Just sayin’….
What’s wrong with keeping one foot on the ground when taking steps forward?The F-35 program has all the earmarks of the F-111 program. Forced on the USN. One size fits all solution to many different unrelated problems. Big leap forward with dependence on undeveloped ideas. Sliding schedules. Leaps and bounds in development costs. Industry steering the boat. The F-35 sounds too good to survive in it’s current iteration. They should have started smaller.
On that note – has the C-2 ever been trialled or used as a tanker for the USN?
I don’t believe they use it because it’s cruise speed is just over a couple hundred knots. Too slow and vulnerable. The S-3 Viking ended it’s career playing some of that role. But apparently buddy packs and ARF from landbased assets are all the rage since retiring KA-6 and S-3.
The engine is very good and they could be ramping up its production.
LM really ought to offer up an interim fighter solution in the size class of the F-105 or F-106, but designed to be the least expensive fighter of its weight to maintain. Basically the F-16A on steroids. Single engine. Aim for 750 mile combat radius. Single-seater. Simplified delta or swept wing. Internal bay for a pair of 2000 pounders. 5 under-wing/body 3000-pound capable weapons hardpoints, 3 of them wet. Option for 2 more hardpoints per wing for lighter weapons. OTS AN/APG-80 radar, with options for the F-18E’s AN/APG-79 and F-35’s AN/APG-81. (Should have plenty of excess energy from the powerplant to support any of them.) A pair of over-wing or chin mounts dedicated to sidewinders/asraam for self defense. No internal cannon. K.I.S.S. principle.
They could steal the thunder of overly complex programs like whats going on with the F-35. The USAF and USN both have track records of ordering for the sky and settling for the hilltops.
Let’s go through the figures:
hat leaves 2.6 tons for external loads. Not a lot, true – but enough for full internal fuel, a buddy refuelling pack & 2 tons of external fuel, allowing at least 3 tons (how much will it need for take off, refuelling, reserves & landing?) to transfer to other Gripens after they take-off. Not ideal, but you should be able to send off a fully laden Gripen for every two take-offs or so.
Or commission a suitable straight wing asset that can do the job for 2-3 aircraft at a time. You’re still going to need straight wing assets for setting up the offboard radar pickets and cargo hauling. Helicopters can only do so much of those duties.
8 or 80 kN, but 8000kN is almost 71 million pounds of thrust!
Seconded. As a liberal of the Adam Smith variety (i.e. a real liberal, one who understands what liber & liberalis mean), I resent all the Leftpondian perversions of its meaning.
Adam Smith by his very nature is liberal on one level then abhors to pro-establishment views in another level, with both truths running parrallel to each other. Nothing wrong with individual rights and the ability to exert one’s free sense. Nothing wrong with servitude to the glue that binds the state. We agree that liberalism has nothing to do with left-communal politics. But calling him an outright liberal is intellectually dishonest.
Usually I’m not quoting with picture – one comment here:
There should not be any non-Ro/Ro aircraft allowed to land there at the moment. All these airliners you can see here take up disproportional time and space for what they deliver, plus they need special GSE – other than just a forklifter – to unload.
I have no problem with which planes are there. But I’d think the tactical-level military aircraft would largely be able to park in the grass to unload.
What’s the USA going to do about it? The previous embargo pushed Brazil to find new partners. Brazil is working on both launchers & satellites, & is planning to start launching Ukrainian rockets from its equatorial Alcantara launch site.
IDK, maybe if Brazil’s ambitions get too big the SLV’s might spontaneous explode on their launch platforms…
If Japan wants to retire their F-4’s why not upgrade their existing F-15’s to AESA and modernize towards the E-model as a target. If they need more airframes in the sky then the F-2 should be more suited than new order F-15’s. What they learn from the F-15 AESA might come in handy in making the F-2’s AESA more worthwhile in the long run. These moves would buy them time until the F-35 is available.
Brazil would need the associated space technologies to have use of ucav and standoff missile programs, something the U.S. does not want.
SA-2’s can be force fired and manually fused. And they have changed about twenty times over the years. The SA-2’s that live on today are not the same as the ones used in the skies of Vietnam. Plus its not always military targets they can be used upon. Isreal can and will be concerned.
People compare the JF-17 to the MiG-21 because of the early confusion the media had between the JJ-7 trainer and the FC-1 programs. The JJ-7 is definitely an offshoot of the MiG-21/J-7 programs. In some ways it does look similar to the JF-17. But we know now they are not similar other than sharing basic superficial traits.
Like the FC-17 and nothing else!? Actually it looks like quite a few other designs that have been out on drawing boards.
Not to be too negative, but Jurassic Park is almost 20 years old.