Bring in Russian Stealth Fighter Aircraft!

( MiG 1.44 a development program that originated in the 1980s, thats really never take off into a full service)

There is an eerie of what is going on behind the Russian veil. We've seen whats the America come out with. China, Japan and even Korea and Iran or probably other western country are trying hard to come out with some sort of stealth fighter of their own design for years to come although all this country for sure lacking experience and technology.

When the Russian come out with MiG-25 in 70s, to encountered it US come out with F-15. But then the MiG-25 is known for interceptor and reconnaissance role only with fastest Mach 3 record, surely not for dogfight as F-15 tend to do. In 1970s with the emerging of F-16 and F-18, the agile small fighter with fly by wire technology along with lerx (Leading Edge Root Extension) technology then MiG Bureau come out with MiG-29, also using lerx technology although we don't know whether they also using fly by wire technology ( now we know they did). Even, when most latest western fighter spotting a canard for agility then Su-30s family of aircraft started spotting canard for the same purpose (along with limited vectoring nozzle capability for added agility).

Russian aviation bureau is known to have conduct an abundance of research on all kind of aspect of stealth. This evident is strong with the concept sketches, wind tunnel model and mock up model, even certain bureau come out with a prototype of it. In fact in certain photo unveil a really fantastic designed, 2-D vectoring nozzle like F-22. A MiG prototype with air intake like European Typhoon, all this emerged as far back in 1970s. Some prototype in fact is really promising, like the MiG 1.44 prototype (above photo).

Its worth noted, its really sad to see them losing the race. When F-22, B-2 or even the old F-117 come out, there is a cold response from Russian Aircraft Bureau. There is no comparison aircraft come out to encountered any of them. Whats have they learned through their research seem just been wipe out from their mind and it means nothing!. All gone like a dust blown by the winds. At least, if the funds is their main problem (although they gain a lot export order to cover it!) then they should equipped a least one or two squadron with latest design stealth capability fighter, but the fact is there's none at all exist!.(Unless, there is one secretly entered their service)

Whats is really happening here? Why there's no new bomber or fighter with stealthy capability entering Russian service until now?. Why they'll still utilized an old work horses like Mig-29 variants and Su-27 variants that lacking all this capability?. All design dated back in 1970s!. Is it because stealth is not important? Or, are they come out with some kind of anti-stealth mechanism that render stealth an obsolete technology? There's no answer for all this questions. Only the Russian know the answer. If they can't closed the gap as soon as possible then surely they'll losing the technology race for good, I'm afraid. The US probably ahead of them for 10 years from now on or probably more!. So, Russian bring in your new Stealth Fighter!

Stealth Fighter Aircraft For Everyone?

(Japanese Stealth Fighter Mock-up)

(Chinese Stealth Fighter)

(Korean Stealth Fighter)

Since the emerging of the so called stealth fighter F-117 (actually its more bomber than fighter) and the now the real stealth fighter the F-22 Raptor, more and more country try harder to come out with their own version of stealth fighter.

Japan is set to develop its own next-generation stealth fighter jets to reduce its dependence on foreign technology and counter similar moves by China and Russia. Japan, which wants to replace its aging fighter fleet, has also made overtures to Washington on the possibility of purchasing the U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter and other option the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-18 and advanced F-15s — as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon.

However, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly banned the sale of the plane to any foreign government,in an attempt to safeguard the country's advanced technology and Japanese navy computers' recent leak of data from a joint U.S.-Japan AEGIS radar system has also spurred U.S. concerns over sharing information with Tokyo.

Japan's Defense Ministry now aims to test its own prototype stealth jet — fitted with a domestic engine, advanced control system and radar-jamming device — within five years, the Tokyo Shimbun newspaper reported, citing a budget plan submitted Friday by the ministry.

A mock-up has already undergone preliminary ground tests in France, the report said.
Friday's decision by the ministry to push ahead with the multibillion-yen project means developers will start working toward flight tests, with production in about 10 years, it said.

Japan hopes that having its own domestic homegrown stealth fighter jet would mean it would not have to rely on foreign governments for key military technology and likely help Japan enhance its radar systems to counter regional rivals China and Russia, which are thought to be developing their own stealth jets, the paper said.

Its really good to see a healthy competition in building a next future stealth fighter. Lets hope we'll see a more innovative and creative design, probably hope to see more like whats in the japanese anime technology shown.

Aurora Aircraft a Myth?

(A computer rendered image a supposed look 'Aurora')

A very facinating and intrigue case of a 'so' top secret aircraft known as Aurora has been discuss in the internet forum. I couldn't help it to post it here although the the truth is still out there.
A wide range of reports of observations of mysterious aerial phenomena have been associated with the Aurora aircraft. These observations are also in many regards consistent with the suggested Exotic Propulsion Aircraft. Those reports relating to both possibilities are unique to the Exotic Propulsion Aircraft are discussed subsequently.
These unexplained phenomena have led some to conclude that: "...the US Government has secretly developed and deployed a hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft, probably as a replacement for the SR-71."
There are two classes of reports relating to Aurora: those that are consistent with a limited experimental test program; and those that are suggestive of the existence of an operational capability.
Edwards Air Force Base in southern California is the primary facility used by the American military for the flight testing of experimental aircraft. In addition, the Groom Lake facility at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada was used for developmental testing of the F-117A, and has been associated with reports of other advanced aircraft. Given this geographical concentration, it would not be surprising if secret aircraft undergoing flight tests were to be observed in the Southwestern United States.
In October 1990 Aviation Week & Space Technology published reports of:"A high altitude aircraft that crosses the night sky at extremely high speed.... The vehicle typically is observed as a single, bright light -- sometimes pulsating -- flying at speeds far exceeding other aircraft in the area, and at altitudes estimated to be above 50,000 ft.... Normally, no engine noise or sonic boom is heard."
More recently, a sighting by two British Airways pilots and other witnesses at Manchester Airport on January 6 1995 has been attributed to the Aurora aircraft. Probably the most compelling evidence for such flight tests are the series of unusual sonic booms chronicled above Southern California, beginning in mid to late 1991.
On at least five occasions, these sonic booms were recorded by at least 25 of the 220US Geological Survey sensors across Southern California used to pinpoint earthquake epicenters. The incidents were recorded in June, October, November, and late January 1991. Seismologists estimate that the aircraft were flying at speeds between Mach 3 and 4 and at altitudes of 8 to 10 kilometers. The aircraft's flight path was in a North North-East direction, consistent with flight paths to secret test ranges in Nevada. Seismologists say that the sonic booms were characteristic of a smaller vehicle than the 37 meter long shuttle orbiter. Furthermore, neither the shuttle nor NASA's single SR-71B were operating on the days the booms were registered.One of the seismologists, Jim Mori, noted:"We can't tell anything about the vehicle. They seem stronger than other sonic booms that we record once in a while. They've all come on Thursday mornings about the same time, between 6 and 7 in the morning." These "skyquake" are a continuing phenomenon, with the most recent report over Orange County, CA coming on 20 July 1996.
It is reported that the "quake" occurred around 3pm PST, fitting the "skyquake" pattern in the following respects:
1.It occurred in a coastal area.
2.Described as similar to an earthquake in some respects (rattling of loose objects, etc) but also like a boom (but no distinct double bang as far as is known).
3.Severe enough to light up government and media switchboards, but no known damage.
4.Not an earthquake (CalTech sensors saw nothing)
5.Local military bases deny any knowledge.
6.No known other source (eg explosion).
Intercepted radio transmissions are equally intriguing: "On Apr. 5 (a Sunday) and Apr. 22, radio hobbyists in Southern California monitored transmissions between Edwards AFB's radar control facility (Joshua Control) and a high-altitude aircraft using the call sign "Gaspipe."
The series of radio calls occurred at approximately 6 a.m. local time on both dates. "Controllers were directing the unknown Gaspipe aircraft to a runway at Edwards, using advisories similar to those given space shuttle crews during a landing approach. The monitors recorded two advisories, both transmitted by Joshua Control to Gaspipe: "You're at 67,000, 81 mi. out," and "Seventy mi. out, 36,000. Above glide slope."
Reported sightings of unusual high performance aircraft are not confined to the Southwestern United States. More recently, such observations have also been reported in other parts of the United States, as well as in Europe.
These reports are particularly intriguing because they are difficult to reconcile with an experimental test program, since there would be no reason for test flights to be conducted in Europe. Rather, these reports would have to be understood in the context of the deployment of an operational aircraft.
One unexplained set of observations was reported at Beale Air Force Base, the California facility that was long home to the SR-71. On two consecutive nights in late February 1992, observers reported sighting a triangular aircraft displaying a distinctive diamond-shaped lighting pattern, comprised of a red light near the nose -- similar to the F-117 configuration -- two 'whitish' lights near what would be conventional wingtips and an amber light near the tail. While the wing lights are reportedly much brighter than normal navigation lamps, they do not illuminate the aircraft's planform. Observers claim the vehicle's wing lights are approximately twice as far apart as those on the F-117, and nose-to-tail light spacing is about 50 percent longer than that on the stealth fighter.
Reports of "unusually loud, rumbling sonic booms" near Pensacola, Florida in November 1991 have also been associated with the Aurora program. At least 30 unexplained sonic booms have been reported in Southern California in late 1991 and early 1992.
By mid-1992 noted aviation observer Bill Sweetman concluded that, "The frequency of the sonic booms indicates that whatever is making them is now an operational aircraft."
In early 1992 it was reported that:"... RAF radars have acquired the hypersonic target travelling at speeds ranging from about Mach 6 to Mach 3 over a NATO-RAF base at Machrihanish, Scotland, near the tip of the Kintyre peninsula, last November and again this past January."
It was recently reported than on 27 September 1995 David Morris of Walsall, Cornwall UK took a picture of a triangular shaped plane being refueled by a KC-135, and flanked by a pair of F-111s. The unknown aircraft appeared to be about three-quarters the size of the KC-135. This picture has been widely distributed. However, the "refuelling" picture is a hoax .
In 1990, it was suggested that the Aurora (also reportedly designated "Senior Citizen") had been intended to be the SR-71's successor, but it had been canceled along with the "Blackbird" in 1989.
Above all this until now there is no concrete evidence to proved (The existing of Aurora) all this, there is no clear photo evidence.

Best Aircraft Maker- Airbus or Boeing?

(The latest Airbus A380)
(The Latest Boeing Dreamliner)

There is a biggest debate going on in the internet Forum that I watched for at the moment. The question is, who's the best aircraft marker?, Airbus or Boeing. Off course there will be two quarters,those who support Airbus and those who support Boeing. Each supporter gave their own opinion accordingly. But to my point of view both aircraft marker are the best in the world today, there is no doubt about it. And to built the best aircraft need a lot of effort, and both done it well.

Boeing added two plane orders in the past week, taking its year-to-date tally to a record 1,146 net orders, but the US planemaker still trails European rival Airbus in the race for 2007 sales.

The number of Boeing's firm orders is already well ahead of its record last year of 1,044, and means the company will break 1,000 orders for the third straight year.
But it still trails Airbus, which had 1,204 orders on its books for the year at the end of November, after a particularly successful Dubai air show. A full comparison will be possible at the end of the year, when Airbus adjusts its tally to take account of cancelled orders.

Between them, Boeing and Airbus look set to post 2,500 orders for the year, which would break the previous record of 2,057 net orders in 2005.

That was the first year both companies posted more than 1,000 orders each, marking the beginning of the boom in commercial aerospace, as travel demand surged after a slump caused by the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Airbus has already beaten its 2005 record for orders, and looks set to reclaim the title of biggest-selling planemaker after losing it last year to Boeing.

Its single-aisle A320 line is selling well, and in the last few months it has seen a rise in interest for its new mid-sized wide-body, the A350 XWB -- which rivals Boeing's 787 -- after several years of design setbacks. It is also taking orders for its new A380 superjumbo, which entered service in October.

Boeing's biggest seller is its single-aisle 737, with 651 orders so far this year. The new 787 Dreamliner, which is set to start test flights by the end of March, has 314 orders this year. Boeing has taken 129 orders for its 777 this year, and 16 for its 747.

The total year-to-date tally for Boeing includes a 55 plane order, worth about USD$4.5 billion, placed by General Electric's plane leasing unit last week, but only made public on Thursday.

In term of sale both equally got so much customer orders that they can handled it for quite sometime into the future. Healthy competition is good for both of them.

Big Transport Aircraft

Boeing Dreamlifter
Airbus Beluga

Beside the well known shape like a big whale the "Beluga" the European Airbus transport aircraft thats transport the body of an aircraft for assembly now Boeing come out with nearly identical modified 747-400 dubbed "Dreamlifter" used to transport the major assemblies of all-new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Granted type certification on 2 June 2007 by FAA.
The certification recognizes that the Dreamlifter has successfully passed all of stringent testing and safety requirements required by the FAA. The Dreamlifter does not need to be certified by other regulatory agencies.
As part of the flight test program, FAA officials flew on board the aircraft as it delivered major sections of the Dreamliner from partner sites around the world to the Boeing factory in Everett, Washington for the final assembly.
The flights allowed the FAA to validate the overall delivery process and tools.The Dreamlifter is not certified to carry passenger beyond essential crew.
The aircraft completed 437 flight test hours and 639 hours of ground testing since its first flight on 9 September 2006. With certification achieved, operation of the aircraft fleet soon be assumed by Evergreen International Airlines (EIA) of McMinnville, Oregon.

Airplane Spotter -another hobby

If you love an airplane like me or others you might know the term "plane spotter". Its somekind of past time hobby like other hobbies. "Plane Spotter" is actually an individual or a group of people thats enthusiasticly and passionately like to hanging around near an airport at a strategic spot to have a glimpse of an airplane movements in their free time.
I'll think its a universal hobby thats every country got their own indivdual or groups existing to appreciate this activities.
Some of them sometimes equipped with binocular, SLR Camera, Video Camera or occasionally with Airband Scanner (while the latter is some time depend on where you are, I mean, in some countries possessing such radio is against the law, so must be careful if you bring it into such country).
Actually you must take precaution in handling such activities in high security area such an airport. You must adhered to any rules and regulation that is usually clearly shown in the area, carefully read the sign or signboard pertaining to any warning.
Such caution is to ensured that you will not be prosecuted by authority. Remember, there is a cases involving "plane-spotter" in Russia and China thats has been jailed for doing just that.
I'll think elsewhere like in Area 51 the famous place thats signboard warning is everywhere there is people been prosecuted or been warn by the guards. So beware such consequences. Happy plane spotting.

Jet Aircraft Noise - Ages of Problem

Noise of jet aircraft is not a new issue. In Europe, we heared a news how certain airport ban Russian aircraft because they breach the allowed limit of sound measurement. Certain western jet engine manufacturers starting to design engine with less or emitting sound that comply with European standard.
In US an already noise-conscious, busy Santa Monica airport (SMO) just north of LAX is set to adopt a city council ordinance prohibiting category C and D aircraft (those aircraft with approach speeds of 121 knots or more, but less than 166 knots) from using its sole 4,973-by-150-foot runway in spite of a letter from the FAA that calls the move "flatly illegal." With a Dec. 5 meeting set for SMO representatives and the FAA, the issue may yet end in court. Category C and D aircraft (Gulfstream IV, Challenger and Citation X aircraft (Piture Above), and the like) account for about 8,500 operations per year at SMO and half of its jet traffic. Violation of the ordinance, which the council says is proposed for safety concerns, would incur a $1,000 fine. The FAA has stated it will use "all available means" to prevent implementation of the ordinance. Proponents say the FAA's own guidelines call for runway safety areas of 1,000 feet at either end of runways accommodating category C and D aircraft. Santa Monica presently has none ... but it does have homes within 300 feet of the runway's ends.
There is no doubt there is noise problem moreover if you stay near a Military airbase.There is a report in newspaper that I read on how public who's home near an airbase complained about the noise when the Air Force conducting an exercise be it at day or night. But one thing that I'm notice is old jet aircraft like MD DC-10 or Boeing 727 or military jets contribute most of the noise pollution. New aircraft like Airbus 320 is most likely emitted less noise pollution.

Tupolev 214 Aircraft Will Do

With sanction cloud hanging over Iran by the western allies against the alleged nuclear enrichment project, Iran will do with Russian aircraft although it might be not up to western standard.

Iran's national airliner Iran Air will buy five Tupolev (Above Photo: Tupolev 214)passenger planes from Russia to meet high demand for domestic flights, Iran's state broadcaster said on Wednesday.

"Iran Air has various plans to complete its fleet and is to buy five Tupolev 214 passenger planes," Managing Director Saeed Hessami was quoted as saying on the web site of state broadcaster IRIB.

"The deposit has been prepared for transfer to the (Ilyushin Finance) company and they (the aircraft) will gradually join the fleet," Hessami said without giving any financial details on the deal.

Hessami did not mention any other plans to buy Tupolev planes from Russia.

In Moscow on Monday, a source with knowledge of the deal said Iran had started talks to buy 30 Russian Tupolev 204 passenger aircraft worth more than USD$1 billion.

The source, who asked not to be identified, said the deal was likely to be reached by the end of the year.

Government-owned Iran Air operates a fleet of Boeing and Airbus planes, while its Iran Air Tours subsidiary flies Tupolev 154 planes. Iran's airline sector has been under US sanctions for almost three decades, preventing it from buying new US planes or spare parts.

So, what else you can do if you're under that circumstances.

Flying and Radiation Risk

High flying and radiation risk is not a new feared topic. Its been circulated in aviation world for a long time.
Physicist Calls for Airline Industry to Educate Workers about Radiation At the high altitudes and latitudes commercial airlines fly, crews are subjected to higher-than-normal radiation levels from the sun and cosmic rays.
Physicist Robert Barish believes airline crew members are exposing themselves to more radiation than almost any other occupation and is calling for the airline industry to better educate workers about radiation.
Most careers have an occupational hazard, but frequent fliers may be exposed to cosmic radiation and not even know it. We all know the risks when we fly, but one risk we don't know about comes from what's in the sky.
Captain Joyce May, a commercial airline pilot, says, "By the time you're at normal jet cruising altitude of, say, 39,000 feet, the total radiation is about 64 times greater than what it is at sea level." May fears fellow crewmembers and frequent business fliers don't know the risk of cosmic radiation from solar flares.
She says, "Aircrew members, by-and-large, are unaware of this issue."Robert Barish, physicist and author of "The Invisible Passenger: Radiation Risks For People Who Fly," says, "The sun is really a big thermo-nuclear device." Barish believes airline crewmembers are exposing themselves to more radiation than almost any other occupation. He says, "People who work in the nuclear power industry on an average basis are getting 1.6. There are people who fly in airplanes who are getting 2 or 3 or 4 milliSieverts per year.
So they are truly radiation workers."Everyone is exposed to some radiation every day. The sun constantly emits charged particles that intensify during solar flares. Normally, the earth's atmosphere absorbs much of this, but at the high altitudes and latitudes airliners fly, crews are subjected to higher radiation levels and possibly are at higher risk for developing cancer.
In Europe, it is mandatory flight crews be educated about cosmic radiation, but that's not the case in the United States. The risk is not the same for everyone. Casual fliers have nothing to worry about. Only people who fly at least once or twice a week.
This is a bad news for a commercial flight, but what about military, a fighter pilot sometimes fly at a high altitude without any cover, only wind shield!.

Aircraft , the collision to avoid

As global air traffic expands at record rates, experts warn that near misses on the ground at overcrowded airports are becoming one of the most serious safety concerns in civil aviation.

Remember this back in 1978, although this is not happen on the runway.
At nine o'clock on the morning of Monday, September 25, 1978, the skies of Southern California were a clear blue, the visibility conservatively estimated at ten miles. Yet before two minutes more had passed, one hundred and forty-four people were to die as a result of two aircraft colliding in mid-air.
The lessons learned that the primary cause of the disaster was that the Captain of PSA Flight 182 lost sight of the other aircraft and didn't clearly tell ATC that had done so.
The controllers failed to appreciate that PSA 182 lost sight of the Cessna, or even that there was some confusion as to its position. This should have been obivious from the radio transmission from the aircraft.
The possible presence of a third, unidentified and unauthorised aircraft may have confused the crew of PSA 182 as to the position of the Cessna.
ATC procedures were confused and poorly cor-ordinated allowing the controllers to authorise visual separation procedures when a radar service was available. This would have been safer, giving lateral and vertical separation between both aircraft.
The controller failed to advise Flight 182 as to the direction of movement of the Cessna.
The pilot of the Cessna didn't stay on his assigned heading, or inform the controller that he could not do so. Had he maintained this heading the collision not have taken place.
San Diego Approach Control failed to react to the conflict alert. No warning was passed to either pilot.
SDAC did not restrict Flight 182 to a minimum height of 4,000 feet while it was within the Montgomery Field traffic area. Had it done so the collision would not have occurred.

Until now more lesson to learn.
The danger arises when airports try to alleviate bottlenecks by adding runways. That leads to more taxiways intersecting the runways, raising the risk of accidental incursions — where an aircraft or vehicle becomes a collision hazard by venturing onto a runway being used for takeoffs and landings. "Runway incursions are right at the top of our agenda," said Gideon Ewers, spokesman for the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations.
"They are happening more and more frequently as air traffic increases and older airport designs struggle to cope. Of course most incursions pass without incident, but when they do occur the results are very bad indeed," Ewers said.
The deadliest disaster in aviation history occurred 30 years ago as a result of such an encroachment. The ground collision in 1977 between two fully loaded Boeing 747s in Spain's Canary Islands killed 583 people.
Since then, numerous such accidents have ended in tragedy and experts are now racing to develop systems to prevent even deadlier disasters.
According to Eurocontrol, an average of two incursions take place each day at Europe's 600 civil airports. And in the United States — where reporting standards are different — 182 incidents have been recorded so far in 2007, compared to 158 last year.
The most serious recent accident occurred on Oct. 8, 2001, when a Scandinavian Airline System MD-87 on takeoff smashed into a Cessna Citation which had encroached onto the runway. A total of 118 people died.
More frequent are close calls like one in July at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where two jets missed each other by less than 10 meters (30 feet). A United flight with 133 passengers on board missed a turn on the taxiway and entered an active runway where a Delta jet was about to land with 167 passengers.
"In an ideal world you'd have no runway crossings at all," said Paul Wilson, head of Airport Operations at Eurocontrol, Europe's air navigation agency. "But the reality is that as an airport becomes busier, it also introduces more sophisticated guidance systems and procedures to prevent runway incursions."
A Federal Aviation Administration study found that the well-designed Washington Dulles airport in the United States had only four incursions during the period from 1997 to 2000, compared to Los Angeles Airport with a complex layout of multiple intersecting runways and taxiways — which had 29 incursions.
Experts say that when the volume of traffic — projected to double over the next 10-15 years — is taken into account, the potential for near misses and fatal accidents is growing fast.
"It is a problem that affects just about every airport," Wilson said.
The international pilots' union blames poorly designed airports as the primary cause of incursions. High traffic density, complicated operational procedures, nonstandard markings, and poor comprehension of English among cockpit crew add to the risks.
Although low proficiency in English — the standard language of aviation — plays a major role, foreign pilots also complain that air traffic controllers in the United States contribute to the problem by using confusing abbreviations or long and complex instructions.
As a result, the FAA now requires U.S. controllers to provide clear and explicit taxiing instructions to pilots, including the exact route to their designated runway and not merely which runway to use.
In order to minimize future risks, Eurocontrol, FAA and other national air safety agencies are looking into using advanced runway incursion alert systems that detect potential collisions on runways and give advance warning to controllers and pilots.
One such system developed by the National Aerospace Laboratory in the Netherlands and used at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport alerts controllers to potential collisions by flashing labels on their radar screens together with audio signals. All aircraft and vehicle movements are depicted in real time on an airport map, unlike conventional radar which has a lag of several seconds.
And when Schiphol added a new, sixth runway, multiple runway crossings were specifically avoided, said Bert Ruitenberg, the airport's operational safety expert. Instead, taxiways to the new runway were built around the perimeter of existing runways.
In addition, red lights embedded in the tarmac prevent planes from entering an active runway. Ruitenberg said such stop lights should become standard airport equipment.
"At some airports expansion is driven just by capacity," Ruitenberg said. "But designers will find it is better to plan with safety in mind (because) this could avoid a lot of the problems that may occur afterward."

There is no doubt the dangers of flying is enormous, we as human being what we can do is to minimise all possibilities.

China 'on' for aircraft carrier

When you watch how aircraft (Picture Above the retired F-14 Tomcat coming in for a landing)land and take off from an aircraft carrier it's pretty amazing choreography. It's took a decades of experince to fully utilised it. It's more avident in US Navy, other than the others. At least eight other countries have one or two aircraft carriers, including India and Thailand.

China remains the only major global power without aircraft carriers in its fleet. For years, military leaders have weighed the pride that such vessels would bring the nation with the costs and complexity of operating the giant ships, continually postponing a decision.

But now public sentiment is running strongly in favor of launching a program to build aircraft carriers, and some military experts say construction may be inevitable China already has three decommissioned aircraft carriers, all bought from Russia . Military engineers dissected two to see how they worked, then moored them as tourist attractions. The third, the Varyag, is at a secret military base in Dalian , on the Yellow Sea.

Meanwhile, mystery surrounds the Varyag. The huge ship was only 70 percent built— still without engines or rudders— when China bought it for $20 million , far more than its scrap value. The vessel was towed from the Ukraine around the Cape of Good Hope, arriving in Dalian early in 2002. Some foreign experts say China is restoring the flight deck.

"I . . . believe the Varyag will serve as a transitional platform to train pilots and to perfect doctrine— both how to use a carrier and how to sink one," said Fisher, who's the vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Alexandria, Va .

A Hong Kong -based publication, Kanwa Asian Defence, reported in September that some Chinese-built J-10 fighters now carry tail hooks needed for carrier landings. Kanwa said China would wait until the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games had passed to announce its plans to build aircraft carriers "due to concerns over its international image

While Soviet studies of carrier aviaton were commenced as long ago as 1952. At the time of Korean war still raging. But by then, the west had four decades of experinece. Even today, a further five decades on, they have still not caught up. But the gap has closed enormously.
Soviet have a flight trials commenced on Tbilisi in 1989 with an Su-27 Flanker, MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-25 Frogfoot. All aircraft was extensively modified for the task.

Until now there is not much news off what really going on Soviet Navy. We haven't seen anything yet comparable to US Navy aircraft carrier or probably we won't.

USAF suspended F-15s flight

A well known McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle a front line fighter as it's known before acquired by Boeing is really a classic fighter. First flight 27 July 1972 and entered service in March 1974 in order to counter the emergence of the MiG-23 and MiG-25. Basically an old design of the 70's although always ugraded along with the development of latest radar, engine, missile system and avionics. Since it's replacement already in service that's Boeing F-22 Raptor. Now it's slowly phase out or upgraded and offer for sale to US allies.

The Air Force has suspended some F-15 flights, citing a possible structural failure discovered after one of the fighter jets crashed in central Missouri.
All "non-mission critical" flights were suspended Saturday, a day after the Missouri Air National Guard jet crashed in a wooded area about 120 miles southwest of St. Louis, the Air Force said in a release dated Sunday.

The pilot ejected and was released from a hospital Saturday after treatment for a dislocated shoulder, broken arm and minor cuts. No one else was hurt.
The Air Force described the grounding as a precaution, but said preliminary findings indicate the aircraft may have suffered a structural failure. It did not elaborate, saying the crash remains under investigation.

The Air Force said more than 700 F-15s are in its worldwide inventory, although they are being replaced by the F-22 Raptor. They have been in use since the mid-1970s.
The Air Force said it will ensure that mission requirements are met for operations normally accomplished by the fighter. F-15s fly from bases in the U.S., England, Japan and the Middle East.

Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Bentley said Monday the F-15s will remain available for combat or anything requiring a combat response such as a terrorist attack, but otherwise they're grounded indefinitely.

"It's not a decision made lightly," Bentley said. "Until we can find out what the problem is, it's the safest thing to do."

Bentley would not speculate on how long the grounding would last.

Col. Robert Leeker, commander of the 131st Fighter Wing, said Friday the single-seat F15C Eagle that crashed had been engaged in one-on-one training fights, in which speeds of 400 to 450 mph are typical. There was no contact between the plane and its partner in the mock fight. The crashed plane was built in 1980.

The crash of an airplanes usually not depend whether it's new or old work horse, although old plane usually comprises of multitude of reason for failure, some time it's depend on luck either.

Low Cost fare that not really low

Around Europe cheap flights have transformed the continent's travel, and a rise in tourism has been seen. Nowhere in Europe has this been more important than the United Kindom, an island nation.

But now the writing is on the wall for low cost airlines operating out of the UK and other European countries as the Conservative Party - once a campaigner and implementer of lower taxes - has called for purchase tax to be introduced to domestic flights.

The tax would add up to 17.5 per cent on to the cost of a flight from one British city to another, but while flights to the European mainland and popular holiday islands such as Menorca aren't specifically mentioned, one travel company believes the new policy will inevitably lead to higher fares for flights not just within Britain, but elsewhere too.

Around Asia although cheap flight is not really cheap after all, after all kind of taxs that's usually won't be mentioned on the fares along with transport charges to the airport 50 miles away from city then the fares thats 9.99 (9.99 is a booking fares, not a normal fares that usually cost more)would than become 50.00 or more.

By the way low cost airlines boom still going on by intoducing new planes and new route, like the new Airasia (Picture Above New Airbus A320) KL-Singapore route, the most controversial route that at last open to them after years of lobby to the Malaysian Goverment,to be fair Firefly the low cost airlines, subsidiary of MAS now is allowed too.

Although what happen elsewhere might effected Asian Airlines industries along with oil price increasing and the hope to see totally low cost fares is there remain to been seen next year.

Aircraft and Luxury Stuff

How is it like to fly in the latest Airbus A380?. With luxury class that you can be sealed in your own private compartment to your own device, watching movies and listen to music, with luxury foods and drink. Is it to much comfort for the passenger?. Whatever happen to the 'feel' of you flying and watching the clouds and 'earth' scenery out of the windows. Well I'll think all this has been 'asked' for in airlines survey with their passenger. For the businessman or businesswomen that flying are all just a norm for them, there is not much to shout about it and privacy is a must, I think. With much 'relax' needed to avoid flight fatigue for next stop over, who else to be blame for so much 'luxury' the airlines can afford to offer them and no wonder passenger willing to pay for it. How far they can go?.

Okay in another scenerio, that off course it won't be happen, I'll think, let say if a fighter pilot demand the same thing, for their long journey in a mission they wanted a fighter with bigger cockpit to stretch their leg, with flight service food and drink. Listen to music and watch a movie, while autopilot take over toward pre-determined coordinates. Is it wonderful, isn't it. Lol..we can only dream or probably maybe in the future there will be one. Or probably not, just send the 'Drone' much more cost effective and less human life to spared.

For me I never fly before, so for my first flying maybe I like to be seated near the window and watch clouds passed by and see the land below become a lying carpet until they gone out of sight.

New Plane and Old Plane Crash

How modern the fighter aircraft is, it won't stop it from crashing that's a fact and also small Cessna that supposed to be safest light plane still crash although a 3 years old child did escaped from it. So here's what happen.

A Japanese fighter jet crashed an instant after takeoff and went up in flames on Wednesday and lightly injuring the two pilots.

The F-2B fighter,two seated version (Above Picture) a new Japanese fighter aircraft that design with a collaboration of Mitsubishi and Lockheed, no wonder its appeared more like Lockheed F-16 Falcon was being taken up on a test flight prior to delivery to Japan's air force when it crashed, said Hideo Ikuno, a spokesman for the Daiya public relations firm representing the plane's maker, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
Mitsubishi had been conducting a regular inspection on the aircraft for the air force, top government spokesman Nobutaka Machimura said. The pilot appears to have aborted the takeoff, but the reason for this is not yet clear, he said.

Wednesday's accident was the first involving an F-2 fighter since Japan's air force began deploying them in 2000, air force spokesman 1st Lt. Yuki Shiiba said.
A total of 75 F-2s, including the one involved in Wednesday's mishap, have been deployed so far, he said.

The F-2 is Japan's operational support fighter.

While a Light airplane a Cessna 172 (Example Picture Above, not actual airplane that's invlove in the crash)carrying 3 passengers crash in Canada's Rocky Mountains. A THREE-YEAR-OLD girl survived and found hanging upside down in a safety seat for four hours before being rescued. She lost her grandfather who operated the Cessna 172 and also the co-pilot when the plane slammed into a icy creek bed, nose first.

When rescuers finally reached her in the treacherous mountain terrain, she told them her name, Kate Williams, and asked for her teddy bear, said the daily Globe and Mail.

"I had to brush off the teddy bear before she would take it."

Authorities said the 65-year-old pilot had left his home in Golden, British Columbia, on Sunday afternoon en route to Edmonton, Alberta, where he owned an engineering company.

An hour later, the aircraft began transmitting a distress signal.

Bad weather complicated the search, but a rescue helicopter finally landed on a nearby logging road just before nightfall, and rescuers seized her from the carnage.
The little girl was hospitalised overnight, and discharged late yesterday.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Sergeant Marko Shehovac said it was a “miracle” the little girl survived the crash.

Her grandfather likely saved her life by “buckling her in real good,” he said.

Yes, it's really a miracle for her to survived the crash although she lost he grandpa and another pilot. While the two pilot in the fighter jet are lucky because modern jet equipped with injection seat, that's probably save them.

Jet...New Big Boys Toys?

Are you rich and love big boys toys?. Rich guy owing a supercars is a norm this day. Then if you are aviation buff like John Travolta and can spend your millions on private aircraft, ex-military jet or executive jet or light propeller aircraft then so be it.

Now day if you can't spend million on jet then you can buy propeller type kit aircraft or cheaper used plane.
But if you like an aircraft like in the science fiction movie that do V/STOL than you can owned a Volantor. Built by Moller Technology, depending on the number of orders received, the prices could vary between $90,000 for the M200G (Picture Above) to $450,000 for the Firefly 3. It's also potential for military and/or para-military used.

If you can splashed millions than take a peek on F-16 or F-18 feel and look good alike, that is ATG Javelin (Picture Above) price around $3 million each.

This is what their ads said.

"Designed to Turn Heads, Built to Perform.
The way a high performance sports car awakens your passion for driving, the Javelin ignites your fervor for flying. Leading the new generation of general aviation aircraft, the Javelin is built to perform, engineered to exhilarate, and designed to handle with ease. Like no other aircraft in today’s market, the Javelin is the complete package, guaranteeing an arrival in unparalleled style.
Whether you’re a business executive, experienced pilot, or aviation enthusiast; the Javelin is the solution when “time is money.” With dual controls in pressurized comfort, the Javelin caters to pilots who love to fly fast and passengers who love to ride in luxury."

A 37ft in length, 25.1 ft wing span and 10.5 ft height a dimension more or less equaled to the 1954 small and agile famous British design by Folland Aircraft known as 'Midge' than later known as Gnat. Served in RAF, IAF and Finnish airforce.

The glaring differences between Javelin and Gnat is that, Javelin is twin engine (possible by small missile engine technology available today) and twin canted vertical tails and also twin tandem seated. Moreover Javelin is built with a new technology for a possible safest flight,with a "glass cockpit"and composite material.

Regards to a performance, Javelin cruise speed they called it, is 925 km/hr while Gnat max speed is 1150km/hr. Range, Javelin is about 1,852 km while Gnat max range 1,900km.

So, small jets is not a new offering its started long ago only now it's open to public to buy, thats if you're a millionaire so its really good news for you...erm..again ..unless you're a milloinaire.

'Unlucky' Bombardier goes on

It's a third time Dash 8 Q400 aircraft involved in incidents that take its reputation away. Canadian aircraft maker Bombardier who acquired the de Havilland Canada and Canadair long time ago said Sunday its was "disappointed" with a decision by Scandinavian Airlines Systems to permanently discontinue flight operations with the Bombardier Q400 aircraft. SAS announced the decision earlier Sunday following a series of incidents involving the plane's landing gear.
On Saturday, Danish civil aviation grounded all Dash 8 Q400 planes in the SAS fleet after one made an emergency landing at Copenhagen airport. None of the 44 passengers and crew on board were injured.
According to Danish police cited by Ritzau news agency, the landing gear in the plane's right wing failed to deploy.
It was the latest in a string of incidents involving the aircraft which carries around 70 passengers and is manufactured by Bombardier of Canada.
On September 12, SAS grounded its entire fleet of 8 Q400s after two planes' landing gears failed in separate incidents.
But it Bombardier said it did not believe the plane's landing gear was defective.
It said the company and the landing gear manufacturer, Goodrich, "have completed a full review of the Q400 turboprop landing gear system and results have confirmed its safe design and operational integrity."
"Bombardier stands behind the Q400 aircraft," the statement went on to say. "Since entering revenue service in February 2000, the Q400 turboprop has proven itself to be a safe and reliable aircraft with over 150 Q400 aircraft in operation among 22 operators around the world."
It's well known that long time ago de Havilland Canada produced the Dash familiy of aircraft along the military version. I'm still remembered how the Test Pilot crash the Dash 7 or 8 while executing a STOL landing, the video of the crash still around in the net. The military version since 60's the Caribou and Buffalo is a work horse of certain air force, but like USAF and RMAF they retired it after several crash.
I'll think because of this tarnished reputation operators shy away from Bombardier aircraft more like shyness away from Russian Antonov aircraft. As example, Malaysian Firefly low cost subsidiary of MAS could purchase Bombardier aircraft instead opt to ATR72-500s to replaced its aging fleet of Fokker 50. Come 2008, 10 brand new 72 seats ATR72-500s model airplanes will be joining his existing fleet.

Super Jumbo And the Space Race

At last the historical flight of the world's biggest jumbo jet landed safely in Sydney on Thursday, completing its long-delayed first commercial flight from Singapore.

The double-decker A380 emerged from low-lying cloud and flew across Sydney's famous harbor before touching down on time, a contrast to two years of delays which pushed its manufacturer Airbus into a loss.

Watched by hundreds of airport staff and aviation enthusiasts lining fences outside the airport, passengers on the inaugural Singapore Airlines (SIA) flight disembarked without a hitch.

The wet Sydney afternoon did nothing to dampen passengers' enthusiasm.

"It was just an incredible flight. The people onboard really turned it into a party," said passenger Ross Greenwood, a journalist for Australia's Channel Nine television network.

"The food was luxurious in first class, but even those people in economy were fed fillet of beef and it was beautiful," he said. "The aircraft is incredibly quiet and spacious."

Passengers paid between $560 and $100,380 for seats on the inaugural flight, after bidding for the tickets as part of a charity auction to drum up publicity.

During the flight, first-class passengers reclined in suites modeled on luxury yacht interiors and slumbered in proper beds which the airline said can be converted into doubles.

French design house Givenchy designed the bedding, while passengers ate off fine bone chinaware and drank from crystal glasses bought in by the same designer.

The A380 can seat more than 800 passengers although Singapore Airlines, the first airline to take delivery of the plane, has configured the aircraft to seat 470 over two decks, hoping to attract more top-paying passengers.

It replaces the Boeing 747 jumbo as the world's largest airliner in service.

Hundreds of airport staff and passengers armed with camera phones earlier watched the take-off from Singapore.

"I'm a big airplane freak and I love everything about planes," said Ernest Graaff, an A380 passenger as he waited to board the jet among beaming SIA flight attendants.

Graaff paid $40,000 for two business-class tickets on the jet. "I'm excited about being a part of history."

The aircraft will return to Singapore on Friday.

Airbus handed the superjumbo to SIA earlier this month after wiring glitches caused two years of delays, pushed the planemaker into a loss and leading to the loss of 10,000 jobs.

SIA is to take delivery of another five A380s in 2008. The airline plans to introduce the A380 on long-haul flights to London, Tokyo and San Francisco from early 2008


At the same week China launched its first lunar probe on Wednesday, the first step in an ambitious 10-year plan to send a rover to the moon and return it to earth.

State television showed pictures of the Chang'e 1 orbiter taking off with a trail of smoke from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in Sichuan province in southwestern China.

The launch comes just weeks after China's regional rival Japan put a probe into orbit around the moon in a big leap forward for Asia's undeclared space race. India is likely to join the regional rivalry soon, with plans to send its own lunar probe into space in April.

The Long March 3A rocket carrying the probe blasted off shortly after 6 p.m. (1000 GMT) after officials from the China National Space Administration said weather conditions were good for a lift off. Watch the rocket launch »

Several thousand people living within 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the launch center and under the rocket's trajectory were evacuated two hours before the launch, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

More than 2,000 tourists were also on hand to watch the rocket soar into space after paying 800 yuan ($106).

The Chang'e 1, named after a mythical Chinese goddess who flew to the moon, will orbit Earth while technical adjustments are made, and will enter the moon's orbit by Nov. 5, administration spokesman Li Guoping said when the launch plans were announced Monday.

The project's goal is to analyze the chemical and mineral composition of the lunar surface. The probe will use stereo cameras and X-ray spectrometers to map three-dimensional images of the surface, and to study the moon's dust.

The 2,300-kilogram (5,070-pound) Chang'e 1 is expected to transmit its first photo back to China in late November, and to conduct explorations of the moon for a year.

The launch marks the first step of a three-stage moon mission. In about 2012 there will be a moon landing with a moon rover. In the third phase about five years later, another rover will land on the moon and be returned to earth with lunar soil and stone samples, Xinhua said.

In 2003, China became only the third country in the world after the United States and Russia to put its own astronauts into space.

But China also alarmed the international community in January when it blasted an old satellite into oblivion with a land-based anti-satellite missile.

The Long March rocket had a drawing on it of a moon with an eclipse which was also designed to look like a dragon. "China Moon Probe" was written in Chinese on the rocket.

A government official said last week China hopes to join an international space station project that already counts leading space powers like the United States and Russia as its members.

China does not participate in the International Space Station, due in part to American unease about allowing a communist dictatorship a place aboard.


The space station's first section was launched in 1998 and it has been inhabited continuously since 2000 by Russian, U.S. and European crew mates.

Japan's space agency said nearly two weeks ago that its lunar probe was in high orbit over the moon and all was going well as it began a yearlong project to map and study the lunar surface.

So the space race is begining to step up.

Sukhoi Super Jet: the great white hope of the Russian aircraft industry?

Russia's civilian aircraft industry collapsed with much of the rest of its economy after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Now, the country is hoping to gain a foothold on the global market for short-haul passenger aircraft, competing with the industry's two current titans, Canada's Bombardier and Brazil's Embraer.
Of all the projects it has to choose from, the Russian government has opted to finance the Sukhoi Super Jet (SSJ)-100 program. The United Aircraft Corporation, which brings together all Russia's aviation production facilities, plans to start mass producing SSJ-100 planes in the next three years.
On July 10, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) approved a low-interest credit line to assist the Sukhoi Civil Aircraft company in implementing the SSJ-100 program.
The project has attracted so much interest partly because the SSJ-100 could be used to promote other Russian aircraft on the global market.
Short-haul airliners seating up to 100 passengers are the most competitive and promising segment of the Russian aircraft industry, because only Bombardier and Embraer can compete with local producers on the country's domestic market. Russian companies, however, are still far behind their rivals on the international market.
This can primarily be explained by the fact that foreign customers simply do not like Russian airliners. Consequently, the Tupolev Tu-334 and Antonov An-148 planes, which were tested and certified long ago and can now be mass-produced, are still ordered only by Russian airlines and by Iran, which requires aircraft that do not have U.S.-made components.
However, the SSJ-100, which is being developed by Sukhoi Civil Aircraft in conjunction with foreign parts suppliers, could change the situation overnight. The American company B/E Aerospace will provide world-class interiors. The joint venture PowerJet, involving France's Snecma Moteurs, is developing the SSJ-100's engines. And U.S. aviation giant Boeing is providing technical consulting services.
Another joint venture involving Italian aerospace giant Finmeccanica, due to be established on July 15, will sell the new airliner on the European market and will also provide post-sale support.
The SSJ-100 represents an important step forward for the Russian aircraft industry because it is the country's first "post-Soviet" plane. The participation in the project of so many well-known foreign companies should give investors confidence in its success.
Most importantly, the complete transparency of this $1.4 billion program has given investors the needed insight into its financial aspects. The Russian government will provide about 8.7 billion rubles (about 247.8 million euros at the current exchange rate), and the EBRD will allocate 100 million euros in the next 10 years. Alenia Aeronautica, a Finmeccanica subsidiary, will buy a 25% stake plus one share in Sukhoi Civil Aircraft, and the Italian partner has convinced the national carrier, Alitalia, to buy 10 SSJ-100s.
It is hardly surprising that the government is betting on the SSJ-100. The United Aircraft Corporation, which is concentrating its efforts on this project, has put off the production of An-148 planes, and the Tu-334 will be mass-produced only if there is sufficient domestic demand.
Although Aeroflot Russian Airlines, the country's state-controlled flag carrier, has ordered 45 SSJ-100s, and the first deliveries are scheduled for 2008, their prototypes remain grounded. However, static tests of the SSJ-100's airframe began on July 9.
Russia's Dalavia airline, its leasing company Ilyushin Finance and Alitalia have ordered six, 10 and 10, respectively, of the SSJ-100-95, which seats 95 passengers. This is the most popular version of the Super Jet even though, with a price tag of $25-$28 million, it is also the most expensive. This makes for a total of 71 orders for SSJ-100s. Ten and 25 planes will be delivered in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and the rest will arrive in 2010.
In addition to those mentioned above, 29 more planes may be ordered soon. The United Aircraft Corporation expects other European airlines to follow Alitalia's lead and to order $2 billion worth of SSJ-100s by 2015. The success of the new airliner could pave the way for other Russian planes to enter the global market.
Will all this will worked, concerning Sukhoi compared to Antonov or Tupolev doesn't have an
experience in commercial jet production. Only time will tell.

Whats Russian up to?

"On Oct 18 2007 India and Russia signed a landmark Intergovernmental Agreement for the joint development and joint production of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), marking the beginning of cooperation in the development of state of the art new technology major weapon systems. The agreement was signed by the Secretary Defence Production Mr KP Singh and Deputy Director of the Federal Service for Foreign Military Cooperation Mr. Vyacheslav Dzirkaln in the presence of the Defence Minister Mr. AK Antony and his Russian counterpart Mr. Anatoly Serdyukov in Moscow today. The watershed agreement was signed at the conclusion of the Seventh Meeting of the India- Russia Intergovernmental Commission for Military and Technical Cooperation. Mr Antony and Mr Serdyukov also signed a Protocol which envisages a ‘new strategic relationship’ based on greater interaction at various operational levels.
Speaking to reporters shortly after the signing ceremony, Mr Antony said the two countries have agreed to strengthen and expand relations in all areas especially in the areas of joint exercises and greater cooperation in the field of Research and Development. Now the frequency and level of exercises will be higher, Mr. Antony said. He said talks with Russia have started to extend the Military Cooperation Agreement beyond 2010. The pact had been signed during the Russian President Mr. Vladimir Putin’s visit to India in 2000.
The Defence Minister described the Agreement on FGFA as a ‘major landmark’ and said that the Indo-Russian relationship is on a trajectory to reach new heights. He hoped that the two countries would soon sign an Intergovernmental Agreement on co-development and co-production of Multi-Role Transport Aircraft. Mr. Antony expressed satisfaction at the outcome of discussions on other important projects e.g., supply and licensed production of T-90 tanks, SU-30 MKI aircraft and other strategic issues. He admitted that there has been a delay in the delivery of the repaired and refurbished aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov along with supply of deck-based fighter aircraft MiG-29-K and said it was decided that some more studies by technical groups would be done to go through the details. He appreciated the efforts made by the Russian side to resolve issues relating to life cycle support of equipment of Russian origin.
On the question of Integrity Pact, he said, the objective is neither to create problems for anybody nor to favour anybody. What India wants is transparency in all defence purchases. In the past, there have been a lot of controversies. We want to avoid it. We want speedy modernisation but with transparency.Integrity Pact is one of the safeguards for transparency."

One question still lingering around if you look into Russian current inventory list there is no latest fighter aircraft around compared to western conterpart. Almost all new Russian fighter either a rebuilt or redesignates with new identification. As example Su-27 has been rebuilt, refitted with new avionic and altered design and coded as Su-30 or something else. Same to the Mig-29 Families of aircraft. If you looked to France there is a Rafale, if you looked into other European tri-nation collaboration there is Eurofighter "Typhoon" and Sweden with Saab Gripen and off course US F-22 Raptor. All now in service with the respected country.

Actually we have seen Russian prototype fighter SU-37 Berkut and Mig-1.42 (Above photo) in the making but none gone into full production. I'll think the best way for Russian will be collaboration with other country, like India or why don't they just copied other design like F-22 Raptor. Remember the famous AN-72 Coaler having a similar concept to the Boeing C-14. Russian will be left behind in stealth technology or similar technolgy or maybe the up to something behind the veil or are they? ...naah

Remember the Malaysian Cosmonaut that has been making headlines in their country, because the government concern regarding the redicule alleged tourist cosmonaut by certain quarters, the goverment taking step by asking Russian to gave official Cosmonaut title to him. For me whatever happen he still consider 'tourist', but the Cosmonaut title is stuck to him he still call Cosmonaut isn't it? ( The person who has been to space is call Astronaut or Cosmonaut- be it as tourist, commercial purpose or military).

Extravagant and Unnecessary?

I'm backed. The controversial questions asked upon the Indian Su-30 contract, when IAF received their first eight aircraft worth $375 million - out of the $1.8 billion contract for 40 Sukhoi Su-30MKI arrived in Pune in June 1997. Besides being the largest arms deal ever, the schedule for delivery and modification of the Su-30s is the most complex in aviation history. The last aircraft upgraded from the aircraft defence variant Su-30 converted to multi-role Su-30MKI will be returned by Russia in 2007- that is 11 years after the contract was signed in frantic haste! (contract signed in 1996). This is the first time India has purchased a product not already in use in the country of origin. Well, whatever reason behind the purchase, its must be a strong and legitimate one. For me if its for a defence of your motherland we must supported it.

Well, what about sending man to space?. No body care to question it. A couple of day ago Malaysian send their first man to space with Russian spacecraft along with a female US Nasa's ISS commander and Russian, which will make a trip to the ISS station and return on Oct 21.
Who was the very first Southeast Asian in space? -- The first Southeast Asian AND the very first ASIAN in space is Phạm Tuân of Vietnam. He was launched to orbit on 23 July 1980 and stayed there for 7 days 20 hrs 42 mins and completed 142 orbits.Sending man to space is not a 'free' fanfare, well I don't know how much money involved either. For me its a waste of funds. What is it we trying to accomplished, beside name that others haven't accomplished yet?. Every day on TV, a news of poor people appeared, living in filthy shack without proper foods and amenity. I didn't opposed development but its must be parallel with humanity, moreover the money we spend for this space fanfare could be spend to eradicate poverty.

Singapore Airline's Airbus A380, the world's largest and most modern jetliner, arrived Wednesday in its new home, ahead of a historic flight next week that its makers say will redefine luxury in the air. This is the most anticipated event this century in aviation," said Bey Soon Khiang, a senior executive vice president of the airline. "A380 is a game-change. This week the game changes."Well, what are they doing is for goodness of their business. I can't blamed them, in order to compete in airlines business you must out manouvre you competitior before they do. So I can't say that what are they doing is extravagant and unnecessary. You'll be the judge then.

Dark grey anyone?

Is it for aesthetic or there is other significant reason for it. Some fighter aircraft or special operation purpose aircraft spotted a dark grey or matte black camouflage.

The well known Stealth aircraft F-117A spotted with black finished because its has to operated in total darkness and its suitable for that purpose because its more a bomber than a fighter. Moreover it is covered by some kind of material known as 'RAM' or radar absorbing material.
On special operation aircraft like MC-130E Hercules. Its having a black finish over all but the upper surfaces. All serves two purposes; first to absorb radar signals and second to reduce visual acquistion during the highly classified missions during the night.

Aha..Here come the puzzling part, are they really exits; paint that absorbed radar signature or what ever. Probably its exits, then why certained aircraft having a dark grey paint although they served more on daylight. For example certain F-15C having dark grey while some lighter. The famous F-15E having dark grey overall, they served at night and daylight.

More puzzling the RMAF MiG-29N when first delivered having a Russian air superiority camouflage the light grey and lightgreen, then after.. I don't know what probably after gone servicing by ATSC the company who handled maintenance of MiG aircraft in this region, it gone wild spotted dark grey like F-15E. So is there any purposes of it? MiG-29N is a fighter like the Russian counterpart, but the Russian never ( haven't seeing theirs in dark grey yet) done it. Light grey supposed to protect aircraft from preying eyes in the event of dogfight. Light grey tend to blended well with clouds and sky, proven by the British aircraft researcher, or is it some kind of radar absorbing paint that they applied on it?, then where can you get one?

I'll be going for holiday for a couple of day, will see you then.

Russian aircraft and VTOL story

Last week the unfortunate crash of Antonov AN-24 a twin engine regional turboprop aircraft in Africa brings back a memory of what I read in Times Magazine about Russian aircraft, by the way AN-24 prototype first flew in 1960. I can't remembered the magazine exact published date or year, probably in cold war era. An interview by Times reporter with Russian Officer, he cited and analogy between Russian and American aircraft. He said Russian aircraft is like Mickey Mouse toys when broken just fixed it, its will good as new but American aircraft like an expensive watch when broken can't be repaired, just throw away. Usually you'll see how Russian fighter appears to be a robust and well-used aircraft in that era even today itself. Paint chipped up there and here, if you looked into old Mig-23 aircraft cockpit you can see wire running there and here. Sorry, I'm not belittled Russian aircraft they are great and different. Regards to the analogy I'm really disagree with it.

Buying Russian aircraft will posed a quite problematic venture itself. Let see the example what happen to Indian and Malaysian airforce. The IAF SU-30 MKI has to fixed with Israeli avonics etc. While RMAF SU-30 MKM has to be fixed with western avionics. I'll think all because of language barrier or inferior Russian avionics quality, I dunno you decide. I still remembered in a movie "Firefox" starring Clint Eastwood how he has to operate the imaginary MiG-35 Firefox "brain taught" missile system, he has to think in Russian.

In my last post how we thrill with a news that at last V-22 Osprey will see some action. Okay, VTOL aircraft race begin after world war II, thats early 1950. Rolls-Royce with his Flying Bedstead had shown that it was possible for an aircraft to lift off, hover and land using combination of carefully positioned jet exhausts and automatic stabilising systems. While a number early prototype emerged in the mid to late 1950s.
One of them Bell XV-3 using a rotor engines, depended entirely on ground effect for hovering.
The most practical but a clumsy aircraft to fly is British Fairey Rotodyne, which was called a 'compound helicopter' rather than a VTOL aircraft. Although the interest is strong in the aircraft, unfortunately the project was allowed to wither and die.
In 1959 Hiller X-18 , was deemed to dengerous to attempt to put through the transition test, while the earlier Boeing Vertol VZ-2 had showed up the inherent drawback with the basic concept: the wing,when turned up for the hover, acted like a sail , and the aircraft was extremely vulnerable to even the slightest gusts of wind.
Then come the Ryan XV-5A and 5B prototypes attempted powering three fans in the wings and fuselage from two mid-wing turbojets. The XV-5s killed three test pilots before the project itself was declared dead.
In 1962 Lockheed XV-4A Hummingbird was fitted with four lift engines poured jet exhausts over the upper surface of its wing from ducts in the fuselage. The additional airflow would then virtually suck the plane off the ground. Laboratory tests on the models had shown that the technique works, but it failed at full scale .
One of the earliest 'flat-risers', the Bell X-14 utilised a large wing flap to deflect air downwards, control being archeived in the hover by small jets a the the extremities of the aircraft.
Avro Canada VZ-9AV prototype for the US Navy is among the famous when it was declassified, was seized on by the UFO brigade as certain proof of government cover-ups, extra-terrestrial conspiracies and similar strangness. A flying saucer powered by a fan and direct exhaust from three turbojets, which was intended to cruise at 300 knots at 30,000 ft.
The most successful development of the Rolls-Royce concept started with the British Short SC.1, which first hovered in 1958 under the power of four RR RB 108 engines.
The French Dassault Balzac, which flew in 1962 with eight RB108s to lift it and Bristol-Siddeley Orpheus for cruising. A massive drag developed through the lift engines, misjudgement during transition actually stalled the planed, seesawed to the ground like an autumn leaf, killing the pilot. The Balzac successor, Dassault's Mirage IIIV, featured eight more powerful RB 162 lift engines and Pratt & Whitney turbofan that with an afterburner powered it up to Mach 2. This Plane destroyed by a visiting USAF pilot whose attempt at a hover turned into a hard landing.
While the German Focke-Wulf with VJ-101 were powered by swivelling life/thrust engine mounted on the wingtips, and were fitted with auxiliary fuselage-mounted lift engines. Yet its another painfully hard landing demonstrated the inherent danger of the multiple-engine concept. Another German VTOL system seemed to work is Dorneir DO31. First flying in early 1967, having two directable-thrust Bristol Pegasus 5 engines in underwing pods, and four Rolls Royce RB.162 lift engines on each wing tips. The Dornier handled well and had plenty of tolerance in its translation point, as well as a simple control system for the pilot. Despite its promise , the project for 100 seats DO 123 lapsed, and the prototype is grounded in Museum. DO 31 was one of the few VTOL research planes that didn't crash and kill its fliers.
Beside the whole western prototype there is not much news from Soviets' designer, although we know thats there are only few operational VTOL aircraft in the world YAK-36 'Forger', YAK-38, YAK-41 'Freestyle and the only one British BAe Harrier.
As I said before we looking forward for next operational aircraft JSF Stealth Fighter F-35.

VTOL the most sought after

Well last few week is really breaking story regarding VTOL aircraft. That "Vertical or short takeoff and landing", hence VTOIL. This characteristic on aircraft has been sought as early 1950s.

The famous Osprey V-22 aircraft finally got to see an action in Iraq amid the controversy .

Bellow is an interesting excerpt that I found from posting in craigslist.org.

QUESTION: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE?

The Osprey V-22 aircraft was designed to maneuver like a helicopter, while flying as fast as a plane.

The Osprey V-22 aircraft cannot maneuver as well as a helicopter or fly as fast as a plane.

Boeing & Bell failed to deliver 1,000 Ospreys in under 10 years as stipulated in their contract with the Pentagon.

It took Boeing & Bell 25 years to deliver less than 500 Ospreys at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of $55 BILLION.

Prior to being depolyed, the Osprey aircraft has already KILLED 30 MEN.

The Osprey has NO FRONT GUN to provide cover on approach landing.

After spending $45 MILLION redesigning Osprey to accommodate a front gun, the Pentagon cancelled the plan.

The Pentagon's top aviation consultants have little confidence in the Osprey.

After 12 years and $13 BILLION spent, NOT ONE Osprey was battle ready.

The Pentagon abandoned the Osprey project in 1983.

In 1991 an Osprey crashed during take off.

In 1992 a SECOND SPREY CRASH killed SEVEN more MEN.

23 MARINES WERE KILLED in Osprey crashes in 2000.

Pilots were told to fly Osprey “less aggressively” so that flaws would not be detected.

Ospreys create a dangerous DUST STORM when landing in places like Iraq with desert terrain.

The Osprey’s rotors, designed to “auto-rotate” for “soft” emergency landings, CANNOT AUTO-ROTATE.

Emergency landings are treacherous since Ospreys can't glide like planes or hover like helicopters.

Our brave military men and women will die due to the Pentagon’s mismanagement and lowered expectations.

The Pentagon and Boeing and Bell have spent no less than 25 years trying to design and build the Osprey.

War profiteers Bell Helicopter and Boeing have made BILLIONS from their failed efforts.

The Osprey demonstrates the extreme level of dysfunction and corruption in our government.

The Osprey V-22 is another politically driven Pentagon fiasco, will be in Iraq next week.

The Osprey V-22 exposes the life threatening compromises that are made when narrow interests collide with common sense and

The Osprey V-22 shows how our government fails at its most significant task, by placing in jeopardy those we count on to protect us.

Osprey is another example of how defense contractors bribe Pentagon generals and or civilian leaders to keep a worthless program alive and should be investigated by Congress.

Pentagon efficiency is of little concern to lawmakers: "Almost every program the U.S. military is now buying takes longer to develop, costs more than predicted and usually doesn't meet the original specifications and requirements," says Gordon Adams, who oversaw military spending for the Office of Management and Budget.

The U.S. spends over $750 BILLION a year on defense programs and war. Crooked congressmen who took money from Bell Helicopter, Boeing and 2,000 suppliers created the Tilt-Rotor Technology Coalition to keep the dying project alive. All of these congressman should be investigated and tried in a court of law.

Aviation expert Rex Rivolo, who called the decision to deploy Osprey in Iraq "unconscionable" in a confidential 2003 Pentagon report, is afraid to be interviewed.

"In simulations," the Osprey flight manual warns, "the outcome of (emergency) landings varied widely due to the extreme sensitivity to pilot technique and timing."

The director of the Pentagon's testing office stated in a 2005 report stated that emergency landings below 1,600 ft. "are not likely to be survivable."

Sending the V 22 into combat armed with ONE TINY gun that points backward is, to put it quite simply, criminal.

The Pentagon website falsely claims that the Osprey "will be the weapon of choice for the full spectrum of combat."

10 Ospreys are going to war in October each with one TINY rear mounted 7.62 mm gun that fires when it’s too late. The gun's rounds are about the same size as a .30-06 hunting rifle's, and it is capable of firing only where the V 22 has been — not where it's going — and only when the ramp used by Marines to get on and off the aircraft is lowered.

In March 2006 an Osprey actually took off on its own with three people aboard and flew for 3 seconds. After crashing from an altitude of just 6 feet, the Osprey lost its right wing and suffered more than $1 million in damage.

A flawed computer chip that could have led to crashes forced a V 22 grounding in February 2007.

Bad switches that could have doomed the aircraft surfaced in June 2007.

In March 2007 the Government Accountability Office warned that V 22s have “serious defects."

An internal Pentagon memo warned in June that serious and persistent reliability issues could "significantly" reduce the aircraft's anticipated role in Iraq.

The Osprey has been compared to the Harrier jump jets, which crashed 143 times killing 45 troops. The difference between the two aircrafts is that a) each Harrier carried ONE PILOT in an EJECTION SEAT with a PARACHUTE and Ospreys carries 26 TROOPS with NO ejection seats — and NO PARACHUTES!

The .... administration is fully that Osprey is an unsafe and unpractical combat aircraft.

The .... adminstration does not care about the safety of our troops. No body armor. No up armored humvees. No anti RPG devices for our tanks. No defined mission. No exit strategy. And now...the OSPREY!

ANSWER: All of the above statements are true.
(For a Record:-This is from American citizen point of view and not mine)

By the way Boeing/Bell should be commended for V-22 Osprey effort, since somebody have to investigate by any mean of available technology and perfected it.

About few month ago RMAF Sikorsky S-61A Helicopter crash near Karak Genting rainforest,and the setup incident committe just released the result of the crash. Its seem that its a pilot error rather than mechanical failure, the pilot flew too low because of the weather and swoop the rainforest canopy. For a record this Heli been in service since 1968, so now RMAF sought for its replacement. What a relief.

So people still looking for an aircraft "or" worthy of it like seeing in movie like StarWars-The Clone war, where it's land anywhere in battle with ease. The coming JSF Stealth Fighter F-35 is next candidate to roll on.

Like another nation aircraft dream come true

Last week Iran announced that they successfully test their first indigenous fighter aircraft
dubbed "Saegheh". The model is said to be similar to the US F-18 fighter plane -- and Iranian experts say it is more powerful. But from the photograph it is more like Nothrop F-5e
been heavily modified. Alltogether its not a really bad effort consider Iran under heavy
sanction worldwide. Hope they'll succeed.
Although not first in Asia. If not mistaken the first indigenous fighter aircraft intirely made in Asia went way back to 1958, thats by Hindustan Aeronautics, India. Hindustan HF-24 Marut or "Wind Spirit" is totaly new single seat fighter capable Mach 1.02 design by a help of Dipl-Ing Kurt Tank, a renowned Focke-Wulf designer. Served the IAF for for quite sometime but retired by now.
Then the second fighter aircraft indigenous made in Asian country is Mitubishi F-1 and T-2A first flight 20 July 1971. Capable Mach 1.6 with design look alike of SEPECAT Jaguar. T-21A is two-seat trainer. Probably all type still in service in JASF. One insteresting to note that prior to that Japan first post-war military aircraft was the Fuji T-1 tandem-seat intermediate trainer, looking like an F-86 Sabre and powered by a licence-built Bristol Orpheus. First flown in 1958.
It's really interesting to see if my country itself can design our own aircraft. Designing aircraft should be very easy task this day, with super computer and tons of technology available but thats not seem the case. I'll think it more on experience with that technology and perfecting it itself like let say Boeing or MiG than using technology for that task alone won't work.

Again congratulation to Iranian people for their effort.

Every day is exciting day

As I told before when I'm young I'm living next to Airbase. Now I grown up and you know
what, I bought a house although not next to an airport but it's about thirty miles away from it.
But one thing I love it, its in threshold where aircraft take off and landing.
So every day I can see all type of aircarft landing and take off, be it military, civilian and cargo
passing by my house. By the way this is a former international airport so its no longer busy like before because we got newest airport about 60 miles away. By the way this former airport shared with airforce so military aircraft always around, that's good news then.

I love to watch aircraft flying

Since childhood I'm living in a country side and when I'm seven years old my family moved to the city , thats in 1971 there we stay at my uncle house for a while, he
actually stay in army quaters near airbase and from there it self every day I watch
aircraft landing and take off. Since then I hooked with this past time although I
love to be a pilot but my school result quite bad. I never let my dream go although
be a pilot much nicer. I think its normal for small child love to see aircraft and
I'm one of them, but when you grow up and dream never become reality then you know the all that depend on your own destiny but I never it let go. I do.