interesting topic.

I’ve often wondered about solving the Tornado F3’s alleged lack of performance at higher altitudes – I’ve often wondered how the F.3 would perform if it was equiped with the M53 ‘leaky turbojet’ from the Mirage 2000. Or take the F-14, replace the TF-30 with the latest versions of the J75 (powering the F-105, F-106) – I have in mind the J75 version which could power the XF8U-3 Crusader III to Mach 2.6. That would be a fast Tomcat, probably wouldn’t be the Tomcat that the USN would have wanted though.

The J-75 ran into the problem of those in control preferring fan-jets to straight turbo jets.

It was not even close to the end of its development but money went else where.

The lessor version took the the Six to it to an official unofficial mach 2.7 and mid- eighty thousand feet altitude.

A non-produced engine by GE would have combined turbojet and turbofan in one engine but it was doa.

Turbojets give more out and out grunt and it would be interesting to see how some of the current aircraft would perform with a genuine turbojet.

Mud — a very good film.

Also White House Down is one I’m awaiting, though will be very much similar to Olympus Has Fallen.

No it is not.

If the Soviets had the Falklands they would have S. Georgia Island also, and there would most likely have been more there than small marine detachment at an old whaling station.

Russia would back India, period.

Certainly a completely different approach compared to F-35..

Well — maybe — that is because if the T-50 has computer glitch, the pilot merely lands the aircraft early, whereas; the F-35 will leave a smoking hole in the tarmac?

I think the answer is yes, the F-23 would have been better long run, but there are too many variables so we will never know the real answer. As others have pointed out there was risk with both the F-22 and the F-23 and much development to get them to operational platforms. Perhaps the F-23 would have run into unknown problems as well. One other factor not mentioned is the amount of overhead and support that the builder bulids into the program. This can be very lucrative, and if the bulider holds the source codes, does the inevitable upgrades etc, then the customer has their hands tied and can do little. The track record with Lockmart has not been the greatest here.

If the Air Force, Air Defense Command had still existed, the F-23 probably would have been chosen but as within the Air Force the old TAC which took over the ADC before it was eliminated, there was zero love lost, with animosity going back to R. Strange McNamara, therefore any aircraft which smelt of interceptor influence was doa.

Thank you! That was helpful. Here’s another picture; there appears to be 2 pods under the aircraft.
It’s hard to make out due to the quality and size of the picture but the pods appear to be different to the ones on the F-4.
Is the SUU-11 pod fitted with a M134 Minigun or a GAU-2/A? Both appear to be mini guns with 6 barrels and look alike.

The only “mini-guns” are the .30 caliber, nothing else is called that.