Recently in Military Category

Singapore-based military aircraft photographer @alert5 just shared this cool clip from Chinese TV of a Kamov Ka-28 barely escaping disaster as it attempts to land on a Peoples' Liberation Army Navy Type 054A frigate.  Thankfully the pilot managed to do a go around and land safely. On the second landing attempted I was impressed by the 16 guys (looked like four per wheel) racing out to secure the helicopter to deck. Brilliant stuff!

Last August I wrote in this blog that Taiwan's long-hoped-for F-16 C/D purchase could become an election issue in the USA this year. The recent letter from the Obama administration to Senator John Cornyn suggests that the administration could indeed sell Taiwan new F-16s. This would be a great way to bolster the president's tough guy foreign policy credentials and show that he cares about jobs back home. He might even sincerely care about defending Taiwan.

That said, is it really in the interests of the US to sell advanced F-16 C/Ds or, perhaps, the new F-16V to Taiwan? Such a deal would indeed rile Beijing, but they get upset at every US arms sale to Taiwan, no matter how small. Rather, the more important issue could be technology transfer to the mainland.

Exchanges between Taiwan and China have become increasingly close in recent years, with large numbers of direct flights now available. Many Taiwanese seek work on the mainland, and this is certainly the case in the aerospace sector. Inevitably, a degree of knowledge transfer occurs here.

Over drinks in Taipei last year a friend of mine went as far as to outline a nightmare scenario for the US that would make for a decent spy novel. The Chinese could cosy up to a Taiwanese pilot and offer him $10-20 million to fly his advanced variant F-16 to the mainland, where he would then live a life of luxury.

Though the US would probably realise what happened pretty quickly, as the aircraft would likely come with kill switches and secret transponders, having a late model F-16 would be of immense use to China's on the reverse engineering front.

No matter what happens, this is all great stuff for us journos.

The Aviationist blog has posted a video about an intriguing UAV with a submachine gun, apparently posted in Russia.

While the clip is certainly entertaining - "I don't think I recognise any of those guys, let's take them out" and "That was awesome! Look at the guy's head rolling down the hill" - I can't vouch for the authenticity of the of the UAV itself. 

I cannot discern empty cartridges falling out of the UAV, and why do the mannequins explode?  I also can't make out exactly how the ammo in the 100 round clip gets into the gun.  The operator also seems fairly casual on the safety front. Say the thing flies out of control, gun blazing away at full automatic? And when he is casually shooting up that gasoline, he doesn't seem to worry that it will set off the explosive charges this thing allegedly carries - which are later demonstrated when he uses the UAV to blow up a car.

On the other hand, there does appear to be a distinct recoil when the gun is firing.

Anyway, the clip reminded me of a conversation I had with a colleague at Flight a few years back about the possibility of mounting guns on UAVs. I have seen videos of shotguns and grenade launchers on smaller systems, such as the one depicted in this video, but as far as I'm aware there are no plans extant to mount a gun on a bigger system, such as a Scan Eagle or a Predator .

A gun-armed UAV would have some big advantages. The system would have more flexibility, capable of hitting a point target, such as a single person or the engine block of a vehicle, without expending large, expensive guided munitions. A sort of sniper in the sky.

The main challenge would probably be mounting it. The best option would to have a side firing system similar to the AC-130, operating on the principle that it is easier for an aircraft to blast a target while circling it rather than flying straight at it. Apparently the AC-130's software consistently achieves first round accuracy, something which could be scaled down for a UAV-mounted gun system.

While the Charlene UAV depicted in the video may not be the real deal, the 'guns on UAV' space is definitely one ripe for fascinating development. 

I was intrigued to learn that UK farmer David Cundall may have located 20 or more Spitfires in Myanmar, buried in their original shipping crates. If the discovery turns out to be the real deal, it makes a fine counterpoint to Australia's decision last year to bury 23 F-111s beneath a landfill - apparently there is a very real concern with asbestos and other hazardous materials used in these old airframes.

Media reports suggest Cundall's plans are well advanced, with the aircraft having been located, and a camera shoved down a borehole to examine them. Cundall  learned of the aircraft speaking to British vets of the Burmese front. They claimed to have buried the aircraft in 1945 following the end of WWII.

Though the aircraft are reportedly well packaged in wax paper and so forth, one wonders how well preserved they could be. Sixty years underground in the soggy climate of Burma is a very long time. There are very good reasons why the USA stores old aircraft in the arid climes of Arizona and California as opposed to the swamps of Florida or Louisiana. All it would take is a few broken seals to corrode these Burmese Spitfires.

In any event, the west is having a love-in with the Burmese regime, which these days shows signs of becoming more democratic. A more open regime could well see Cundall's dream come true. Perhaps the old aircraft will be excavated and shipped home - just the thought of the paperwork and expense involved gives one pause - with a few examples becoming airworthy again someday.

In 2072 will Asian Skies write about a plan to dig up 23 former RAAF F-111s?

I was amused to read the Ria Novosti report that the China Sukhoi Su-35 deal is in trouble. Apparently the Russians want to sell China a large number of aircraft, while China would prefer just a handful. And so an impasse ensues.

"We have been promoting the Su-35 fighter on the Chinese market," Rosoboronexport deputy chief Viktor Komardin is reported as saying.  "However, China only wants to buy a limited number [of aircraft] whereas we want [to sell] a large consignment to make [the deal] economically viable."

In this instance, how does one define 'economically viable'? The cynical part of me suggests that China wants to buy a handful (hints of Su-33?) and then reverse engineer the aircraft, eventually producing a Chinese clone, a follow on fighter to the J-11. This is economically viable for China, but not exactly ideal for Russia.

On the other hand, Russia would greatly benefit from a big Su-35 production run for China, lowering the cost per unit across the board.

Though China appears to have dug its heels in, I will be very curious to see how this proposed sale moves forward. If Beijing feels confident enough in its indigenous capabilities, perhaps it will indeed give the Su-35 a miss.

Otherwise, perhaps Beijing will back off a bit, wait a sufficiently face-saving amount of time, and then eventually agree to buy a larger number of Su-35s with a significant portion produced in Russia.  In this case it would get the aircraft and technology transfer it needs, but at a substantially higher price.

It is worth remembering that in 2010, before Beijing surprised everyone with the appearance of the supposedly 'Fifth Generation' J-20, an alleged Chinese spy was caught smuggling parts for the MiG-29 and Su-27 across the Russo-Chinese  border.  Another similar heist was attempted in 2009 at the same checkpoint.

Such incidents would appear to suggest that China would be very interested indeed in the secrets of the Su-35.