willedoo

Iran's proposed stealth fighter. It's a bit hard to take it seriously.

This is an interesting article on Sputnik News giving the Russian take on the U.S. Perdix drone swarm system. It also has some video of the drones being deployed from F-15's. Game of Drones: How Russia Can Respond to US Weapons of the Future

Wouldn't surprise me one bit. The ITAR legislation must be among the most paranoid legislation ever drafted. It's the reason I gave up collecting U.S. flight gear. I've had contact with Americans who would not sell me a fifty year old Soviet leather helmet because they were scared of getting locked up. Sections of it were re-written some time back and a lot of grey areas introduced.

I think they don't look too bad in flight from a bird's eye view or from below. Side on, there's certainly not much beauty about them, very ordinary looking.

A line of Tu-95's.

Here's some good footage of the Sukhoi T-50 5th. Gen. prototypes. Cheers, Willie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xmvO0loPk

Wagner Twin Cub.

Yes, FT, this one does if you weigh less than about 65kg.. So far, there's only one male pilot who has had to be re-assigned. The only female pilot is still flying, so she must be over that weight limit. The problem with the lighter pilots is that it allows the seat to rotate too far forward at the point where the main chute is deployed. The higher amount of snapback risks breaking the neck. Martin Baker has come up with a three point fix, but I think it is still in the development/test stage. First up is a panel behind the head, sewn between the parachute risers to limit the backward travel of the head. The next involves the addition of a computerised setting to compensate for body weight. I think it provides a longer delay for chute deployment for the lighter weight pilot, allowing more time for the seat to rotate rearwards. Not sure how that pans out with a zero/zero ejection. The third fix is to develop a lighter weight helmet. Good luck with that one. It's an increasing problem these days. Building modern systems into the helmets increases the neck loading but our necks are no stronger. Even in times past, a helmet with night vision or target acquisition gear might have a safe maximum ejection speed of 100 knots less than the clean helmet equivalent. Even with a clean helmet, the weight and design can have a big bearing on things. As an example, the Russian ZSh-7 helmet can eject safely at 100 - 150 knots faster than the American HGU-55P maximum. I'd guess in the future, they'll come up with better systems to minimise the risk. Cheers, Willie.

I know there's not many helmet nerds on this forum, but this lot have developed a 3D model of the F-35 helmet. Scrolling through the photos gives a fairly accurate look at all angle views of the helmet. One photo is a rotating 360 degree view. Cheers, Willie. 3d model helmet f 35 lm

Thanks for posting, FT, it's an interesting read. There's been lots of talk of the days of dogfighting being over. Is it possible the future will have less air to air combat. And given the current rapid rate of capability increases in surface to air defences, will the main challenge be to get through these defences and hit targets. Air defence technology won't stand still, so the main role of strike aircraft in the future might be to achieve enough capability to hopefully prevent a deadlock. Just some thoughts. Cheers, Willie.

The first two here at the end of next year. That should draw a bit of a crowd.

IOC is one thing, but has anyone heard when the first F-35's will be combat ready? Just curious, as I haven't kept up to date on the programme lately. Cheers, Willie.

The way I understand Critical AOA is that it's sustainable. The Su-33 wouldn't be able to sustain that AOA shown over the deck of the Kuznetov for very long.

You'd miss out on half the fun if you ignored FT.

Thanks Newbs, I only hope I can be as polite and understanding as that if someone pings me on a similar thing. I think part of the problem with writing posts on forums is that the words are the only things the readers see. None of us are professional writers and sometimes posts can appear to have a different tone to what was meant by the poster. There's also a generational difference where normal banter from one age group might not seem a good fit for others. I'm sure if we were all sitting around in person having a discussion, we would have a better understanding of where the speaker's coming from. Facial expressions, manner etc. all give away whether the speaker is joking, getting too serious or just having a subtle dig. In the meantime, we just have to do what we can do here. Cheers, Willie.

Newbs, a lot of what you say makes makes sense. Just a tip: if you really want to press home one side of a debate, do away with derogatory , sterotyped terms like Fanbois and Fangurls. It certainly does not add to the debate and makes you look a bit childish. If you can't debate a subject without resorting to namecalling, you might be better off going back to the drawing board and having a serious think about things. Sorry mate, I don't mean to get personal but when people use name calling in a debate, it's a form of bullying in anyone's language. I often don't agree with other peoples opinions, but FT & Co. deserve equal respect to all other forum members, no matter what their opinions. Call them by their name, not some latest buzzword. I guess you wouldn't be worried if people called you an F-35 fanboi, but no-one else has lowered themselves to that level of debate. I can only suggest you debate on facts and issues only. You won't win an argument or any respect by using terms for those with an opposite opinion that might be offensive to them. Nothing personal, but I can't just bite my bottom lip when I see this sort of thing going on. Cheers, Willie.

Thanks for posting, that's nice high quality video.

There's a change.org petition to award the last surviving Dambuster veteran, 95 year old George Johnson, with a knighthood. Give Britain's last surviving Dambuster hero a knighthood Cheers, Willie.

Spot on, Marty. I wouldn't like the job of cleaning this one out.

Getting close. Another hint: rear loading, depending on the model it can carry a payload of 45 -50 tonnes of camel, goat, illicit arms or paratroopers.

This should be an easy one - four engine transport with a tendency to carry unusual cargoes.

When the Ru air forces were first deployed to Latakia air base in Syria in 2015, all the fixed wing aircraft had the red star and serial numbers painted over. Possibly this one is from that early deployment. Cheers, Willie.

Photos of VVS Su-30's, Red 26,27,28 and 29 returning home this morning after deployment in Syria. Red 29 is the only one with the outer pylons loaded. Cheers, Willie.

A great old workhorse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the C-5 was the first production aircraft to operate turbofans. Cheers, Willie.

The digital camo seems to be getting popular these days.