Rather than customize my F-35 I would mix my air force with a combination of at least two types, depending on country. The bulk would be CTOL’s. STOVL for forward depoylment as CAS and any eventual STOVL carrier. CV for longer ranged IDS and over water missions. The numbers would be very varying for different airforces offcourse.

Having that said. I cant understand why no two seater have been developed or projected. I would realy like to see a two seat ‘EF-35C’ variant. It would be a two seat F-35C, with a hump on its back containing the mission specific avionics from the EA-18G, and a smaller hump on its belly used as antenna cluster if needed. Offcourse a highspeed antiradiation weapon witht the maximum size of a JDAM would have to be developed. Which would be a hard job in itself.

/Dan

…
Secondly, the Vikings: Yes there are some around (Wish I owned one as I love these planes). They have three different types sitting in AMRAC- S-2A/B, CS-2 and finally the ES-2. An AWACS conversion of an ES-2 would not be far out of the imagination, especially with the Erieye radar system with or with out consols in it.
….

Guys I think you have confused the designations.

Here is a brief summary on the Tracker.
http://www.warbirdalley.com/c1.htm

S-2 Tracker:

The AEW Version of the Tracker is the…
E-1 Tracer:

The Carrier Onboard Delivery version of the Tracker is the…
C-1 Trader:
Which had an enlarged belly that made it look like it was pregnant.

*Not to be confused with the US-2A/B/C which were S-2s converted for utility use such as target towing and light transport.

Here is a brief summary on the Viking
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/s-3.htm
The S-3 Viking:

The Electronic Recon variant of the Viking is the…
ES-3A Shadow:
Antennas, antennas, antennas

The Carrier Onboard Delivery variant of the Viking is the…
US-3A Viking:
Which is basicaly an S-3A without the mission avionics and a pair of extra big storage pods.

…
you would think Brazil and France would jump at the chance to purchase a hand full as S-2 Tankers or COD’s!
…

AFAIK there never was a specific Tanker or AEW Viking developed. Only studies were made. That said the Viking have always been abel to utilise the ‘budy refuling system’ and as such have been utilised as a tanker. Especially after the USN decided that a aircraftcarrier deployed subhunter was not a necesity a couple of years ago. With the removal of the avionics weight was saved and the USN could also retire the ageing KA-6D, saving even futher money. The US-3A was not deemed a succes since it had limited cargo handling for a realtively high price. The saving made through comonality with the deployed S-3’s was not enough and a cargo version of the E-2 Hawkeye was developed instead as the C-2 Greyhound.

S-3B Viking (presumably B) refuleling Argentinian Super Etandards

The supposed AEW Viking. The wings would fold back like on the E-2 Hawkeye.

So which is it that you like Ja? The S-2 or the S-3? 😎
/Dan

Mustn’t forget it’s a crap airplane though 😉

BUUUUUUU!!!! 🙁

Vigi rox!!! 😛
/Dan

“….The aircraft was extremely complex, and was difficult to maintain properly, and numerous missions had to be cancelled because of maintenance problems. “

The Vigi had a few first which are considered standard these days. HUD beeing one of them. Considering the reliability of the electronics in those days IMO it was normal to have so much downtime. :p

It used the same powerplant as the F-4 Phantom and despite being bigger and heavier it could out pace the F-4. Also at lower fuel levels it could oout manuever the Phantom, again despite being larger and heavier with the same powerplant. It was enough ahead of it’s time that both strike and interceptor derivatives were considered. …

Sure it was more aerodynamicaly clean in its standard recce configuration. That is no pylons and dropstanks and nothing else to shoot with more than film. Phantom was alwas hauling some junk under its wings. 😀

IMO the Vigi could be adapted for more than just USN recce.
Anyway both the Phantom and Vigi r among my favorit aircraft.

/Dan

…
The Mk41 crane isn’t used underway anymore, in fact on the Burkes the foward one is pretty much not used any more and the aft one is just used to help move torps from the magazine up to next to the tubes.

So what are they using now? How do they get the missiles in there if they dont use that crane?

/Dan

Naturaly the underside of the nose was damaged. As can be seen in this picture: http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_20066202013314.asp

But can someone tell my they need to cover that area with some plastic bags? Just for some weather protection? It looks like it’s so loose it would fly away in a hard wind.
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_200662020133110.asp

Or why there wasn’t a C-141B “Super” Starlifter? :diablo: Come to think of it though I think the F-104S was the “Super” Starfighter. :confused:

The Italians who build the F-104S wanted the spey engine. But the Americans opposed that so they had to settle for ‘S’ as in Sparrow (AIM-7).