Emu

This came from BAE brochure of ASQ-239 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwix2P-C4uPPAhWFWhoKHbAwDZwQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baesystems.com%2Fen-us%2Fdownload-en-us%2F20160718215911%2F1434583878736.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG0lru4BJHco6Zoa4cP6SzJ0n_i1A&sig2=femGPVvkL5Kc1NPVqzvpjQ&bvm=bv.135974163,d.d2s Seem like that not only F-35 can carry towed decoy (aka ALE-70 ) but ASQ-239 also has a separate jamming capabilities separated from APG-81 It looks like the USN did put a contract out in April 2014 that has caused some confusion. http://archive.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5255 These two Budget docs provide a lot of clues... still digging http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/Navy/U_P40_0182_BSA-1_BA-1_APP-1508N_PB_2017.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/AirForce/U_P40_76_BSA-4_BA-7_APP-3010F_PB_2017.pdf The program is buying 318 of them in FY2017 and has been buying them for yeays (search the budget docs for "ALE-70" and you will see them going back to 2014. ALE-70 = Towed Decoy ($50k each) MJU-68/69 = Flares http://www.chemring.co.uk/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V2/PDFs/introduction-to-chemring-for-investors-oct2014.pdf CCU-168 = Impulse cartridge for the flares https://govtribe.com/project/13-pn-8385852-2-ccu-168b-impulse-cartridge/activity MJU-61/64 = also flares (4 differenc kinds?) Absence of chaff info is odd.... This tidbit from the FY2017 budget (looks like the ALE-70 is in Block 2B/3i already:

They should put that on an AC-130.:D

Dogfight I would give to the Su-27. BVR I would give to the F-15. But just a guess, if we're base-lining around end of Cold War.

It often isn't the missile's fault. F-16s had a known problem that caused accidental launches and pilot training is also an issue. The F-15 pilots had the best training at the time, so their figures are probably more representative of the actual missiles.

I don't know, it might end up a bit silly if you put AIM-54s on an F-15.

Top 100 Defence Contractors 2016 http://people.defensenews.com/top-100/

And that's why MMW radar seekers were invented.:D

What about AW101?

To me the cartridge neck doesn't look right for a Vulcan but the projectile matches reasonably well. But also making me think it isn't a Vulcan is how old it looks. It's definitely a 20x10Xmm given the cartridge length however. I think it probably is a Vulcan on retrospect though. That bullet looks very specific. If you weigh the projectile, it should weigh circa 102g if it's Vulcan but that may vary with round type.

These sources may help you. http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/tankammo1.html http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/

Iran must have similar situation with F-4s and F-14s flying with MiG-29s and soon Flankers too.

Sealant leak, easily remedied.

I watched a documentary about the actual filming and they couldn't go supersonic apparently because it would have broke windows at that altitude.

In other news. The real tower fly-past wasn't supersonic either because it would have put the windows out.

Well the F-5 (MiG-28 had a single vertical stabiliser centre and the F-14 had two off-centre.:D There was actually a real life story of a fighter sticking his nose in a wing man's jet pipe to push him over friendly territory in Vietnam after his engine failed.

English version. http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/!rb01.en.html Also has a fairly cool radar encyclopedia. http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/11.ancient/karte030.en.html

It's even got the dark smudge on the side of the fuselage.

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/documents/RIAT-16-UK-Brief.pdf

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/qualitative-advantage-1091

Too many to C&P. Russian vehicles. http://echelon-defense.com/2016/09/05/photos-numerous-military-vehicles-displayed-at-army-2016-defense-expo-in-russia/ http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2107112.html

Sorry about my vague title. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172256