If only Honeywell’s F125 could be pushed to a 9.5:1 TWR (or better) it would be nice to see an F-5G program built around it.
While the B-70A will always be the most beautiful supersonic jet to me, I dare wonder if they had went conservative.
I wouldn’t have minded to see B-58 replaced with a layout like the B-70A. Four J79 rather than six engines. Podded engine bays separated into two pairs like on B-1A but more flattened and scoop-shaped engine intakes to come to a point like on B-70A, using the intakes to shield the landing gear and internal space between the engines. I always liked the Loch Ness monster neckline of the B-70A with its Viggen-like canards. And if it could have a horizontal beaver tail and twin verticals over the engine bays like on the Tomcat. B-70A really was a glorified theater bomber in range. And with its structural limitations, it would have been prone to accidents retiring air-frames way too early for the investment.
Bahrain Says It Signed $3.8 Bn Deal for F-16 Fighter Jets
C’mon, SpudmanWP, you know weapons separation doesn’t magically happen from an empty space.
They hadn’t worked on the apparatus nor the doors. An empty space didn’t cost any development money and they had a high burn rate for money in the program.
XB-70 didn’t even have a bay for bombs. That was a technical hurdle yet to tackle.
It made more sense in the electronics day & age to resurrect YF-12A as a standoff high-speed, high-altitude smartbomb-release platform. The B-70 was affordable if you operated like ten and cancelled B-52, FB-111A, and B-58 – and never initiated B-1A development – to offset operational costs.
F-CK-1 looks more like Japan’s F-2A than an F-16.
F-CK-1 has lower TWR engines and weaker electronics overall.
F-CK-1 looks better than FC-1 or Tejas in my opinion. If Taiwan gear wasn’t neutered it would be right up there in between.
Some factors are just not calculable based on fanatical numerology.
Fleet readiness isn’t even factored in there. It’s more focused to used a 7-man ground crew to keep on F-15E in the air than it is two 5-man ground crews for two F-16’s. And each squadron will have a different number of bodies available at facilities based upon how close to wing and group depots. Logistics does seem to fit numerology all that well in that respect.
:confused:
Gripen?
Trolling obviously.
At least contribute something to a thread instead of trying to incite people.

https://www.mycity-military.com/imgs4/472668_51532955_JF-17B.jpg

Too bad Saab’s Gripen doesn’t borrow the tail from Boeing.
All of the candidates have subtle ugliness. Northrop has a good looking front section. The tail is ugly. Too bad they cannot combine elements from several different designs to make a single good looking design.
Imagine if the Russians had actually built aircraft in series production that supported one another’s supply chains.
They could have leveraged the NK-32 program to build a MiG-29 class fighter. The Backfire uses two. And the Blackjack uses four. Of the same engine. Instead you have three completely different production lines.
And it would have made more sense to replace MiG-23 with a single Al-31 derived design. The MiG-23 replacement and the T-10 derivatives would have used the same or similar engines. Instead you have yet a fourth and fifth production line, as Al-31 comes in two families.
Russia cannot afford their military because it was never run lean enough to be affordable. The crumbling of the Soviet era war machine continues with every passing day.
Is Su-57 truly the official designation of the T-50 program? I’ve only seen fringe websites mention it.
