From a purely technical point of view, how easy – or otherwise – would it have been to have produced a carrier-capable Viggen? Was it suitable for such modification?

BTW, I know there was no customer, nor political possibility of such a project.

Its alot more complicated than many think – you just cannot stick on larger oleo legs and hey presto, have a carrier capable aircraft.

The undercarriage load paths would need strengthened, as would the rear fuselage for the integration of the arrestor hook.

Materials may also have to be changed to deal with salt water corrosion. The engine design points may have to be adapted to operate better at carrier take-off speeds (greater bias to thrust at 100-120 kts than 500 kts – the compromise must come from somewhere).

The elevator may need enlarging to provide a large enough pitching moment to get the aircraft into the air on take-off.

There would be numerous other things that may or may not need done.

….Combat loss officially confirmed by USAF, reason assumed AAA. Show me one single proof, Sens, that this aircraft was not hit by an Iraqi fighter instead.

It sounds like we’re back to “I’m challenging conventional thought/history but you have to show me proof that the accepted facts are false”.
Does that sum it up?

Also keep in mind that the people who pprepare the reports are not in the employ of Boeing or anyone else in the defense industry. They are military personnel doing their jobs.
Can you see an RAF officer fiddling with a report to make the Typhoon look good?
Can you see a Soviet officer doing the same to make a MiG look bettter?
(Perhaps…keeping in mind thet they were built by state owned firms).
If you answered “no” to either of these questions why would you assume that American offficers would be any different?

But why is the western side of events taken as unvarnished truth, whereas whatever comes from elsewhere is obvious BS?

As for your final paragraph there. Definitely – I do see RAF, Soviet and Americans (and indeed any other airforce in the world) doing exactly that.

To admit ‘their’ aircraft was shot down by another aircraft is admitting, “they got the better of us – we screwed up”. Or even worse… they are better than us.

Congress is shortsighted, they will make cuts and grandstand it as saving taxpayer money to win votes, but in the long run all these parameter changes have delayed and increased the cost of the F-22 program.

Agreed.

If politicans wouldn’t constantly change their f__king minds things would get done alot quicker for alot less.

The F-15 family has a combat record of 101 victories and zero losses
These statistics may be dated, but they are or were official from a credible site.

HA HA HA HA

Like Boeing’s PR dept are ever going to let unsubstantiated kills be counted against “their bird”.

Come on, don’t be so niave!

* I’m not saying the F-15 has, or has not been shot down in A2A combat – I’m questioning the assumption of a source directly connected to the F-15 being seen as impartial.

It’s not necessarily the center tunnel that creates the lift. It’s anything on the upper fuselage that makes the air go faster than the air underneath the aircraft. On the F-14 and 15, the cockpit shaping (and it’s blending into the rear fuselage) and engine bulges play a part.

Yeap but (subsonically) the sectional shape of the fuselage has to be right to induce the bound vortex/starting vortex system – which is where lift comes from. Having a thinner trailing edge (you can chop it with a rear edge of the order of the boundary layer thickness) helps create the starting vortex, and thus lift.

Supersonically it is more a question of shape/area distribution.

Here is an idea. How about a post that is both on and contributes to… the topic.

What are you?

The thread Gestapo? 😡

I presented a point of view rarely aired on these forums – not surprising one of the right wing hawks jumps on it.:rolleyes:

There is a simple solution for all you lot crying and complaining…

Don’t ******* read the post 😡

So is Australia the only country not allowed to keep an effective defence force???

NO!!!

But why does virtually every country in the world have a military it rarely, if ever, uses!?!?!

Stupid nationalistic pride is the answer.

Interesting read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux11.html