That made little sense. More than likely it’s a shield for some equipment.
Remember the original orders have all been scaled back. 700 total delivered at the end of the program is very substantial.
The UK may have had ungainly looking prop bombers, but Belfast and Armstrong among others sure made them pretty prop transports. They had it going pretty well in the Vickers VC-10 and other general utility transports. I always liked some of the lighter prop transports. The BAe 346 was a pretty airliner, which is a nice human transport to fly in. And their graceful designs have translated to A400M looking nice, too.
700 airframes is pretty successful when you consider it was targeted against defeating Flankers, Fulcrums, F-16s and F-15s. It’s numbers compare well to all save the F-16.
Yeah, he clearly didn’t notice their army and air force was mainly using French operational organization, using mainly French equipment across the board, dependent on French weapons for the majority of their needs. The UK is probably closer to fourth place behind the US and Germany when it comes to military acquisitions. Even that place is threatened by the sales from the Netherlands and Italy.
12 Rafales would be a serious step up for them, especially in standoff strike if they opt for the kit. Typhoon is nice, but it isn’t quite the same platform for their needs. Qatar could afford to go the Typhoon route, but it would be contrary to their alliance.
The generator doubles as a starter and is only capable of rotating the engine 10% of its peak RPMs. That is using inputs from a ground terminal, not on board electricity. The 2.5kW at 24v filtered is substantial output for a pair these motors.
wilhelm-
The F-5 doesn’t have the capacity to generate much more than the 2.5kW and it takes four times the fuel flow over its cruise flow rate to reach that sum. The F-5’s used a 24v system that didn’t have much battery backup capability either. So antenna size may be important, but the system still needs its power which on small jets like the F-5 is no trivial task.
Super Flankers are their best option. Roll the Su-27’s into a strike and ground attack role. Use the Su-35 for Air Supremacy. Tejas is not a good option for them, but Gripen fits. Saab has the technical skills to integrate R-73 and R-77 into the Gripen.
No trapeze, looks like gas ejection.
Its a metric driven by available electrical output. The F-5 doesn’t have an abundance of excess thrust available for electrical output, therefore its short search and detection ranges. Targeting and lock on range, due to its more focused use of that power, isn’t so terrible. I would think a re-engine program to the high output F125 engine would solve a lot of this limitation.
F-35 is the new F-16, not Gripen NG.
………………………………..[ATTACH=CONFIG]218295[/ATTACH]
Not anything remarkable from a military POV. The supercritical wing explored aerodynamics of underwing airflow as the primary source of lift, which Airbus had already proven.
Good rebuttal, Bager1968. I rarely have the time to do all the fact finding these days. I knew the Buccaneer was a 50’s design, but it flew with different engines initially so your Spey comments make sense. The original J79 wasn’t quite the same beast initially. It would have made sense for low level strike versions of Starfighters. I don’t think Drakenwas was intended for low level anything even though the Swiss put them through the paces a lot.
Even more crazy, what if YF-16A used twin F404’s and the prototype of the F/A-18A used a single F100… Never mind.