Slater

Guess it was only a matter of time... https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/general-atomics-tests-podded-guns-on-mojave-uav#:~:text=GA-ASI mounted two Dillon,%2C according to GA-ASI.

It would probably make a decent COIN aircraft, in the class of the A-37 Dragonfly.

Didn't realize that it had been in service for 35 years. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/italy-retires-amx-light-strike-jet

I note that the bombs appear to be overall black. Is that accurate for French bombs in the 1960's/70's?

I've heard the Mirage V referred to as essentially a "Mirage III without a radar". Accurate or oversimplification?

This is a fairly prehistoric kit (1975) that can still be found on EBay and other sites. My understanding is that the Israeli order was never delivered and the aircraft were diverted to the French air force. How accurate is it in overall shape? http://

Argentina seems to be in an aircraft buying mood (even if these are just recycled DC-3's): https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/Press Release - Argentina 24-28 CN.pdf

AIM-9J was the USAF's hope for a more effective Sidewinder in the SEA theatre, under the "Combat Snap" program. It turned out to be somewhat mediocre in effectiveness, though.

Was the AIM-4 an overall failure? Looking at it's history I would have to say yes. It's limitations included: warhead size, fuzing, IR discrimination, gimbal limits, maneuverability, range, and cooling. Don't know the statistics, but I would hazard to say that it's best performance was shooting down target drones over the Gulf Of Mexico. Which, ironically, may have flown a similar profile to it's original intended targets.

Probably could have phrased it better. Meant to say that the F-106 evidently had better luck with the Falcon than the F-4 did.

It's good that the F-106 had better luck than the F-4 did in combat with the AIM-4D. According to a DTIC report: "The FALCON was considered the most complex to fire of all air to-air missiles in the USAF inventory. The minimum time required to prepare and launch the missile was approximately 4.2 seconds from cooling initiation to actual launch. (After preparation, early models of the AIM-4 had to be fired within two minutes due to a coolant limitation.) To a fighter pilot, flying at high Mach airspeeds during MIG engagements, 4.2 seconds was impractical. Thus, many firing opportunities were lost." Also, no proximity fuze on the AIM-4D, so a direct hit had to be scored (with a relatively small warhead). In a war, the F-106's theoretical targets would have been mostly non-maneuvering bombers so I can see where it would have been more successful in that scenario.

In the "for what it's worth" department, Grumman put out a rather attractive patch for the A-4PTM: http://

Falcon didn't exactly generate the most confidence.

USAF started referring to napalm as "incendi-gel" during the Vietnam unpleasantness. Sounded less objectionable, I guess.

A little more color for US F-35's: https://www.187fw.ang.af.mil/News/Display/Article/3649273/the-187th-fighter-wing-showcases-f-35a-lightning-ii-heritage-tail-flash/

I wonder how many hours are left in these airframes? The aircraft would seem to be rather old.

Back in the news again: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/03/29/argentina-to-buy-surplus-f-16-jets-from-denmark/

Recent pictures of the French LeClercs seem to show the vehicle in an overall brown(ish) scheme. Is the French Army getting away from it's familiar three-tone camo pattern? https://www.knds.fr/en/our-news/latest-news/two-new-sights-renovated-leclerc-tank

Sounds like it has the green light: https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-finalizes-deal-buy-14-183328014.html

990 aircraft later... https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/03/13/pentagon-clears-f-35-for-full-rate-production/

This kit was introduced in 1967 (IRC) and has been reissued many times since then. Original kits can still be seen floating around on EBay. How accurate in shape overall is this old kit?

In the 1950's - early 1960's, the US defense establishment prioritized the nuclear enterprise over conventional munitions development. As a result, when Vietnam happened the US was caught rather flat-footed when it came to developing, testing, and producing conventional ordnance. Many weapons were rushed through design and testing and into production before all the problems were sorted. Some worked well, some didn't. In that particular case, the crystal ball proved rather inaccurate.

Supposedly the US Apache fleet is to be re-engined with the new T901's.

Heck, just wait until the RAH-66 Comanche comes on line

Sometimes reality makes a rude appearance. The US Army's abortive "Future Combat System" is one example. The vehicle that was supposed to replace the M1 Abrams tank in this system was rather more lightly armored than the Abrams, the theory being that it would use it's superior situational awareness to survive by avoiding hits rather than absorbing them. Then Iraq and Afghanistan came along and heavy armor was again seen as desirable due to the IED threat.