The Tornado GR1A/GR4A have internal recce gear, not podded. Only the Germans use podded gear nowadays because they got rid of the RF-4E as part of their peace dividend. Luftwaffe Tornados IDS never were planned to have the recce role, it was planned to give this role to the ECR but this actually never took up the recce role.
The RAF use the Raptor reconnaisance pod, look here
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/rec_sys.html#raptor
Interesting Viggen information to be found here
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/37viggen.htm
To me multi-role means that an aircraft can do both air-air and air-ground missions with the optimum weapons and equipment. The F-15E is a good example.
The Tornado and Viggen in original form only have secondary air-air and air-ground capabilities with dumb bombs/rockets and Sidewinders.
I think Tornado has the edge due to the fact it can carry a wider range of weapons and its a 2 seater.
I don’t think you can call either multi-role, the Viggen was built in interceptor, strike and reconnaisance variants which had the same airframe but very different avionics and weapons fits. The same applies for tornado in IDS and ADV versions.
Didn’t the Indian AF want to operate the Viggen at one time?
Found this on Google image search
http://www.aeroplaneart.com.au/SeaFury_cutaway.htm
The only thing wrong with the Eurofighter is the political aspect of the program, which has delayed service entry so much that the cutting edge technology at the start of the program is now standard equipment on upgraded older designs.
Even so, the partner nations are going to get the most capable aircraft they have ever operated.
How bout this, do any of you hear of a 4 engined fighter? it exists, but try and guess 😉
Found it at last,
Curtiss XF-87 quad-jet, twin-place all-weather high-altitude fighter.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f87.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-87_Blackhawk
I guess Airforce One’s capabilities are kept secret, but heres a possibility;)
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/contents.htm
Boeing’s Mini-Fighter
Fighters that can be carried by other aircraft, and launched and recovered while in flight, have long been a dream of many designers and planners. Boeing took a stab at the concept in the 1970s, with a very small jet fighter that could be conveniently stowed, launched and recovered by a modified 747.
These carriers have different 4×3 flightdeck missile silos to the KUZNETSOV CLASS which has 2×6
i have a question does russia have a carrier and if so what is the status if not is their plans for a carrier
Some info here
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/
Looks like some really impressive new technology beng developed in the UK (about time too, all the money we spend on R&D).
Couldn’t agree more, UKs always testing impressive new technology, but it never gets to the frontline until its not new and not impressive anymore.
Airships would be cool. And the largest ones would appear to have the massive lift capacity the army wants. But they’re slow and unsexy. And they no doubt have many drawbacks that will keep them out of transport service.
Still, they’d be pretty cool…
I’d like to see heavy lift airships in service too, but I guess they are more suited to strategic transport than tactical.
Look here for the Skycat series heavy lift airships
http://www.atg-airships.com/
I dunno, the SVTOL has it’s advantages, but a fixed wing STOL aircraft is MUCH more cost effective. Compare the SVTOL Osprey to something like a S-80GP or like C-27 Spartan, they can lift more than the Osprey, and at longer ranges.
I agree STOL or SuperSTOL would be good for the Army, but the Marines and Navy need VTOL to operate from ships.
Er, the what now? Got a picture?
http://smmlonline.com/articles/ise/ise.html
IJN Ise was a hybrid battleship/aircraft carrier, such a concept was proposed for the Iowa class to reduce the manpower required by removing the rear turret and adding a large flight deck. CTOL, STOVL and pure helicopter designs were submitted.
Sounds like a difficult requirement, I think a new tandem rotor design (Chinook type) would be best.
All the engine power for lift, efficent fusalage (all cabin, not pod and boom), compact dimensions for ship operations (rotors folded).
How about something like this