Regarding Post # 220, 221, 222:
There’s no mention of AESA radar. Is F-16I equipped with AESA radar?

No.

Sir we only have to view your old and inane posts to understand your vindictive side, to moderation and public posters.

We only have to view the very small number of posts that you have made here to realise that it is your intention to follow that very same vindictive past.

It does not look possible to fit a third bank of 24 between the two current sets, true. But that is not the same as “there will not be a third row”. We don’t know what the under-deck arrangements are. It might be possible to widen the housing, & move the current launchers further apart. And there looks to be enough room for a single row, i.e. another 12, launchers, without disturbing the current set.

I wonder if that housing was designed to fit 48 Mk41? That would explain the gap between the two banks of launchers, as Sylver is slimmer.

[Edit] BTW, the usually reliable Beedall says it’s designed to take up to 64, not up to 72. Perhaps any increase would be achieved by increasing the length of the housing, i.e. increasing the two banks of 24 VLS to 32 each. Thoughts?

I agree with you here entirely, the whole VLS capacity thing with the T45 is very vague, I must admit that I still think it would be possible with some engineering to get a third bank in the middle. The reason being that the current layout just does not look ‘right’ compared to more or less every other western VLS layout.

3. i liketo wash my vehicles without having to resort to a stepladder when washing the roofline.:cool: 😎 😎

Cough up £5 for a car wash then. If you can afford a PC and an Internet connection to post this thread you should be able to muster that.:p

I’m not sure I understand. The Buccaneer was designed for the naval/maritime strike role, which presupposed attacking at low level and high speed – the only change with the RAF was to do it over land as well as over sea. The Bucc was remarkably successful in its designed role and later added others. (And Desert Storm Buccs operated at medium level to avoid ground fire IIRC, and still made the Tonkas look ordinary).

The Swift on the other hand suffered from serious shortcomings in its design role that were never eradicated. Pitch-up when manouevring at high altitude, woeful rate of turn, ‘burner that could not be lit at altitude, wing that developed insufficient lift… The ‘first British-built swept-wing jet in RAF service’ is a bit of a qualified ‘first’ and somewhat negated by the F1’s rapid removal from service. Not really comparable to the Comet IMO.

I did not mean that there were no low level roles – just that the Swift only had one such role, and that a minor one that was found for it and could easily be fulfilled by other, more useful aircraft, which pretty quickly it was. I don’t believe that it was a latterday Hawker Typhoon.

The Buccaneer and the Swift are two very different beasts, the former was always intended to be a low level strike aircraft, the latter was not. I will however refrain from the Swift bashing, becouse I have always thought it to be a very aesthetically pleasing aircraft and becouse its early problems seem no more severe than those of the Hunter. For whatever reason the Hunter won the day and the Swift all but fell from th pages of History. As you say though, as nothing but a tactical recon aircraft it was very expensive!:eek:

In some senses, it is a pity that Britain got rid of its Upholder class subs – a pair of them could have been stationed down there, and provide a conventional ‘deterrent’ force!

In an awful lot of senses it is a shame that the Upholders got canceled and sold of, they could have been very useful in allot of scenarios, especially now the Astutes have seen a dramatic increase in size for the British SSN’s. Considering the massive impact that the RN’s submarines had on the outcome of the Falklands campaig it is surprising that the force has suffered as much as it has, prior to the end of the cold war the target force was 17 SSN’s (I have been told privately that this would probably have made it to 18) and 12 SSK’s, now they are down to what? just 7 SSN’s? :confused: 🙁