Not to drift too far off topic, but I’ve always loved the idea of a combined Buccaneer/Super Tiger airgroup on a Clemenceau-sized hull. In retrospect, this seems like the best value-for-money for non-US navies in the 1960s, and **might** have been affordable enough for the RN, RAN and RCN to retain conventional carriers well into the 1980s.

Buccaneer: At least as good a striker as the A-6
F11F-1F Super Tiger: A Sparrow-capable version was being offered – a better fighter than the F-8 and much more carrier-friendly than the big F-4.
Clemenceau-sized carrier: About as capable as Ark Royal/Eagle (in terms of airgroup size & aviation fuel capacity), but much cheaper to operate.

I could see the RN choosing the 1954 medium carrier design (35,000t, i.e. almost a Clemenceau clone), and ordering 2 CV-1954s (later increased to 4 when CVA-01 proves unaffordable), 2 of which survive into the 1980s with the others passed on to the RAN and RCN around 1970:

CV-1954 #1: Replaces Victorious (un-modernized) in 1959
CV-1954 #2: Replaces Eagle (un-modernized) in 1962
CV-1954 #3: Replaces Centaur & Ark Royal (no Phantomization) in 1966
CV-1954 #4: RN decides not to replace Hermes. Construction continues for RAN, replacing Melbourne (no refit) in 1970.

RCN purchases CV-1954 #1 circa 1970 to replace Bonaventure.

CV-1954 airgroup (hypothetical)
14x F-11F Super Tiger (or Sea Vixen or Crusader) – replaced by 12x F/A-18A in early/mid-1980s
20x Buccaneer – replaced by another 12x F/A-18A in late 1980s
5x Gannett or S-2 Tracker
3x Sea King

From what I read, civil certification is expected towards the end of 2011, after 2,700hrs have been flown. Military certification towards the end of 2012 (i.e. right in time for the delivery of MSN007 to the French Air Force), after 3,700hrs. The flight test program will continue somewhat beyond that, since the total test plan calls for 4,370hrs.

What I don’t understand is the 12-18 month gap between the deliveries of the fifth & final prototype, which is close to production-standard (MSN006: mid-2011) and the first series aircraft (MSN007: December 2011, though that may include a few months for customer acceptance testing). Given how well flight testing has been going so far, couldn’t MSN007 start building now so that the delivery could be be moved up to early 2012?

The simplest solution would be take the Atlantique 3 plans out of the drawing board again.

This was a mix of new-build & refurbished ATL2s with glass cockpit, new sensors and new engines (Rolls-Royce AE2100 as on the C-130J, C-27 etc). I guess the UK could donate the Nimrod’s electronics, the French could donate the airframes, and both could split the cost of the refurbishing and engine buy. The latter could be structured as an addendum to Rolls-Royce’s support contract for RAF C-130Js to benefit from volume pricing.

Would be cheap enough in relative terms, but I doubt that it would be cheaper than simply moving forward with ready-to-fly Nimrods.

Provided it gets off the ground anytime soon the Chinese Y-9 may be a better solution than the KC-390. It has a larger payload, greater range and would undoubtedly be cheaper.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airlift/y9.asp

Witcha, those specs seem outdated. Here’s a more recent set of specs for the Y-9, and they’re a lot less impressive: cnair.top81.cn/Il-76_Y-8X_H-6U.htm

Notice that the MTOW is only 65t (~15t less than a C-130J or KC-390), max payload only 20t, and max range with 15t only 2,200km. By comparison, the KC-390 is claimed to fly 2,500 nautical miles with the same payload, and the C-130J 2,800nm.

The Y-9’s rather poor specs are actually quite surprising, given that it’s supposed to have larger engines than the C-130J (5,000hp vs. 4,700hp).

Why not? Lockheed certainly designed it as such.

Maybe a question of opinion, but in my mind the traditional definition of “fighter” means the ability to do interdiction/escort over enemy lines. Don’t think the F-104 had the legs or maneuverability at subsonic speeds to do that, it was tailored for the quick-reaction interceptor role. IMHO the F-8 better meets the definition of a “fighter.”

Not suited? Why not?

IIRC, the F-104’s record as a ground-attack aircraft in Vietnam was less than stellar.

Why not? It was quite successful in demonstrating that capability. The problem wasn’t the YF-12…it was the lack of a threat.

What’s the engagement window with a Mach 4-5 closure rate? I can’t have been more than a few seconds, which makes me wonder about the effectiveness of the Mach 3 interceptor concept. And could the F-12 have slowed down & turned around fast enough to re-engage?

IMHO, the F-111 would have made a good long-range interceptor for the USAF, either in F-111B form or even better as a F-111C with F-111B avionics.

The Jaguar M was fundamentally unsuited as a carrier aircraft.

Super Etendard was actually a much better airframe, only let down by its engine. Had it been equipped with an RB.199 (available 1979) or even better an F404-GE-400 (available 1980), it would have been a stellar performer. Both the RB.199 and F404 were smaller and lighter than the SEM’s Atar, with 40% greater thrust and lower SFC.

The SEM could have been a modern F11F-1F Super Tiger, or using another analogy, like a carrier-capable, strike-optimized F-20 Tigershark.

So have the weight issues been worked out or is the payload capacity being reduced? Will it still be able to carry 37t as advertised?

No, but the question is how far from 37t it’ll be. All we know is that the payload will be reduced by 500kg (French MoD, March 2010). We don’t know whether that’ll be subtracted from the 32t contract spec, or from Airbus’ 37t figure. Airbus was still advertising a 37t payload at the Singapore Air Show in Feb. 2010, so who knows?

Triple good news

A400M On Schedule, Costs Under Control & Record Week

For those who find this expensive, the first 170 C-17s built cost about $380M (€300M) (R&D, production & initial support) in inflation adjusted 2010 dollars, and that excludes several billion dollars in post-production modifications needed to give the C-17 “tactical” capabilities. :p