This argument is OT and tiresome. You’re comparing a 50% heavier twin-engine plane redesigned in the past five years against an airframe using a single engine that has been virtually frozen in design for a decade.

If the ISIS/ISIL threat divides Iraq into three states then it will predictably lead to Kurdish North, Sunni West-Central, and Shia South. The Kurds will not get anything more than the F-16IQ or it would threaten Turkey. Good luck delivering them in, because the Turks wouldn’t entertain fly overs. The Sunni dominated section may just opt for J-10’s, but it won’t have the oil production to pay for them and to maintain a state. It would have to take equipment from someone like China on sweetened terms, which would make the NATO friendly countries unhappy. I just don’t see Russia comfortable with ISIS/ISIL becoming strong. Deliveries would presumably have to arrive through Syria. J-10’s for the Sunnis would be interesting. (I could not believe they would go JF-17 in this scenario.) The Shia also would be restricted to something like F-16IQ.

I’d want upward directed launch. The missile is only losing energy because it’s the path of greater resistance whereas upwards is the path of lesser resistance. When the missile gets beyond its apex then it’s recycling potential energy spent to climb back into kinetic energy. SDB style wings would extend its range with a glide. Realize that Griffin uses these pop-out wings already. 🙂

KC-135J Harvest Hawk’s Griffin

Griffin are fired out the SOPGM rack in the rear ramp. The optional 30MM Bushmaster is fired out the left side paratroop doors, which makes sense because the add-on sensor pod to the left fuel tank for targeting is on the left wing. The AN/AAQ-30 Targeting Sight System (TSS) sensor package consists of day/night vidcams with magnification capability. It is the same TSS used on the upgraded AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter. The Hellfires (up to 4) are under wing. The kit is actually small enough something smaller could have carried it (C-27J or CN-235) if they deleted the gun or integrated it to make it more compact. It’s probably small enough a Skyraider could have carried it. The weapons systems operator uses a Fire Control Console mounted on a standard cargo pallet in the KC-130J’s cargo compartment. The Hellfire rack looks to be adapted from the rack used on the AH-1Z. The USAF MC-130W Dragon Spear program uses a similar concept.

The 15.6 kg (34.5 pound) Griffin, recently entered service in Afghanistan, aboard UAVs. The Hellfire II, which weighs 48.2 kg (106 pounds), carries a 9 kg (20 pound) warhead and has a range of 8,000 meters. The Griffin has a 5.9 kg (13 pound) warhead which is larger, in proportion to its size, than the one carried by the larger Hellfire missile. Griffin has pop-out wings, allowing it to glide, and thus has a longer range (15 kilometers) than Hellfire.

I could see value in an affordable civilian-based plane with long loiter ability (King Air) converted into a vertical tube launched missile platform. Mount tubes that can ventilate gases from a hot launch freely without disturbing the engines or the aircraft’s lift. Basically like SLBM launching. The aircraft can be steered in mere seconds to give optimal launch parameters, changing pitch, yaw, or bank angles as needed. Hellfire and Griffin sized missiles would give serious punch at short notice. Dual mode seekers have shrunk down considerably where you wouldn’t have to use F-35’s in low intensity environments where the enemy cannot reach 15000 feet with their AD weapons. Folding fins and slow burn propellants could serious increase the slant range to targets and still maintain low time to impact times.

It probably had something to do with carrying four R-40’s whereas the MiG-31 carries a pair.

With China backing ISIS you never know what will happen. But even China cannot defy the laws of nature to turn JSR’s nonsensical rants into reality. The minor statistical difference in accident rates doesn’t make economic sense to stick with twin engines when one will do. Excess engine power is a design point, it doesn’t make twin engines mandatory. Why are there no three engine fighters? Obvious reasons due to costs.

Having had a quick peruse, Griffin is more of a helicopter UAV type weapon than a fast jet deployable system isn’t it? Are you saying that the Brimstone (carrying in 3s) could be replaced by 9 Griffins on the same launcher? Also the range is significantly less for the American weapon.

SPEAR 3 is a different weapon entirely in that its even longer ranged and jet powered although still capable of multiple carriage on one hardpoint.

Griffin has been tested at about every vantage point from subsonic jets to tripods to hovering helicopters. It’s been extended with a booster and changed in several ways to meet specifications allowed in various competitions. Weight-wise you can place three for every Brimstone. It’s shorter and has a smaller width, but it’s not feasible to put nine packs together where a three pack of Brimstone would fit. You would have considerably less drag on a one for one swap out basis, which is significant.

Could it be a mismatched inlet to the engine? T-50 may have been designed around Al-41A before the settling on its renamed predecessor to speed up development.

Environmentalists have been driving those missions out of existence, or at least making it easier to justify not doing the remote monitoring done during the Cold War.