[QUOTE=Aurel;1058132]I don’t know why people think Gripen is the cheaper solution. As new aircraft compared to used F-16 it would be witchcraft to sell them cheaper.
Those MLU F-16 will come nearly for free.
[QUOTE]
And who long will those used F-16 last? The USAF is retiring the first F-16C Block 25 examples now because they have reached the end of their service lives. Thats around 20 years of service.
Gripens would be new and cheaper to operate.
I dont see any problems with weapons either. AMRAAM and Sidewinder plus probably a few LGBs/JDAMs are all Croatia needs.
Its Gripen all the way.
Or in other words: If Croatia goes for Vipers, the reason would be obvious. π
More proof that the F-35 Concept is in trouble, if the US are looking at buying extra bugs to cover a gap, then everyone else should start sitting up and taking notice!
Well you cant just keep the old USN Hornets for a few more years if you want to fly them from carriers. If JSF is late, there must be something else to equip the carrier air wings. Doesnt really say something about the JSF concept, thats just the usual delays caused by politics. Not so much of a problem for other customers like Australia, with updates like CBR their current fleet can fly a few more hours.
Video also available here: http://www.crmstudios.tv/videos/F35/
The Hawk 200 was no success, and the Hawk is almost twice the size of the Javelin. Performance of the F-5, also about twice the size, goes down very quick even with light stores.
It may be a nice little toy, but without useful combat capability.
The wing is that far back because you’ve got that fat-ass engine back there so that’s where the weight is π
Well the same can be said about every other modern fighter.
And if you call the engine fat-ass, what about the rest of the plane? π
Is that an engineering or purely aesthetic opinion?
I would be very bad news for LM if that were an engineering opinion. π
It just doesnt look right. The Rafale for example is a plane where everything looks the way it should. π
AFAIK the outer mold line will not change.
thats what I think too. Except maybe for some minor changes as a result of the weight problems like smaller tails and two piece front gear door.
What bothers me is the position of the wings and main gear. They seem to be placed to far aft.
But then again, it can fly.
Also, why just not lease the F-15E Strike Eagle too!:rolleyes:
I dont think the USAF has any surplus Strike Eagles. 24 airframes equals one out of six frontline squadrons.
Sounds like a good idea. But then the F-15 line is still open.
So why not get a vastly superior plane for the same price. It comes a lot closer to the F-111 than the SH.
So it can fly. Nice looking monster. π
Second pic from Lockheed Martin (2MB):
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13822.jpg
and press release.
Very nice, esp. the formation pics π
Also interesting to see Gripens with live missiles. I wonder why the Sidewinders are not carried on wingtip pylons. Are Czech people smaller than Swedish? π
I thought the Typhoon in German service was replacing the F-4F, not the Tornados?
F-4 first, then all Tornados except ECR and recce units.
The video is also available at teamjsf without subsription:
http://images.teamjsf.com/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=3194
Sounds like an airliner. I hope more power will help π
ANYWAY. If the Mexican FLANKERs are the same standard as the Vietnamese Su-27s (as in not their Su-30s), then they’ll be baseline Su-27SKs. That pretty much makes them air defense aircraft by default. Good for hunting drug planes, but not really anything else in a counter-drug role. Su-30MK2s with their anti-ship features might have been a better choice, although the Su-27SKs would be far cheaper and possibly even available as refurbished second-hand airframes from the RusAF.
It sounds like a good idea, but sinking small drug smuggling boats with expensive ASMs isnt very economical imho.
A few 30mm rounds will do enough damage. I wonder what the success rate of a Flanker with guns vs. a small boat is.
eagle
It was USAF. Tail is WA I think the number is 83132. I am not sure about the 83, as it is small.
I asked at F-16.net and several other places online, no response. Their data baseseems incomplete.
Another problem is I donβt know the date of the mishap. The engine that went into the aircraft is not necessarily what it had during the mishap.
I found F-16 83-1132 in the f-16.net database. It even carried WA markings from 88 to 92. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-1462.html
Its a block 25 which got their engines upgraded from -200 to 220E…