All I can say is… if they were that desperate to add two more Sidewinders, just enlarge the wing-top fences and make like a Jaguar!

Engineers… sometimes……. 😮

F11F-1F Super Tiger: Although a joy to fly, this was essentially the end of the ’50s gunfighter philosophy, belonging to an era whose time had passed. adding a lot of armament, range or electronics to it would have problematic (remember the concept of carrying AIM-9s on its back and raising them to fire over the canopy -bye. bye night vision?). It would also have been a day fighter.

Can you tell me where you found that gem… because it isn’t in any of the descriptions or histories of the Super Tiger I’ve read.

As I posted elsewhere, the US has about 300 normal C-130Hs* in service with the USAF, USAFR, & ANG… and EADS wants to replace them, and 59 C-5As, with 118 A400M?

Really?

*http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92
Active force, 145; Air National Guard, 181; Air Force Reserve, 102
Of these, 69 are J models, leaving 359 H & earlier, including special-purpose models.

I couldn’t find anything about an offer to Canada, but I did find this:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avbucc.html#m5

Hawker Siddeley did try to sell a supersonic version of the Buccaneer designated the “P.150” to the RAF. The P.150 featured the four-wheel main gear bogies of the P.145; a stretched fuselage, with twin afterburning Spey engines; a modified cockpit with separate canopies for the front and back seaters; and generally updated combat avionics and weapons capability.

Interesting item here: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/buccaneer/history.php

Carrier trials had begun back in January 1960, with the first landing (on HMS Victorious) being on the 19th. In August of that year the Navy officially named the new aircraft the Buccaneer S.Mk.1. Interest in the new aircraft was strong in Germany but a combination of the usual British government incompetence and the Germans wishing to standardise on a single aircraft type for most roles (the F-104 as it turned out) meant that the Buccaneer lost its chance to serve in the Marineflieger.

…..

While the new S.2 had first flown in May 1963, carrier trials only began in April 1965 (including cross-deck trials on the USS Lexington later in the year). At the conclusion of trials in American waters, one Buccaneer made the record books by flying from Goose Bay, Canada straight to its base at Lossiemouth in Scotland unrefuelled. Taking four hours and 16 minutes to cover the 1,950 mile trip, it was the first Fleet Air Arm aircraft to make the Atlantic crossing in one hop. Introduction of the S.2 into service went relatively smoothly compared with the S.1, and the higher-powered aircraft rapidly became very popular.

Around this time the TSR.2 project to specification GOR.339 (an attack aircraft that could have been described as a ‘Super-Buccaneer’) was coming under attack from many sides, and the Admiralty played their part in its downfall by pushing for the Buccaneer as a near-ideal aircraft to satisfy the requirement, yet costing far less than the increasingly expensive TSR.2. Strangely, Blackburn did not take full advantage of this. In any case, the RAF were extremely hostile to the idea of operating an aircraft designed for the Navy, and it found no favour with them at all. While Blackburn produced a brochure for the Ministry of Supply on the Buccaneer, they did not produce designs for a truly upgraded Buccaneer until after the TSR.2 had already been cancelled. Among designs that included a fighter variant (the P.140) and a more versatile strike variant (the P.145), the P.150 stood out as the most advanced. This would have been a supersonic (mach 1.8) Buccaneer with extended fuselage and new wings for the long-range strike role (i.e. the TSR.2’s role, later to be fulfilled by the MRCA, or Tornado). However, this never left the drawing board.

P.150

And right there is part of the fleet to support a new doctrine using Mistral-type LHDs… every nation that has large amphibs has been using them as support/command ships for their anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa… why shouldn’t the Russians?

Jonsey, every change has to begin somewhere… and it is easier to buy a large ship and then convince the money-men to fund support for it, than it is to build up the support first, for something you plan to acquire sometime later.

Or perhaps the Russians aren’t totally happy with that “established doctrine, training and experience”, and intend to change both that and “fleet operational requirements”?

Maybe they decided they would rather just have an extra heli space instead of a jump. Mind you i’ve not seen a photo with aircraft parked where a ski jump would be.

Looking at this pic, a ramp would eliminate at least the fore-most take-off/landing spot, and perhaps the second one as well.

Also, the presence of the ramp would make moving helicopters into/out of the forward parking spots much more difficult. It would require parking them at more of an angle, which would reduce the number that could be parked there as well as reducing the number of T-O/L spots… both of which would reduce the helo operational capability in order to increase the AV-8B/F-35 operating capability.

It would make the ship more of an escort carrier/LHD hybrid… and the USN has enough full-up carriers do fill their needs (a certain majority party in the US Congress thinks they have too many).

The USN has a balanced number of CVNs and LHA/LHDs, there is no need to shift the balance more towards the fixed-wing carrier side.