My source is on Mirage III low-level performance is Wing Cdr. Jack Smith, who flew 2,900hrs on the type:

[INDENT]I should mention two attributes the aircraft possessed for the strike role. Firstly, even when fully laden with bombs and tanks it exhibited a good turn of speed, and if the fuel to use afterburner was available, target approach speeds in the region of 550-600 knots were possible. Secondly, the airflow around the superbly design airframe was smooth and guaranteed clean stores separation from the aircraft over the full range of delivery speeds. The same could not be said of some purpose designed strike aircraft of the same era as the Mirage III. http://www.scribd.com/doc/174970296/The-Raaf-Mirage-Story-Opt[/INDENT]

He was highly critical of the Mirage III’s limited payload-range for RAAF needs, and the lack of weapon options in RAAF service (500lb and 1,000lb bombs only).

(In European service these issues would have been less critical. Colder temperatures would allow the Mirage III take-off with more payload, and there were many effective weapon options such as Martel (anti-radar), AS-30 (precision strike), rockets, anti-runway bombs etc.)

Target approach is very different to sustained high transonic <500ft terrain flight. A lot of airframes and equally important ‘durable’ pilots can deal with short bursts of this flight type but not sustained. Dassault’s deltas only really became acceptable on the deck with the 2000N FCS developments and it still is not ideal. Low wing loadings with large planforms simply put a holt to truely comfortable terrain flight. The F-111 gets there but the Tornado is really the only jet that has minimised pilot exhaustion. Design compromises and what not.

As mentioned, if it ‘kicked off’, fleets of the nuke F-104G would have been quite a handful. In that scenario remember, there would have been no bases to return.

What aircraft programs are you referring to that can travel at mach 20?

Forgive me, not the most accurate statement. I was referring to the DARPA HV-2 vehicle regarding mach 20 flight and the associated thermal challenges, not similar propulsion technology or program.

The X-30 however had a lot of interesting work associated with air-breathing tech above mach 10 (various sources quote M17), thermal energy management. Interesting reads on the NASA technical reports server. Though it seems LM are thinking a different direction. Certainly there has been a lot of research in various directions my many civil/military tech branches.

The most significant problem I see with going ‘too’ quick is flexibility and manoeuvrability, but going at those sort of speeds and corresponding altitudes would make it very difficult to intercept with anything conventional.

I think the US Air Force has been researching/experimenting with a vehicle like this for decades. The problem is the opacity of what has been done, and that is down to it being primarily ‘Black’ research.

I’m very interested in US Black programs and the whole Groom lake (Area 51) bubble, no I’m not a saucer nut. There is alot of evidence to suggest various high alt+mach vehicles have been tested through the late 80’s to present, you just have to look for it.

For curiosity at least, take a look at this site. A good deal is unreliable, simply stupid and downright unrealistic but if you know what you are looking for there are some very realistic conclusions you can draw from the various sightings/reports.

http://www.dreamlandresort.com –take a glance at the experimental aircraft sighting, 1995. One of a few research aircraft. Makes you wonder.

Additionally the expansion at Groom is ramping up, year on year with new LARGE hangers being built, as suggested in various places, to house a high altitude carrier aircraft and drone, much like the D-21 drone system.

I am a aerospace engineer by trade (thats all I will say on that matter) and I firmly believe something like this, manned/possible UAV, is certainly within the realm of plausibility and has already (whether by LM or not) had much experimental work attributed to it.

In an operational sense with a more holistic view of ‘stealth’, i.e truly exploiting the advantage of speed/alt, something like this would be tremendously difficult to counter, much like the eventual reality of the SR-71 but with another large leap ahead.

Except that is usage was more or less a suicide mission. JP233 attacks during Desert Storm proved that flying along a runway was not the best idea. But now, strafing one as they did in WW2 wasn’t much better.

It can be argued it was down to the nature of the airfields themselves, very different compared to the European area. Iraq had huge, wide and open airbases with little to no cover on ingress and exit. Low flying became LOW flying. In the european environment ingress and escape would have been ‘easier’ in terms of terrain masking etc.. But I do agree missiles are the way to go in this regard however the secondary mission of the MW-1/JP233 was fast-reaction attack against Soviet armoured divisions, here they would have been devastating.

Google F-16 or F-18 and most of the pics show 2-3 tanks, 2-4 bombs and a couple of AAMs. The F-35 can do that at m1.6 and they cannot

Why are you comparing to its now outdated predecessors? You should compare to the possible competition. They can on the whole. Whats more important is how long it takes to get there.

[/QUOTE]You seem to fail to understand that the FACT is that it can SC, regardless of how long. The details have not been released so your guessing at the times and reasons for its length are pitiful[/QUOTE]

What tactical advantage does that provide? Not much. I think you should focus on its strengths than trying to mask the weaknesses.

The aircraft has the potential to be excellent but I believe a lot more data is needed before anyone on here can make definitive assumptions about its capabilities. But I wish it did have better kinematic performance designed into it but nothing should be anywhere close to the raptor I guess 😉

Not a significant question but always puzzles me none the less,

why did the Eurofighter not have a ‘bubble’ canopy like the f-16/22 etc..?

Was it deemed to have little gain due to the view being already slightly disadvantaged because of the canard location?

Ingestion problems. And because the inner stations where tilted they had to tilt the others as well. And this sort of messes up the drag. A more modest solution would have been to tilt the inner pylons slightly downwards (like on the F35… or maybe it is the jet that is pointed upwards in that example).

I think they may have over estmated the riscs but that’s how they solved it.

I thought also it was also for rcs reduction? May be confused with something else here however :confused:

Unfortunately the Hornet family yields a lot because of the extra weight and design considerations imposed by shipboard operations. But it is a specific tool for a specific job/realm that most other aircraft don’t have to worry about.

No I fully agree as a weapons system the E/F is a fantastic piece of kit, given the right support and SA, it can dictate many AtA situations and its strike/multirole/conventional warfare ability it excellent. However against possible advanced hostiles such as the latest upgraded kit coming from Russia and China it does not hold a distinct advantage, and you don’t go to war looking for a ‘fair’ fight, enter the unique abilities the F-35 brings. But I’m sure you already knew that.