saved fron the scrapyard in a dismantled state. Aparently it moved on from the museum grounds in 2008, whereabouts unknown.

Before the coup in Kiev, there was a lot of talk of a license build agreement to build it's little brother, the An-124 in Russia. Haven't heard anything on the subject since; the idea might have been dropped.

Our next door neighbour was one of those. He enlisted in the RAAF and was posted to pilot training in Canada, then to England as a Lancaster pilot. He survived the war, came home and drew a Soldier Settlement Block and never flew again. He spent the rest of his life farming.

On the subject of the Buran class shuttles, here's a photo of what's left of the 'Baikal' living on a river bank:

Well, I could start with that Turkish chap. We both have a similar mustache, so maybe he'd listen to me. First thing on the agenda might be to advise him to forget about Bex.

Just for the record, it looks like Youtube has censored the previously posted video clip. Bit of a shame really, as it was interesting. Youtube must have someone higher up the pecking order calling the shots.

After much thought and a few beers I've decided on a plan for some degree of stability in the current situation in Syria. It's no secret that the U.S.Government and it's agencies like the CIA, have for some time trained, armed and equipped rebel groups in Syria for the purpose of bringing about regime change. They refer to these groups as their 'Assets'. After the genie (ISIL) escaped from the bottle, the narrative is now that these assets are necessary to help defeat Islamic State forces. Problem is that these assets are being badly knocked about by the SAA and Russian air support. Lately they have also had the Kurds on their back, who are in an alliance with the Syrian Government, Russia, and the U.S., their original backers. The Kurds are having a bob each way. The U.S. has decided that it is not practical to back most of their assets anymore ( because someone else now holds the cards in the region ) and they have decided to basically just stick with the Kurds as they are the only non-government group really keen to fight IS on the ground. A big part of the Kurdish motivation, apart fron survival, is their agenda to establish an autonomous state. So here's the plan. It's not exactly win/win but better than what's happened up till now. Russia and the SAA keep on doing their thing. Their plan is to use the Kurds to seal the Syrian/Turkish border, having the effect of breaking up the cosy arrangement between Turkey and IS, and cutting off IS's main lifeline. So the U.S. keeps supporting the Kurds as well, and tells that Turkish bloke to go and have a bex and a lie down for a while. The Kurds occupy the entire Syrian/Turkish border region. All forces combine to defeat the remnants of IS, or at least break the majority of their power. Assad, realizing it's the lesser of two evils, enters into a mutually beneficial agreement with the Kurds and the government grants them autonomy over the land they occupy. The Syrian kurds realise a major part of their dream and get to provide a buffer zone between Turkey and Syria. Meanwhile, the Kurds are sitting on a lot of oil that they don't have the expertise or capital to develop fully. So they enter into joint ventures with Russian and U.S. oil companies, and with a future rehabilitated Syrian Government. Everyone gets a slice of the pie (except Turkey and the Gulf States who are not happy), even Israel, who can continue to buy Kurd oil (they like the Kurds). The Kurds have security guaranteed by Syria, The U.S. and the Russian Federation. NATO tells that Turkish bloke to behave himself or he'll be kicked out of the club. So to summarize: The Kurds are very happy. The Syrian Government is happy, as they've lost only a portion of their country to a co-operative new found ally. This is a much better deal than the original scenario of losing the whole country. The Russians are happy as they get to keep their bases and investment opportunities. The Americans are sort of happy, as they've saved face, maintained some influence in the region, and picked up some investment opportunities as well. The Israelis are happy as they continue to benefit from a stable oil source. Iraq and Iran could be happy if they could strike a mutual agreement with the Kurds. And to stay on topic, the Royal Australian Air Force and other Australian Defence personnel would be happy, as they could come back home where they belong. Of course, Islamic State, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia wouldn't be happy, but that's fairly normal. Cheers, Willie.

Reading an article on the news tonight about the NATO vs subject and noticed a Buran in the background of the header photo.

There were plans not long ago to re-start production of the Blackjack. I don't remember the figure, maybe twenty, as an interim measure until the new stealth bomber is developed. Not sure how the plan is affected by the current state of economy and the lost oil revenue.

I remember being in Amsterdam in the mid 80's. The thing most notable was the lack of public toilets - almost non existant. Every alley way you walked past had an overpowering smell of urine, especially anywhere near a pub. Looks like a good idea.

FT, Cruz just doesn't have the haircut to be President.

I'm sure our pilots would enjoy flying them. Politics aside, a couple of issues are the bad rep of Russian technical support with foreign sales. Malaysia has had a lot of complaints there, but the Russian manufacturers are aware of the problem and will probably fix it to improve sales. The other one is, with us being the U.S.'s little buddy, systems compatibility seems to be their big thing now. All that aside, politics is what prevents it. Bad enough that the only way to the ISS is to hitch a ride on a 6o's technology Soyuz. The answer to budget constraints is to encourage private enterprise to develop space transport systems. Just a little bit embarrasing that they have to buy Russian made rocket engines. With all the other recent humilitations in that relationship, having your little buddy buy Flankers is jut not cricket. It's a complicated world though. With the Iranian sanctions lifted, Russia is set to export Sukhoi Superjet airliners to Iran. But because it has U.S. made components, they first have to get approval from those manufacturers. http://sputniknews.com/business/20160216/1034823511/ssj100-russia-iran-us.html

There is a growing volume of informed and educated opinion on the problems and capabilities of the F-35. But having said that, are the problems any worse than some projects in the past. Maybe it's just that in this highly connected age, via the internet and news coverage, more people are aware of defense projects that in past years. Going back to the F-4 Phantom development in the mid-late 50's. There were a lot of problems just getting it to fly. As pilots used to joke, ' the Phantom is living proof that given enough thrust you can make a brick fly'. Hence it's nickname 'The Flying Brick'. A lot of bad habits like pitch up etc. were fixed by physical aerodynamic adjustments to the airframe and wings. But they were simpler times and the systems weren't so complicated. Not much software for the Phantom, mainly just the stability augmentation computer to deal with roll coupling. When the Phantom went into a Dutch Roll, the pilot couldn't perform control inputs quick enough, so the computer did it. These days, they're trying to build a flying computer; the rest of it is all secondary. Other stuff ups with the Phantom were caused by politicians and the Navy constantly changing the goal posts during development. As for the British Phantom debacle, best we don't even go there. The point is, in those days the average Joe Blow had very little idea all these problems were happening. Our exposure to media was very limited, so you could tell us anything and we would believe it. And stuff like defense acquisition wasn't newsworthy back then. We were too busy watching F Troop and Gilligan's Island to bother with it. Fast forward to the F-35, we have the internet where the average Joe Blow can source any information and news via the web, and the print and TV media pack are desperately trying to compete, all the while knowing they can print or broadcast anything and we'll forget all about it tomorrow due to over saturation and information overload. The F-35 might just be unfairly treated, and go on to become one of the most successful warplanes in history. And I might win the lotto. Apart from all the problems - airframe, engine, software, operational capability, contractor supplied systems not living up to expectations etc., one can still look at the aerodynamics of it and see a short fat stubby thing with small wings and the word dud comes to mind. The Gripen has my vote.

F-35 HMD helmet and mask: One drawback to modern technology with helmet mounted display and night vision attachments is the increased neck loadings on ejection. Martin Baker has gone back to the drawing board with the MB MK.16 for the F-35, due to test dummies under 10 stone breaking necks. The lighter weight pilot is allowing the seat to rotate forward too much, causing excessive neck loads when the chute is deployed. So far, only one male pilot has had to be re-assigned; the only female pilot is over the weight limit and is not affected by the ban. Beats me why they didn't stick with the original concept of the Russian designed K36-3.5A for the F-35 and F-22, based on the world's best state of the art seat. One reason the Russians have the edge in ALSE is that one design bureau designs seat, helmets, pressure suits, masks and anything else involved. The way we do it is to get a dog's breakfast of different contractor supplied equipment and try to cobble it together. Our left hand doesn't know what our right hand is doing, whereas a more centralized system like Zvezda's enables more focus on the main game. Corporatization is killing inovation and technology, and leading us down the path to taking twenty years to build a fighter that works. Another ejection issue could be the mask. The main supply hose and inspiration valve hanging out the front would cause enough centre of gravity shift to add to neck loadings and flail risks. Seems to have gone backward from the older style side mounted hoses.

It's easy to get a bad feeling about the F-35. As that article about the Gripen pointed out, the first F-35 rolled off the line ten years ago. Aside from all the problems, they still haven't written all the software for it yet. Gives you the feeling that it might have to be continually worked on to prevent it becoming obselete before it's combat ready. The F-4 Phantom in the mid to late fifties of development, was the first U.S. aircraft built where systems engineering and project management came together to give us the modern efficient methods we have today. They'd roll over in their grave if they could see what a hash up has been made with the F-35's development.

Relatives of the victims of the MH-17 disaster have been requesting Russia, Ukraine and the United States release radar and satellite data of the flight. Russian data was released almost from day one, but had very little coverage in our press. The U.S. to this day refuses to release their data, citing national security. This is a copy of the response to the relatives from the Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency of the Russian Federation: Ladies and Gentlemen, First of all, I would like to express to you once more my sincere condolences over the terrible tragedy that claimed the lives of your loved ones. As you know, Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency represented the Russian Federation in its contribution to the technical investigation into the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine. In light of this, we would like to use this opportunity to respond to your recent request urging President Putin to clarify whether Russia has provided primary radar data for the inquiry. To begin with, I would like to emphasize that Russia is strongly committed to establishing the actual cause of the crash, and has consistently done everything in its power to help find out the truth, both throughout the course of the technical investigation and following its official completion. As for primary radar data, we hereby officially maintain that Russia provided the Dutch Safety Board with all available primary radar data tracing Flight MH17 as early as August 2014, which was right after the tragedy. We did not impose any conditions or restrictions regarding further use and disclosure of radar data, records of phone conversations and other data we submitted to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) at its request. Moreover, Russia has stored all that data to this day, and is willing to provide it once again to the relevant authorities. For the sake of clarity, I must specify that Russia submitted primary radar data to the DSB in the form of a video recording capturing a Russian air traffic controller's display. It should be explained that Russian air traffic authorities store primary radar data exclusively in the form of videos, which is consistent with ICAO standards. That said, the Dutch Safety Board's final report does not suggest that this fact might have somehow affected the findings of the technical inquiry into the circumstances and the cause of the crash. We would also like to point out that the tragedy took place outside Russian airspace, where the airliner was not being directed by Russian air traffic controllers. Russia's radar data became a point of interest due to the fact that Russian radar control facilities located near Rostov-on-Don were able to track MH17's flight path. Furthermore, it was later established that the Russian primary radar data were, in fact, the only ones available, since Ukrainian air traffic control services, for some unclear reasons, had not been running primary radar surveillance, despite the fact that there were no other means available for ensuring air safety over the war zone in Eastern Ukraine. As far as satellite imagery is concerned, I would like to stress that Russia disclosed all of its available satellite data in the days immediately following the crash. Those data confirm, among other things, that there was movement and increased activity by Ukrainian Buk surface-to-air missile systems observed within the conflict area in Eastern Ukraine one day ahead of the tragedy. Russia shared that information with the Dutch Safety Board, but once its final report was released, it turned out the DSB had chosen not to consider Russian satellite data or even include them in the report. Russia is as determined as you are to ensure that this horrible tragedy is investigated as promptly, diligently and impartially as possible. We fully support your recent queries to the governments of the United States and Ukraine, demanding that they provide the investigators with all relevant data. The United States must disclose the satellite images that Secretary Kerry claims it has kept since the moment of the crash, which are supposedly capable of shedding light on the circumstances of the tragedy. The Ukrainian government, for its part, must disclose its primary radar data, or present credible evidence of their non-existence. Meanwhile, Russia has consistently contributed its best efforts and committed all kinds of resources to finding out the truth about the crash. In order to provide efficient and reliable expert counsel for the investigation, we decided to engage Almaz-Antey, the Russian defense company that designed the Buk missile systems. The company administered a series of highly sophisticated and accurate studies, and conducted two full-scale experiments. In an unprecedented move, Almaz-Antey also disclosed the technical characteristics for the missiles carried by the Buk and the Buk-M1 missile systems. All of the estimates and other data obtained in the course of the studies and the experiments were submitted to the Dutch Safety Board. Russia repeatedly invited Dutch investigators to take part in those efforts, but the DSB, just as the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), have shown no interest in such collaboration. We believe the data in question to be much more useful for investigating the crash than radar data and satellite imagery. Yet the authorities in charge of the technical investigation have chosen to discard that data, too. As far as the quality of the technical inquiry is concerned, I must point out that, in a totally inexplicable fashion, its final report leaves the most important question unanswered: How far is Ukraine responsible for failing to close its airspace? The report is extremely vague regarding the responsibility of the government in Kiev. In view of the recurrent critique of Russia in relation to the tragedy of Flight MH17, we are forced to remind the world that, unlike the DSB and the JIT, Russia has never protracted the investigations it administered, or those in which it participated in as a full-fledged member. Russia performed all its work in a transparent manner, regularly publishing the results of our examinations and all the other steps we took. This was the case with the investigations into the crash of the Russian Airbus A321 over Egypt, where numerous provocative claims were made about the cause of the crash, but Russia did not endorse any of the theories until evidence was obtained with traces of foreign explosives found on the debris, confirming that this was a terrorist attack. And when this evidence was found, we immediately informed the international community and our partners in the investigation. This was also the case with the investigation into the crash of the Russian military Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft over Syria. Russia investigated the accident with unprecedented transparency, inviting a number of international experts and journalists to witness the opening of the flight recorders. Many foreign specialists (British, for example) expressed their admiration for both the high quality of the investigation and its transparency. All this demonstrates that Russia has always been consistent with its conclusions and never makes accusations before the investigation is over and final accurate results are obtained. At the same time, Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the Dutch technical investigation was performed in an extremely nontransparent and biased manner. We support you in your efforts to get answers to the numerous questions that remain unanswered. The Dutch Safety Board should explain to you and to the whole world why the technical investigation took such a long time and why it resulted in some very abstract and vague statements. The Dutch authorities should explain why they distorted facts and concealed data, and why they ignored important data provided by Russia. The DSB should explain why its final report distorted data about missile fragments and places where they were found, why it failed to thoroughly examine penetration holes on the aircraft, why it mismanaged the aircraft debris, why it misrepresented the probable location from which the missile was launched, and many other discrepancies in the final report. Unfortunately, we observe now a very similar situation with the Joint Investigation Team in charge of the criminal investigation. Once again, the process is taking too long, and the Dutch authorities are very biased in choosing partners for the criminal investigation. All this invites many unpleasant questions and gives us reasons to worry that the criminal investigation may repeat the fate of the technical one and fail to establish the truth. This is why Russia encourages the families and friends of the victims to demand answers to all these questions, as well as maximum transparency, objectivity, thoroughness and promptness, from the Dutch authorities and their partners in the investigation. In conclusion, I reaffirm that Russia is more than willing to assist in any way we can with a thorough and swift investigation into this terrible tragedy. Once again, I would like to express my deepest condolences. Sincerely, Oleg Storchevoy Deputy Head Federal Air Transport Agency

Here's a link to a petition on the new display charges, unfortunately for U.K. residents only: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628

USN F-4J and A-6D sucking up to the Brits, 1971:

Some talk that four Su-35S fighters have arived in Syria to be road tested: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160201/1034015975/su-35-syria-russia-video.html The video attached to the news item has an interesting maneuvere at 2.24 onwards, not sure what it's called. It starts off like a Cobra then does a tight sideways loop. The Cobra was originally designed to snap off a missile at an opponent above and behind, but this one seems to be just a quick way to slow down and let the opposition overshoot. Or maybe just something to look good at airshows. It looks like the thrust vectoring is being used there.

I recon no more than twomartyr's.

Some interesting opinions on the future of airshows in the U.K. http://aviationhighlights.co.uk/portfolio/the-great-british-airshow/