Do non-naval Hornets, i.e Canadian, Finnish, Spanish, Aussie etc, have the same landing gear as USN/USMC versions or a lighter less robust version?

Also do they retain the same tail hook and associated rear fuselage strengthening or do they have a tail hook set-up similar to other non-naval fighters.

I know they are certainly not carrier capable, just wondering as I know the Finns slam them pretty hard in road ops and use a mobile arresting gear for said use.

They are the same so they are carrier capable. Swiss Hornets regularly use the hook to practise arrested landings.

I agree that given the quite miserable fuel fraction with typical piece time load-out (assume 4x AIM-7 and 2xAIM-9) and the fact that it rarely used external tanks.

Actually, the Tomcat used (quite small) external tanks pretty much all the time, probably more often than the F-16 carries its wing tanks. Its almost like they were part of the airframe. Thats perhaps why you didnt notice. 😀

On the range issue, you probably know the Afghanistan story where F-14 could fly missions without air refuelling over enemy territory (i.e. Afghanistan). Something the F-18E apparently could not. Thats no absolute answer, but at least we know the Tomcat has more range than the increased range Hornet.

For the Stig to be a “she”, she needed to be very… flat. I dont know if thats the right word, but you should know what I mean. 😮

The whole thing became suspicious (for me at least) when the Stig went down the ski jump. I can’t imagine a racing driver doing that.

Sabine Schmidt drove the Transit

Actually, her name is Sabine Schmitz 😉

Thing is though, it is alleged, the Stig is not always the Stig!. Some manufacturers like Koenigsegg (IIRC) weren’t keen on having a driver, unfamiliar with their hugely expensive new supercar, blat round a track that the car may not be perfectly set up to do a flying lap on.

Koenigsegg made a wise choice then. 😀

The reason it wasnt built is because its too ugly.
Another reason is that its top speed would have been limited to around 200 knots since it uses a non-retractable gear. You can tell that because theres no room for the main gear in the nacelles.
And its ugly.

8 PGM’s as opposed to 2 in the -35B’s bays?. Can you put a bit more detail on that one?. I understood the -35A bay was two 2000lb JDAMs and 2 AIM-120’s and that was that?.

SDB. The rack with 4 Small Diameter Bombs will fit easily into the F-35A/C.

Though I wonder if its possible to load that into the F-35B bay as it also fits into the F-22 which can only accomodate the 1000lb bombs. So I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of 8 PGMs in a single F-35B.

I guess the German Tornados are not using their wartime reserve.

Not even in Afghanistan? Thats wartime for me.

Maybe the same mods the Tornado ADVs engine received could be added to the strikers.

Actually there are several diagrams caming from Lock Mart of a F-35A with a “fully grown anti-ship missile in its belly”, or to be more precise with a Konsberg NSM (and that´s a very fine anti ship missile) in each of the “Bomb bay´s”.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheed-kongsberg-partner-to-bring-nsm-to-jsf-03015/

Cheers

That is one very strong reason to get the F-35. Kongsberg could become the anti-ship missile supplier of choice for many F-35 customers.
Isn’t that the same missile we’ve seen on Gripen NG impressions loaded on a twin ejector rack? That would allow the F-35 to carry a theoretical max. of 10 ASM.

The upgraded Hornets will provide much of the same capabilities of the Super Hornet.

It might come close to the Block 1, but not quite to the Block 2.
And it doesnt solve the age issue. Or do they include some structural upgrades as do the Australians?