Nor was I aware the fuselage-side AIM-9 pylons of the A-7 would even fit in the under-wing locations where an F-4 hangs its AIM-9s.

True and fair points but an aircraft could not bring sustained fire power or create a blockade..would not have the persistant that a naval vessel would and i know at that point the speed of the LCS is of little use.. but you would hope the speed is utilised to attain a good advantage ..

I am thinking of particular ports nearby Vietnam and Gwador…

http://www.naitazi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/gwadar.jpg

Maybe you have mis understood what i was hinting at, Vietnam is and has been an Ally of Indias in a loose sense for some time. and India wants to be friends with Rangoon so no problems there really.

Maybe i have miscontrued what you are saying, could you elucidate a bit?

Putting “ports near Vietnam” in the same sentence as “ports near Gwador”, which refers to the Pakistani Naval facilities, sure looked like you were placing Vietnam in the same category as Pakistan… an enemy of India they might one day need to conduct operations against.

As for my comments about Myanmar… while it is true that India has been working to improve relations there, there are still security concerns as regards a possible Myanmar-Bangladesh clash, the possibility of which was in the news and of concern earlier this year.

As India is a supporter and protector of Bangladesh, they might be forced to undertake operations against Myanmar even while trying to improve relations in order to have greater influence over Myanmar’s actions towards Bangladesh.

Yes, just a test-bed for part of the upgrade, not a “full version”.

I have never seen anything on a “Conway-powered Super Crusader”, but in 1964 the RN looked at the only 2-seat Crusader in existence and considered buying a production run of them with a Spey instead of the J57, and the back seat being fitted for operating the air intercept radar.

But they chose Phantom II instead.

No, their “unnamed military experts” did.

The A-7’s two fuselage-side pylons for AIM-9s were “self-defense only”… meaning “only if an enemy fighter is after you and there is no one around to help you”.

It was never tasked with any form of fighter duties… whereas the USN used A-4s from its ASW carriers to protect against NV Migs, and the RAN used their A-4Gs in a primary fighter role from HMAS Melbourne.

I really think the RAN should have picked up some A-4Ms with the radar from the F-5E when they got their supplemental purchase (ordered in 1970).

Deliveries of A-4Ms to the USMC began on February 26, 1971, and the first F-5E was rolled out June 23, 1972.

The F-5E used the Emerson Electric AN/APQ-159 lightweight miniature X-band pulse radar for air search and range tracking. The fire control radar in the nose was slaved to an AN/ASG 31 lead-computing optical gunsight.

This radar, in an A-4M airframe with the much stronger J52-P-408 (11,200 lbf vs 9,300 lbf for the A-4F/G’s J52-P-8A) would have made a very nice little A-A fighter throughout the 1970s & early 1980s.

Both CVF will have really nice, large medical sections which will approach that of Argus (if not actually equal hers.. still, nothing to complain about).

The RAF is scheduled to get HOW many A400M? 22

All of which can take a refueler kit if Airtanker PFI were canned!

Just buy kits for half of them, and you’ve got a really nice tactical tanker fleet, and can get away with a smaller A330 tanker fleet. Buy kits for all of them, and you really can save some money.

Consider that the USN/USMC use the far slower KC-130 very often (and well) for refueling their F/A-18s… Typhoon & F-35B should refuel nicely from the much faster, larger-capacity A400M.

OK, here’s a better view… Canada’s F-35A contract they just signed.

The Canadians have agreed to pay 9bn Canadian dollars ($8.5bn; £5.6bn), which comes out to $138.46 million Canadian; $130.77 million US; £86.15 million each for 65 F-35A… a “price for the package of one airplane and that airplane’s share of what is needed to get the squadrons running”!

Plus more for a 20-year maintenance contract.

Note that “Maintenance support contracts” do NOT mean that the operating Air Force does nothing and needs no equipment… it means that maintenance functions above squadron level are the responsibility of the contractor… the operating Air Force still needs all the squadron-level equipment & supplies… which is part of the initial contract (the $9 billion Canadian in this case).

During the news conference, Mr. MacKay would not say how much Canada would pay for each jet. Although he did indicate that the 9 billion Canadian dollar figure includes other costs like training, improvements to airbases as well as simulators.

A Canadian procurement official, who spoke on the condition he not be identified, said that the government was assuming that it would pay 90 million Canadian dollars for each F-35 although it anticipated that the final cost would be much lower.

Tom Burbage, a top Lockheed manager for the program, said the company expected to sell the planes to Canada for $60 million to $65 million each, not accounting for maintenance, parts or inflation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html

So Canada is getting their F-35As for below $85 million each (US)… and likely about $75 million US each (taking the half-way point between Lockheed & Canada).

As the more informed around here were aware of.