The purchase of the 13 Mirage F1 look pretty solid, actually. They are getting twenty-five modernized airframes (12 single seat F1, a two-seat F1, and 12 M2K) for under $150 million. And they have been offered MICA. Rumblings about Exocet for the F1’s. That’s a nightmare scenario for the RAF.
The French establishment is much easier to place confederates within their system in order to gleam negotiation details from their core team. The Eurofighter consortium is much more difficult to measure because of the obfuscated nature of their decision making. Considerable power has been placed in the hands of the negotiators for said EF team, which gives them considerable flexibility when they need to raise the stakes.
Towed array on general auxiliary aircraft using RATs to power each segment and data by laser fiber.
Protects aircraft from HOJ. No excessive power draw on electrical system. Adaptable to non-specialized aircraft.
Possible difference if the F-8E had used French parts in them.
Specifications
Length: 54′ 3″ (16.5 m)
Height: 15′ 9″ (4.8 m)
Wingspan: 35′ 8″ (10.8 m)
Wingarea: 350.0 sq ft (32.5 sq m)
Empty Weight: 17,836 lb (8,088 kg)
Gross Weight: 34,100 lb (15,464 kg)
Propulsion
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: SNECMA M53-5 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 12,230 lbf (54.0 kN)
Afterburner: 19,400 lbf (86.3 kN)
Performance
Range: 1,350 miles (2,200 km)
Combat radius: 425 miles (675 km) in hi-lo-hi attack with 2,000 kg warload
Cruise Speed: 575 mph (925 km/h)
Max Speed: 1,375 mph (2,200 km/h)
Climb: 27,200 ft/min (8,290 m/min)
Ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,775 m)
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Payload: 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) of weapons
Empty weight: 17,541 lb (7,956 kg)
Loaded weight: 29,000 lb (13,000 kg)
Wing area: 375 ft² (34.8 m²)
Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft² (377.6 kg/m²)
Fuel capacity: 1,325 US gal (5,020 L)
Hardpoints:
2× side fuselage mounted Y-pylons (for mounting AIM-9 Sidewinders and SNEB rockets)
2× underwing pylon stations holding up to 4,000 lb (2,000 kg) of payload
Armament
Guns: 4× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 cannons in lower fuselage, 125 rounds per gun
Rockets:
4× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm Mk 32 Zuni rockets) on Y-pylons or
4× Matra Type 155 rocket pods (each with 18× SNEB 68mm RPs) on Y-pylons or
2x Matra JL-100 drop tank/rocket pack (combines 250L drop tank with rocket pod containing 19× SNEB 68 mm RPs)
Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or Matra R.550 Magic on Y-pylons and/or
2× Matra R530 (only one per cheek mounting; IR and SARH versions available) underwing
Air-to-surface missiles:
2× AGM-12 Bullpup underwing or
2x AS-30 missile, which uses MCLOS guidance via a radio command link underwing or
2x AS.37 Martel or AGM-45 Shrike Anti-radiation missile underwing (ARM)
Bombs:
12× 113kg BL5 bombs underwing or
8× 250kg EU2 bombs underwing or
4× 400kg T200 bombs underwing or
2× 1000kg BL4 bombs underwing
Unless it has a sustained or terminal source of energy it’s a good chance to be used that way.
A good chunk of your destructive force is the medium moving out of ground zero at the speed of sound or better, then returning to fill the void. The heat isn’t going to disintegrate the airfield. A cratering warhead is focusing all that heat at a slightly below ground point and that creates the tunneling effect that is much more destructive to the surface.
Cold launchers are reusable tubes.
The runway bed ultimately survives. You can fix superficial damage in tens of hours. A crater the size of a village in the middle of the facility is not worthy of repair.
There exist a relation between weight & cost, and EF weigh more
That certainly is true whenever metals or composites are concerned.
It would look like a real go getter with the bigger engine.
The best line art I have is the -C model. The -E model would look even better.
Perhaps you were missing a ‘7’ and meant Su-27.
I’d much rather see them market the new version (is it F/A-18H, F/A-18J, or F/A-18SE?) using an F135 engine rather than EPE’s. You cut the maintenance costs down and you simplify the future supply chain. Why push a new engine variant that costs so much when they can use a super one that’s already OTS?
You do not take out the runway with an airburst, the airburst is anti-personnel and destroys the unshielded equipment and facilities. A runway is too deep and sturdy to take out like that. You destroy the hardened facility with subterranean ground bursts, shallow penetration before detonation. Leaves a huge crater.
The weapons are already proven in real combat, and they are truly gruesome against a force that has no countermeasures. Its mixed results against countermeasures, but to counter them you leave yourself open to other tactics that are just as gruesome. So when the guy above says massed formations are out of date, equivalent to ‘infantry squares & massed cavalry charges’, he’s stating the truth.
Certainly not to move a cone tuned to one frequency.