Here you go Rocky!
Another pic of the Design 303F study

Regards
Pioneer

The fixed wing Grumman VFX design 303F was one of eight final design configurations. I have no figures related to it, sorry.

I found this mate!
Although my 3-view drawing doesn’t look as clean-lined/refined as beautifully as your picture :apologetic:

Regards
Pioneer

I know this is a few years late pometablava, but I hope these might still be of some help!

Regards
Pioneer

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235303[/ATTACH]

Oh….also found this –

Hope these help!!

Regards
Pioneer

Gripen NG flight-tests Skyward-G IRST

Mounted ahead of the windscreen, the Skyward-G IRST unit for the Gripen E made its first flight on the Gripen NG technology demonstrator on 31 March.

How ironic and humiliating, that Western fighters are still only adapting “infrared search-and-track (IRST) system’s” in 2014. When the MiG-29 entered service with the Soviet Air Force in 1983 equipped as standard with IRST system, not to mention the excellent helmet-mounted sighting system!
Frustrating!!!!!!

Regards
Pioneer

“Yes, they are infantry and not the AF, but their word counts for something” (TR1)

Yes one would think so! One should not forget that the principle reason the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program was followed through (even then to the protest of the USAF, who was infatuated with massive ‘fast movers’ like the Republic F-105), was because the US Army literally said to the USAF and Congress – ‘if you don’t give us this specialised aircraft our grunts need, we’ll have no choice but to acquire our own ‘fixed wing’ close support aircraft (aka the US Army’s comprehensive evaluation of the Fiat G.91R/3, Douglas A4D-2N Skyhawk and Northrop N-156F for the roles of organic FAC (Forward Air Control), tactical reconnaissance and CAS), regardless of the Key West Agreement (1947)’
It should also not be forgotten that with the USAF’s lukewarm agreement to go ahead with the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program. The US Army would forego the drive for their “Advanced Aerial Fire Support System’ (AAFSS), launched by the U.S. Army in 1964 with the intention of providing all ‘an army attack helicopter high-performance specialized in fire support.”
TR1, I don’t think you fully comprehend the politics and competitive nature of the U.S. military machine – USAF – ‘Infantry what’s infantry??’

How important is the Avenger cannon to the equation? No other type of aircraft can put those type of rounds on target, so fast and so many. (Freehand)

I totally agree with you Freehand! Once again people and organisations have become obsessed with technology, and think that ‘smart’/’precision’ bombs and missile can deal with everything on the modern battlefield. As a grunt, I cannot and would not call upon even a SDB II sized weapon if I was in close contact with an enemy. Whereas the A-10 with its GAU-8/A Avenger can and is called in for such accurate CAS fire, when in close contact with the enemy, with far less risk of sustaining friendly fire and collateral damage.

I think A-10 is no longer necessary for tank plinking, F-16 had a merry ole time plinking them in Iraq.
Why did the pilots call the new leisure tank plinking? (obligatory)

With all due respect obligatory, the Iraq War MkII, could hardly be claimed to have been a functional/viable hostile air defence threat to U.S forces. The ‘F-16 had a merry ole time plinking Iraqi tanks with such ease was specifically because the Iraqi’s no longer had any creditable intergraded air defence system, let alone weapons platforms, save that of the old true and trusted ZSU-23 and S-60 AAA. Most of the Iraqi SAM systems had been destroyed in the Gulf War 1, and what had not had fallen into disrepute or unserviceable. They even lacked MANPADS!
The freedom of such operations by the USAF negated any meaningful (true) threat, and allowed the F-16’s to operate at altitudes which would not be permissible in a ‘real war’ in my opinion

A-10 cannot operate in anything other than a permissive environment, there was a great article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war, it’s worth a google. IADS have only gotten better, the A-10 cannot be expected to, and will not survive in a near-peer conflict such as the one you are implying. In GWI, A-10’s were restricted to within 30 miles of the Saudi Kuwait border, the one mission they flew over Republican guard forces (60 miles) resulted in two losses and seven damaged aircraft. (FBW)

Thanks FBW, I’ll look up that “article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war”.
One thing I will say, not being an expert or anything, is that the I’m somewhat weary of such reports. The USAF (and for that matter all U.S military services) can be very productive in criticism about a weapons system/platform they neither want or deems as needing ‘urgent’ replacing. As already mentioned the USAF has been hell bent on the demise and letter withdrawal of the A-10, even before it was built, let alone put into operational service. Hell they even pushed for the acquisition of their nemeses service – the USN’s LTV A-7F Corsair to replace the ‘specialised’ A-10. Even though the evaluation of both aircraft proved once again that the A-10 was the better aircraft for the job! The USAF has never wanted the A-10 purely and simply because it’s not a ‘fast mover’, supersonic or able to carry eight air-to-air missiles. The USAF tried pushing for a so-called ‘specialised’ attack/CAS variant of it’s once love child – the General Dynamics F-16 (you know the Light Weight Fighter Program, the USAF did all in it’s power and every sly of hand to burn, bash and bury for the sake of more hot rods – their ‘FX’ – the F-15 Eagle!!) – aka the General Dynamics A-16.
I can’t help but wonder, with the USAF always using the analogy that given aircraft can’t survive the modern threat of modern generation air defence systems like that of the Russian’s and PRC, then why haven’t they completely and utterly neglected the SEAD and ECM role and mission?

I would expect A-10 to go down roughly as easily when hit by SA-3 as F-117, and it won’t dodge much better (obligatory)

I agree my friend, not many aircraft would survive a S-125 Neva direct hit period!
But then again, no other aircraft, with the possible exception of the Su-25 ‘Frogfoot’ was designed with so much intentional redundancy and protection incorporated into it’s design – something Fairchild (Republic) learnt and applied from it’s F-15 loses over Vietnam! Something neither the F-16 or F-35 can say!

An interesting thought might be that the U.S. Army take on the A-10C’s under their own ORGBAT After all in the late 1980’s, the U.S. Army argued “that the Key West agreement of 1948 under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft was now obsolete, and that the USAF’s A-10s should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10As and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.
However on November 26, 1990, the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10s for the CAS mission and announced that they would retrofit up to 400 existing Block 30 F-16C/Ds with new equipment to perform the CAS mission.”
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16_37.html

Thanks gents for your valued knowledge and input

Regards
Pioneer