Okay given that it’s the MID SEVENTIES, here’s my mix…

F-15A Eagle Air Superiority / Air Defence
F-5E Tiger II Lite fighter
A-6E Intruder All weather strike
A-7E Corsair II… General ground attack
…or Jaguar Alternative to A-7
F-4E Pantom II General Multirole
RF -4E Tactical Recce
U-2R!!! Strategic Recce
707 VIP / Troop transport / Elint / EW
P-3 Orion Maritime / ASW duties
E-3 AWACS
KC-135 (not needed if 707 is tanker also)
C-130
C-141!!!
KC – 130 (for A-6 / A-7 / Jaguar)
AH-1 Cobra (by the score)
UH-1 (tons of ’em)
CH – 47 or…
…CH – 53…
…or both…
…or Mi – 6

The Indian Sea Harrier FRS.51 is NOT AIM-120 compatible. It would need the Blue Vixen from the soon to be retired UK Sea Harrier F/A – 2 or the F-16’s APG – 66. This would be a major cost for a handful of airframes. Even if this were done, would the US sell AIM-120 to India???

It would be perhaps better for India to buy the UK’s remainig Sea Harriers for a knockdown price (Ebay anyone???) before they suffer the scrapmans blowtorch.

Mind you, if India takes these Harriers off the UK’s hands, the inevitable question would be, “why are the British getting rid of the Sea Harrier if they’re good enough for India?”.

As for the Mirage III / V v the Sea Harrier, one has to remember that Pakistan should by now have a healthy stock of Exocet missiles. During the Falklands war, Argentina had around half a dozen…

Not sure whether TSR-2 could wipe the floor with ANYTHING. However it’s one of my favourites. Had it flown in say, 1971, it could have been fitted with turbofans. This would have given it even better range.

TSR-2 could quite easily have carried external stores under the wing.
In fact it would have carried F-111 / F-15 sized drop tanks.

Indeed, like the F-105, F-106 and Buccaneer, it was fitted with a generous weapons bay. With 6,000lb of bombs carried internaly, the TSR-2 could have outrun almost anything at low level for the next 20 years….

The view outside, esp for the nav was poor, true. However, although a long range interceptor versions was proopsed, the TSR-2 was 100% strike. A good view for the nav was not overly important, esp at night and in poor weather conditions. This of course could have been improved with production models.

In my view, the TSR-2 was sold too much as a tactical machine. It should have been sold to do the same job as the FB-111A and the Mirage IVA. Namely strategic strike. Should have been an out and out V-Bomber replacement.

Incidentally, does anyone have info on a 1980’s plan to put the TSR-2 back into production by the Thatcher gov’t…???? Any truth in it? Read this somewhere a while ago….

I thought that’s wot the SU-25 was developed for. Similar to the US A-10. Surely the Mig – 27 and Su-22 were designed for battlefield inderdiction, which yes, does include elements of close air support, but is meant to destroy and distrupt enemy (NATO) positions just behind the front line.

If you had to destroy 8 to 10 strategic targets with nuclear warheads, which missile would you use?

After I caried out this mission, I wonder if the next question should be “How do I commit suicide?”

Gun to side of head? Gun barrel in mouth? Cyanide? Slash wrists lenghthways? Walk into the wilderness hoping to be nuked in return?

The F-21A Kfir was used by the USMC to simulate the Mig-23 Flogger. At a time when the A-4 Skyhawk was used to simulate the Mig -17 Fresco and the F-5E being used to simulate the Mig 21, not forgeting the F-16 being used to simulate the Mig-29 Fulcrum.

The F-21 Kfir was essentially the Kfir C-1, (hence the small strakes on the upper intakes, rather than full sized canards) a good choice as like the Mig-23 it is single seat, single engined as has similar performance, and manouvarability.

As with the similar looking Anglo French Jaguar, the F1 was designed as an attack a/c derived from a trainer. Look at the posted images. You can see a fairing where the 2nd seat position is.

The F1 was derived from the T-2 spersonic trainer, which entered service first. Very similar to the way the US developed the F-5 fro the T-38.

Of course the Jaguar never did develop into a trainer, which was the ,original idea. I believe it became too heavy and powerful and made a more useful single seat attacker instead, although 2 seat trainer versions were built.

In 1959 the Bisnovat design team began work on the K-80 missile (Object 36 — later called the R-40) as part of the the Tu-128S-4 interception system. This strategic air defense system consiste of the Tu-128 long-range interceptor fighter aircraft, a Smerch [Tornado] on-board radar set (the letter S in the system designation), and the R-4 missiles (the digit 4 in Tu-128S-4). Two variants of the R-4 missile were developed: the R-4R using a semiactive radar set with a PARG-10-88 homing head and the R-4T using infrared homing with the T-80NM seeker head. Apart from the Tu-128, only the Mikoyan E-152M experimental aircraft carried the R-4 missiles. The R-4 missile entered series-production in 1963, although significant development efforts remained, as was also the case with the Smerch radar set. In 1973 production began of the improved K-80M (R-4TM and R-4RM variants) for the Tu-128S-4M system, consisting of the Tu-128M aircraft, the Smerch-M radar set, and the R-4M missile. In the West the K-80 missile and its modifications are called The AA-5 Ash R-4 missile was withdrawn from service along with the remaining Tu-128 aircraft around the end of the Cold War.

Copyright FAS Military Anylysis Network.

“Apart from the Tu-128, only the Mikoyan E-152M experimental aircraft carried the R-4 missiles”

Perhaps this is what I meant…..