The might Viggen

Its workman like through and through.
Its got landing gear that doesn’t look light and flimsy like most Western fighters!
Its design pure and simple for Sweden’s needs!
It early use of Canards
Its incorporation of STOL and dispersed operation into its design (I know this is the case with almost all Swedish combat aircraft!)
The only regret is that it was not adopted by more European Air Forces!
I only wished that the Swedish would have produced a true multi-purpose role Viggen instead of the individual purpose attack, air superiority fighter and recon variants

Regards
Pioneer

[QUOTE][The modern trend of sacrificing numbers in the name of a smaller ‘silver bullet’ force is pretty dangerous. The same can be seen in the USAF, with ever reducing numbers, all in the name of the stealth game, pinning their hopes on quality to offset shortfall in quantity.
/QUOTE]

I too like the way you think!!!!
There are some great Amphibious designs out there, which are not American designed and built!
The Spanish have proven that they can design an excellent amphibious ship at a great price, and how long have they been in the modern Amphibious warfare business?
What about taking the U.S Navy Top-brass out of the equation?
I am serious!
If one looks at the continues blunders and miss management that the U.S Navy (or the U.S Military full stop!) has carried out, with multiple projects in the past decade, one really must wonder how long it is going to tolerated.
I for one can not work it out!
Especially when one considers that the U.S Navy from mid WWII to the 1990’s was the world leader in Amphibious warfare, in both design, strategy and excerption!
And then they come up with the ultra modern, ultra expensive and yet backwards design like the San Antonio class!
Hay if I was a U.S Marine, I would be protesting why it has taken decades to replace something as simple and straight forward as the CH-46 Sea Knight – whilst his brass has waisted billions and billions of dollars on ‘silver bullet’ projects only to can them!
And yet he still has to get to a beech in a warn out and flight restricted Sea Knight time and again!!

And again the same old use of the U.S Military (or more so U.S senators!!) ‘get out of jail free’ trump card of – ‘if its not made in America, it want be put into service here’!!
Crazy!!!!

I use to hate bean counters, but I never thought I would say it – but this is a perfect reason that the U.S Military need them

Regards
Pioneer

Question if I may!
Without be sarcastic!

These Sea Gripen CGI drawings you show – the first CGI picture is it depicting a catapult launch or a STO?

For if it is a STOBAR, the second CGI is a very tall payload/weight for a STO!

And the fourth CGI picture – is this the aircraft landing after a mission – or has it had to jettison its weapons to allow landing?

I am a fan of the LWF – the likes of the F-16, F-20 and Gripen.
But is it worth Saab’s time, money and effort to study, propose and market a carrier variant of its Gripen – for say potential India and Brazil, with carriers that do not exist and may never be built – say 80 aircraft?
Would it not be more viable for the likes of the Dassault Rafale – already design, built and in carrier service be a more viable choice by India and Brazil (and even Britain and PRC – if they wanted such an aircraft!!).
After all the French will be more than happy to sell them – with no political or humanitarian strings attached (or if they were used in aggression – unlike Sweden!)

Regards
Pioneer

How much of the R&D bill from the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 (&/or any/all fighters before) did the US ‘pass on’ to export customers? Why would the F-35 be any different…

isn’t this one of the principle reasons the United States sells its latest aircraft designs on to other military’s + the benefit of lowering the U.S service cost of each plan, as well as keeping production lines open and working as long as they can!

No, it’s just that there are about six people in the US and Australia who write nasty things about it, and thereby are bringing the project to its knees

I don’t know if six people could be this influential!
What about all those people who dogged the Fairchild A-10 for a couple of decades!

Regards
Pioneer

And? What’s that got to do with the inaccuracy of his attacks on the F-15, F-22, and now F-35? In fact he and his tribe, along with those who like to promote their hit pieces, are banking on exactly that sentiment you’re showing.

Sterrin I am not showing any sentiment!
I am just asking if you recognize the mans input and benefits he contributed to the likes of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle (FX program), General Dynamics F-16 (LWF/ACF program) and the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II (AX program)? – F-22 and F-35 aside!

Regards
Pioneer

The Australian Army operates its Chinook’s from its two RAN modified ‘Newport Class’ – although they are not hanger capable!

The Chinook is said to be far more easily maneuverable compared to the Super Stallion!

I have been in both Chinook and Super stallion and both impress me greatly!
I guess it wouldn’t hurt to have folding rotors on the Chinook!
But at what expense and how often would it be used?

Here are some pics of water borne Chinooks!
Oh and a USCG S-61R (HH-3F) as an example of what I mean!!

P.S. I find it very unusual that Sikorsky (or the USMC for that matter!) never utilized and incorporate the water-tight boat-type fuselage of the trial and proven Sikorsky S-61R (CH-3/HH-3) series into the CH-53 design!!!
Then again I have never understood why the venerable and USMC workhorse, the CH-46 was never water capable – when one considers how much time they spend over water!!

Regards
Pioneer