Going into defended airspace with three tanks and two 2800lb missiles isn’t something you’d get away with, anymore than refuelling in such airspace, so the issue is moot.

Eh?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]228952[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]228953[/ATTACH]

You are aware that the typical configuration of every Tornado who have delivered Storm Shadows in Iraq and Lybia was with two massive “Hidenburg” external´s (2250 litre each, thats more than the two external´s, 1000 L, of the Typhoon) and the Adla Rafale´s have been carrying two or three 2000 L´s external´s.
The fact that BAE has just picked up the CFT work left a decade ago is almost certainly a direct consequence of the SShadow integration job.

Cheers

When he said “Stealth”, he was not talking JUST about RCS

I am pretty sure he was adding APG-81 EW into the mix as well.

He actually said that the RCS of the “35” was smaller than the “22”.

@Bio: the E/F will have a very strong potential in the used market. With the rapid introduction of the 35 (to minimize cost in both way (acquisition + production of a singe operator aircraft), a lot of airframes will be at disposal in a short period of time if the USN does not set a structure to artificially keep the price up (they are not obliged to do what the USAF have done with their 16). Fact also is that the G will have a very long service life, hence plenty of new spares will need to be produced and at disposal to refit the old airframes.

All this make me think that the nation that will have the b**** to commit itself into that will have a very capable airplane in a non Air Dominance target capability and relaxed threat (in the sense that you do not have to go frontal against a major enmy alone).

Tomcat

The F-35C is not slated to replace the E/F but the “old” Hornet C/D, and its production curve has been steadily thrown to the right, the last of the planed F-35C are going to be delivered in the mid “thirties” (if ever), that means that the Super Bug´s are going to get flogged to death.

Cheers

Really?

Last I checked it has had it’s annual buy reduced almost every year and had it’s SDD program extended instead of annual budget increased. This has caused MAJOR concerns with our Partner nations who now have to pay a lot more for LRIP aircraft which has caused them to delay IOC & increase their OP budgets for existing aircraft.

Then there is the issue of heavy backpedaling re concurrency.

Come again on the lack of fiscal and political indecision?

Spudman

Dear christ, you are not comparing the “fiscal and political indecision” that surrounds the JSF program with what happened with the Eurofighter program, are you?!
The JSF program is heaven by comparison with the political “hell on earth” that the FEFA/EFA/Eurofighter went through! The main customer (France) bugged out right at the beggining of the program, the meetings between the air staff�s to design the KPP�s almost derailed the entire process, this AFTER France had left the program (just to have an idea, the Italians were toying with designs/KPP�s for a conventional light fighter equiped with a single RB199), by then Germany and the Italian governments dumped the EAP prototype (industry and GB keep it afloat); after the basic design was agreed by all the partners, the work distribution discussions almost (again) killed the entire project (the only way to maintain everybody on the boat was to build an assembly line in every single partner country!), on top of all this the Berlin wall came crashing down, and an helluva of political parties on almost all the partners went after the program (and quite a lot of other military projects), the first cut in airframes numbers was a direct consequence, then, all after this, Germany started to think on a much cheaper, single engined “Jager Light” (a single engined EFA), etc, etc, etc.
What i�ve described above, is roughly the timeline between 1979 and 1990, after that, it was even worst. Believe me APA and all the JSF critics are a bunch of softed heart “dearies” by comparison with what happened with the European program, at least twice, partner goverments of the FEFA/EFA/EUROFIGHTER program tried to, well, there´s no better word for it, kill the dam thing!
Think of the Raptor program with four diferent countries bit*****g and you get the idea…

Cheers

ps – Best ever title in Air International for an article describing the RAF fighter problems (that the Eurofigher was meant to end) that i´ve ever read : “DATELINE KILIMANJARO: UPTO THE ASS IN ALLIGATORS – Roy Braybrook presents his “Personal View” of Britain’s present air defence fighter gap” :angel:
Sure miss Braybrook articles

Indeed you forgot to mention, perhaps you have been distracted while recalled of Ougadougou, that the T- 50 PAK FA also is a 5th Generation fighter just like the F 35A/B Lightning II.

As I could remember when it was revealed that the F/A 18C/D will replace the Mirage III there were a lot of criticism about the size of the F/A 18C/D in the mountainous terrain from Alps.

However the F/A 18 C/D has been superbly performing its missions in those conditions , so a fighter like T 50 PAK FA has been more maneuverable than the own F/A 18 C/D could also play well those missions from F/A 18 C/D and overcome this in all other parameters .

In my insignificant opinion when I saw the news about the Government of Switzerland had mentioned that would cut education funding to finance the acquisition of Gripen E, this literally burned must of the chances of vote from the population to approve the Gripen E.

Maybe this had happened with purpose to make way for the acquisition of the F 35A/B in the near future. The goal could be a downsizing now with the target to persuade the population from Switzerland to invest more in the F 35A/B when the time to replace the F/A 18 C/D come.

I guess I’ll regret to ask, but what does really mean Snowing in Ougadougou?

Snowing in Ougadougou means something almost impossible.
The reasons why the chances of a T-50 appearing in Schweizer Luftwaffe colours have to be considered has almost impossible should be obvious.
A) The Swiss Air Force is entirely equiped with NATO kit, this means that there´s not one bolt compatible with the Russian bird, any Russian bird, b) the PAK-FA is a gigantic aircraft by comparison with the Hornet, the F-5E Tiger, the Gripen, or even the Typhoon/Rafale, its acquisition and operational costs should be horrendous, c) the comparison between the Hornet acquisition (heavier, more capable and more expensive to operate than the Mirage III) and a theoretical Swiss T-50 acquisition is entirely out of order, the Hornet was chosen in 1988, by then there were an ungodly number of Warpac Divisions stationed very near the Swiss border, Europe was divided by a “wall”, etc, etc, so there was a clear requirement for a very high end capable aircraft, that doesnt happen today, and (thank god) for the foreseable future the situation will be the same, and finaly, d) the Swiss people just said no to a 7,5 ton´s litle fighter that fitted like a glove to the Schweizer Luftwaffe infrastructure, why would anyone believe that in a decade they would say “yes” to a 18/20 tons aircraft? And a Russian one at that!
Unless there´s some extraordinary political changes in Europe i think its safe to presume that the chances of this particular Russian fighter in this scenario are just slightly better than nill (but not by much).

Wingspan constraint by STOVL, sure. Length, don’t think so.

Well, if you count the size of the lifts of HMS Lusty has being part of the STVOL requirements…

Cheers

Christ, its just a basic air policing mission by a neutral country landlocked by friendly neighbours with almost 100% radar (military and civilian coverage). No need for expensive fast jets, BVR missiles or two seater trainers.

12 Hawks with AIM-9s is all you need. 2-4 for a QRA, rest maintence/training.

Never going to be in a shooting war, never going to deploy abroad, never going to conrtibute to a coalition.

All you need is a basic cover to stop some wacko flying a plane into the next World Economic Forum or flying off with all that hidden WW2 era gold.

I think their population actually got it right with their vote.

The “you just need a jet trainer to do air policing” theory just appeared, again.
In this situation the “Hawk” is almost useless for QRA, look at a map of Switzerland, look at the speed and height that the typical Airbus/Boeing flies. Any Trainer coming out off Emmen trying to intercept a typical passenger aircraft that crosses the German border going in the general direction of Zurich, will be lucky to actually see the dam thing near the Italian border after it has overflown the entire Switzerland airspace, the distances are short, the speed of the trainer is near identical to the civilian aircrafts and it has 10000 meters to climb. Now throw in winter, clouds, rain, night, whatever, good luck in that radarless, linkless trainer to actually be able to spot the Airbus. “Say again air controler, to my left? But thats the Matterhorn”.
QRA, in a small airspace, brimming with civilian flights (thats right in the midle of Western Europe), high mountains all over the place, thats supersonic job and with fine sensors to boot.

But also the ones that ended up in service.(4 or 5 if you count 38M2 as a new missile)

If there were only four or five URSS/Russian ramjet missiles that “ended up in service” (didnt count them), then Tomcat1974 claim was correct, thats the number of western europe ramjet missiles that ended up in service, four (or five if you count Bloodhound I and II has diferent beasts wich they were), all being built by companies that are today part of MBDA.

Cheers