Heatseeking AIM-4 was a better interceptor-based heat seeker than Sidewinder in its day. The external coolant allowed for a more sensitive eyeball; it could pick out a low-flying target over ground much better than Sidewinder in the same situations. The drawback was that you only had a limit of coolant available for the seekers, making them useless when it ran warm. Another bonus was it was capable from the start of launch above Mach 2 speeds, Sidewinder was not. The rocket motors of the original were recycled into the Super Falcon program; most all of the planned heatseeking Super Falcons were redirected to use motors from the previous generation in order to save money.

The SARH version of the AIM-4 was cheaper than Sparrow. Plus it came in conventional and nuclear versions. The original contact fuse meant a pilot could with visual certainty know if he hit or missed his target, whereas early proximity fuses exploded when they approached chaff clutter.

I see a LERX and the main wing moved up. But otherwise it looks like a normal F-5 with an ardvaark nose.

Oh dear. Let’s examine & think about this, shall we?

What was said was “Nobody today is in position to win a battle of attrition.”. There’s the word “today” in there, implying that this is true now, but has not always been true. I can see no reason why that statement would be more true now than in the past. Also, it is unqualified as to the extent or cost of victory, so it does not exclude Pyrrhic victories. It doesn’t say “nobody ever really wins a battle of attrition”, which is a logically defensible position.

BTW, Rome in effect won a war of attrition against Pyrrhus, despite losing battles. The Romans had more men than him, & could sustain the defeats they suffered, while he couldn’t afford to keep winning like that, & eventually had to withdraw. Not the best example to support the argument. 😀

You do realize that even a 5% attrition rate is devastating in air warfare? And if you are Japan what magic stockpile do you pull the replacements from? When western aligned nations have to spend upwards of $100 million per warplane today the loss of even one is serious business. You want total superiority, simply because you don’t want to slug it out and leave yourself vulnerable strategically after winning the battles. I stand by my message.

Nobody today is in position to win a battle of attrition.

Interesting they replace the F-14’s and F-4’s with Su-30MKM when they have publically lauded themselves for building a twin-engine fighter in the F-22 class.

Guess they lied.

$150 million? More like $200 mil so that every 5-6 planes for Japan nets a spare for ourselves.

You didn’t understand. The Hawk 200 is a single seater. It’s a light fighter, not a trainer. I was taking the **** out of your mistake, expecting you to either realise the error you’d made, or wonder what I was on about & check. Ah well . . .

Here’s a picture –

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/hawk4.html

Look at the cockpit. Also note the AAMs & the nose – there’s a radar in there.

LOL. Yeah, I thought it came in single and two seat versions. Silly me.

So would you be of the opinion an Alphajet type of aircraft would work for them? How about an AMX derivative? A Yak-130? Javelin?

I like the idea of the rear bombay. True poop down shoot down.