Even if, and it’s a mighty big if you could get a Mig 29 to take off from Invincible’s ramp, you’d have to provide arrestor wires as there are none. There is no angled flight deck either so landing will be fun…
Invincible will need more than “a few modifications” i’m afraid USS novice.
Why not sell Invincible to Argentina….ahem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From what I understnt, Britain almost sold a few Vulcan bombers to Argentina in the 70’s!!
I think there was a US misile called Brazo?? or somethink like that. Basically an air – air version of the Shrike or HARM. It was designed to home in on big airborne radars such as the one on the Mig 25.
Mind you, I could have mentioned the S-3 Viking with its folding fin.
if you think the folding wings on the A-6E and F/A-18 are bad, what about the SU-33 with its folding tailplane??
As many F-16’s and F/A-18’s I could affford, esp if the F-15E dirivetive was out of reach.
If not on the best of terms with the US, then Mirage 2000’s and save up for Eurofighter.
U wish!!!
Ho-Ho!!!:)
[QUOTE]When Robert McNamarra spoke to Castro a few years ago, he asked three questions;
1- Were there any weapons on Cuba, and did you know of any at the time?
2- Would you have recomended that the weapons be used if Cuba was invaded?
3- What did he think would happen to Cuba if the Nuclear weapons had been used?
Castros answers:
1- There were around 160 nuclear weapons on cuba, including around 40 tactical warheads.
2- Castro didn’t just reccomend that the weapons be used, he DEMANDED to Kruschev that the weapons be used if Cuba got invaded.
3- Castro was prepared to accept that Cuba would be completely destroyed.
Did you get this info from a recent TV documentary about Robert McNamarra? It was on a couple of weeks ago on the BBC. I saw bits of it but not the whole lot. Hope they show it again, looked fascinating.
Those wings!!! Looks overly complex to me. Think of a conventional swing winger like the F-14, B-1 or Mig-23. There’s enough complexity, not to mention extra weight in these types already.
What could these extra two wings do what the simpler F-22 or forward swept wings cannot???
Forgot to mention Tornado IDS / GR4. Besides, I said deep strike which could or could not mean low level atacks.
The Tornado was also breifly considered by the USAF as a complement and eventual replacement for the F-111. A position taken up by the F-15E.
As far a being based on carriers, I would have given the tornado at least a 20% bigger wing area. Look at the JSF and see that the naval version has a bigger wing.
[QUOTE]For A/G there is no way around a second man, and I don’t think more computers and sensors will change this. He will just do a different job, like managing UAVs or something.
Oh I dunno. Depends on the aircraft. For CAS and general ground attack single seaters rule the day. A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II, A-10 Thunderbolt, Jaguar, Su-22, Harrier, Su-25 and of course the majority of F-16’s and F/A-18’s in attack mode.
For deep strike and all wether attack, two seaters seem to rule. F-15E / I / K / S, F/A-18F (will also be used as a two seat fighter I guess), F-111, Mirage 2000D / N, Su-24, Su-37 and although retired, Bucanneer and A-6 Intruder.
The only prob with shooting down an airliner, whether it be a DC-9 or 737 up to a 747 or A380 is the fact that you’ve got tons upon tons of fuselage, wing, tailplane and engine landing over several square miles / km of downtown Washington, New York, London, Paris or Moscow. Not to mention thousands of gallons / litres of highly flammable kerosene. God knows how many fires this could start.
Of course, this could be avoided if the aircraft in question was shot down over the Atlantic, North Sea or open country. However, the with the situation yesterday, the plane was well inland and over Washington already….god forbid!!!!!
Listen, if it were a hijacked Boeing or Airbus heading for Washington, then it’d be ALL our problem, one way or another….