censored

The F-20 was originally designated the F-5G. It was envisioned as an evolved version of the F-5E (which were delivered to Iran), what could take advantage of much of the same production tooling. When no customer proved interested in buying an upgraded Tiger, Northrop made the marketing decision to relabel the airplane as the F-20.

I agree that the B-1 has a greater role now than it did as a nuclear bomber. But I could say the same thing for the B-2 and B-52. In the post Cold War era, the conventional bombing role has taken center stage among the USAF's strategic bomber crews. The USAF began drawing down its B-1 fleet in 2003, retiring 33 out of its remaining 93 B-1B's. In 2004, the US Congress earmarked funding to restore a handful of these aircraft to operational status. The funds only covered the return of 7 aircraft to service, however, and no additional funding has been forthcoming since then. The B-1 was, and remains a very expensive asset to maintain. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the B-1 has not served the US armed forces well. Nor am I suggesting that the performance of the B-1 aircrews and ground crews has been anything less than admirable. What I am saying is that on a cost-per-delivered payload basis, the B-1 is more expensive to operate and less reliable than the less complex, tried-and-true B-52G. To quote Airman magazine: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IB..._45/ai_77106313 With a defense budget that is already being stretched to the breaking point, the USAF has had to make some hard and unpleasant choices. Looking out across the coming decades, the USAF has elected to continue to maintain the B-52 fleet as the least expensive, flying bomb truck that anyone can envision. Over 90-years after it first flew, the B-52 is expected to still be flying in operational service. No joke. By then, the B-1 will have been retired and replaced by the next generation of stealth bombers - beyond the B-2 - that USAF planners are already known to be contemplating.

The role of the B-1 has become even less than what you might imagine. Out of the 100 B-1Bs originally procured, a mere 65 remain in operation. The USAF started to decommission the B-1s in 2003, using the retired aircraft to help supply spares to keep the remaining bombers servicable. In contrast, there are 94 B-52H's still in active service today, and the USAF has announced plans to keep the B-52 in service out to 2040. It's a matter of cost. The B-52 costs a fraction to operate, compared to the B-1B or B-2, and has far superior flight readiness rates. The B-1 and B-2 have both earned a reputation as shop queens, that spend more time under maintenance than flying. Whereas the B-2 has a truly unique capability to offer (stealth), the B-1 does not. There will continue to be B-52s flying long after the last B-1 is sent to the boneyard.

This is not, of course, the first time that the Israeli Air Force has trained with MiG-29s. According to published reports, the Israelis obtained their first close look at MiG-29 hardware back in 1985, in a covert deal that involved the shipment of a nearly complete MiG-29 from Poland. They also obtained access to the a copy of the MiG's radar, on loan from the former East German Luftwaffe, in 1991. The Israelis did not obtain access to a flying example of the MiG-29 until April 1997, however, when arrangements were made to lease three examples from an undisclosed East European air force (most likely Poland or Germany). The aircraft were flown out of several Negev air bases, and were painted with the distinctive red-X tail markings from Israel's 253 Flight Test Squadron. After a series of evaluation flights - including mock dogfights - they were returned to their East European owner.

The United States Air Force in Korea, by Robert Futrell is the most comprehensive work that I'm aware of - but not a light read (over 800 pages). If you're looking for something a little lighter - which touches on Korea but is not necessarily restricted to Korean war experiences - there's always Robert Dorr's Air Combat: An Oral History of Fighter Pilots. As was alluded to previously, there are a lot of books out there that deal exclusively with the Sabres.

The article referenced is actually a stub from a much longer article posted in Aviation Week - which is partially why it's a little confusing and incomplete. India's successful encounter with American F-15's at the Cope India exercises involved the Su-30, but not the Su-30MKI. The classified simulations that the Aviation Week article is referring to (which were carried out by Boeing in 2002) refer to the Su-30MKI. This subject was also covered in some detail in the March 2008 issue of Air Forces Monthly, which reviewed the pro's and con's of thrust vector control, and why the technology has not been more widely embraced in the West. The Boeing simulation concluded that, with the proper tactics, the Su-30MKI could take advantage of its TVC capabilities (and the massive radar signature of the F-15C) to provide an ensured kill. The following is an excerpt from the Air Forces Monthly article: It should be pointed out that this strategy applied specifically to the current American F-15C fleet (without AESA radar upgrades), and may not have worked so well when applied against a mixed F-15/F-16 package, with a supporting AWACS.

The Phalcon system is AESA. It can be fitted to a variety of platforms. India just wanted to use a Russian airframe similar to ones that they were already familiar with. In this instance, since a dome-version is already available, it was easier to install the system into the existing dome (providing 360-degree coverage) than to develop conformal-mounts for the fuselage. The radar array, however, is part of the same modular family that was provided to Chile.

To add a little detail to what was already reported, The 24 new airplanes are all ex-Israeli Kfir C10's, which will be refurbished prior to delivery. These airplanes will join 9 Kfir C7's already in Columbia's inventory. As part of the deal, some or all of the existing C7's will also be upgraded. These aircraft currently make-up Columbia's 111th Squadron. Less publicised but equally important, is that the arms sale is expected to include the delivery of additional munitions and missiles, including Litening targeting pods and Griffin laser-guided bomb kits, as well as Python 4 and Derby air-to-air missiles.

For those who haven't yet seen it, the attached video was released by the Chinese government a little over a year ago (December 2006), when they officially acknowledged the J-10 program for the first time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o31YlpXPyE...;highlight=J-10 Many of the clips from this video were taken from the early development and test squadrons, and display features that were not seen until relatively recently in operational units: including mid-air refueling probes; and iron bombs. If you watch carefully you may also notice that the two seat version of the airplane has an enlarged dorsal spine. There has been a lot of speculation as to why the two seater would need the extra electronics volume: whether for dedicated ECM roles, or for specialized air-to-ground (SEAD) electronics.

I would be careful about assuming that the very limited selection of photographs that have been leaked to the West to-date, are truly representative of what the J-10 is capable of. Bear in mind that the J-10 only entered service into regular squadron usage (as opposed to deployment for field trials) a little over a year ago. It is only natural that the air-to-air weaponry should be integrated first, as reflected by most (although not all) of the photographs and videos that have been leaked seen so far. All modern combat aircraft, whether peforming an air-to-air or air-to-ground mission, should expect to carry at least a minimal air-to-air self defense compliment at all times. The air-to-ground weapons, however, will take longer to integrate fully into the J-10 family. The air-to-ground potential of a fighter, however, is actually "baked in" from the beginning. It becomes very difficult to add to it later in a product's life cycle. Based on everything I have seen, I would expect the J-10 to eventually fill the role of the Rafale (a truly multifunctional platform), and not that of the Typhoon (which sacrificed payload and range for pure air-to-air performance). Time will tell. Our first good look at what this platform is capable of will probably come when it enters Pakistani service in a year or two. The Pakistanis have a much longer history of combining air-to-air and air-to-ground functions into their squadrons. That will probably be our first good look at what the maximum load-out of this warplane really is.