It will be a Goodrich DB-110 reconnaissance pod.

You learn something new every day, thanks for the info!

The link posted in #117 contains all the documents…

Not much headroom in the design with 10% better fuel efficiency over the T-38C. That would allow you an F404 that is derated to slide in there, but that’s as long as its not a vis-a-vis comparison. Otherwise you’re limited to all dry thrust around 5,000 lb st in a modern engine with maybe 8,000 lb st in wet thrust. Not many engines fit that interpretation. I think the competitors will all measure T-38C’s wet thrust against their dry thrust, and depending on the design will leave room to incorporate wet thrust or sell it as an upgrade.

Is there a modern engine that doesn’t have 10% better fuel economy? Probably not. The (non-derated) F404 certainly fits the bill even though it’s a low bypass design.

Does anyone have any details on whether any of the ‘clean sheet’ designs from NG, Boeing and the back-up from LM, are supersonic, and to what extent ?
Could an MB346 achieve supersonic ( M1.2 to M1.4 ) with variable shock intakes, variable area exhaust, and possibly afterburner ?
Haven’t gone through the requirements yet, is supersonic ability even in there ?

With afterburners certainly, doesn’t require variable intakes. Has already been done, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongdu_L-15
Supersonic speeds are not mentioned however if USAF really wants this jet to be an aggressor, supersonic capability ala F-5 is probably wanted.

Neither did the original F-15E include new engines, the -229 was introduced only after ~132 examples were built, nor does the F-15SA add two additional weapon stations. Stations 1 and 9 have always been there, just not used.
As for the engines, the F-15 didn’t require any major structural redesign to accept the F100-229 or the F110, like f.e. larger intakes. Whether changes from F404 to F414 are more extensive than from F100-220 to -229, I’m not sure.

The Rafale’s conformals are exactly as far along as those on the Eurofighter and Super Hornet… that is to say they could be fully developed and ordered but nobody has yet.

Even if they were ordered conformal tanks wouldn’t boost the Rafale’s range to equal that of the F-35, the Rafale would still need external tanks.

Maybe not. The F-35 burns a lot of fuel hence the relatively poor combat radius of 600nm with internal weapons. I.e. about the same as an F-16 with 2 bags and 2 2000lbs stores – the F-35 burns ~88% more fuel.

What’s the combat radius of a similarly loaded Rafale? More than 600nm I guess. 1150l CFTs probably won’t give the same extra range as 2000l tanks though… but the F-35 looses range too when carrying external stores.

I know these types of jets don’t have fuel in the wings for safety, but what about using wingtip tanks? Should be far enough from everything and not pose a fire hazard.

Not quite true for the A-10, it carries fuel in the inner area of the wings, about up to where the landing gear is located.

Oh, I see. Pretty certain USN fighters need to be able to miss an arrestor hook and take off again on only one engine, especially considering how far they usually operate from the nearest land bases.

Tried to google but no real info

Wasn’t that one of the problems the Jaguar M encountered? I.e. not enough power for a single engined bolter. So I would assume the French have that requirement.

Standard aircraft characteristics says 1571nm ferry range for the F-106 with tanks, 1140nm clean.

How would the Buccaneer have worked in the nuclear strike role? British nukes? Somehow I can’t imagine that. Integrating American bombs? Surely they would have found a way to persuade the Germans to buy something American instead. Really, an American jet was the only politically feasible option.

I don’t consider a pair of 30mm DEFA superior to quad 20mm colts. The French operated F-8’s carrying R.530’s and Magic II’s. They also carried RWR’s. The F-8 Y-racks on the chins could carry AAM’s, a single R.530, or LAU-10 Zuni 4-packs of 5-inch rockets. Crusader II’s (F-8C and newer) eventually gained IRST and others incorporated Bullpups. There was a wide variety of free fall bombs cleared, from 250-pounders to 2K-pounders. And they offered Spey-powered versions to sucker in customers. F-8 was better than Mirage III where it counted.

Not only were the 20mm Colt guns unreliable, 4 of them are also less powerful than 2 DEFAs.

wiki says:

In service, the Mk 12 proved less than satisfactory. Although its muzzle velocity and rate of fire were acceptable, it was inaccurate and frequently unreliable. Pilots of the F-8 Crusader over North Vietnam, in particular, appreciated the presence of the cannon, but jams and stoppages were common, especially following hard dogfighting maneuvers.

About gun effectiveness: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/modern_fighter_gun_effectiveness.htm