The Vigilante seems like the perfect candidate, fully carrier capable

The Vigilante had a very high approach speed – far too high for a CAP fighter that was expected to operate frequently and routinely during adverse weather conditions.

The Vigilante also lacked “bring back” weight margins to land on a carrier with a full load of very expensive, very large Eagle or Phoenix AAMs.

By today’s standards, the Vigilante probably wouldn’t be considered acceptable as a carrier aircraft.

, large radome

No, it didn’t. The Vigilante had a relatively small radome, far smaller than the later F-14, which had a smaller radome than the F-111B. The frontal area of the Missileer was huge for a fighter, and there is no way that the avionics of the Missileer could have been accomodated aboard the Vigilante without a forward fuselage redesign and a far smaller antenna.

, large payload,

Not really. The massive empty weight and fuel load limited the payload of the Vigilante compared to most smaller tactical naval aircraft. Payload was very limited compared to a far smaller Intruder.

long range…..

…but not long endurance. Endurance was important for a long range naval CAP fighter. Endurance was the driving factor behind the low performance design of the Missileer.

The recon Vigilante could fly an impressive distance, but it’s ability to loiter was rather limited.

It just seems strange that it was never proposed, I am sure that it could carry at least 4 AIM-47s?:confused:

The Vigilante was already a hugely expensive aircraft with more than a few operational deficiencies. You could have hung a few Eagle missiles under the wings, but there was no space or weight margin for the avionics.

It seems to me that even without such extra propulsion the Vigilante could have filled the role for the USN up until the F-14 Tomcat came along?

No, it couldn’t have.

Can anyone imagine how disasterous a Vigilante based fighter would have been over the skies of North Vietnam?

Imagine for a moment the operational nightmare of two full squadrons of Vigilantes aboard even the largest supercarrier.

The Vigilante was a nearly Skywarrior sized aircraft with same turbojets as the much smaller Phantom. It was not a fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

The Vigilante was expensive to produce, expensive to operate, limited in capability. It became a recon platform not only because the strategic mission disappeared, but also because it was a poor strike aircraft.

The production of the definitive Victor B.2 was far more limited than the production of the Vulcan B.2 due to a late 50s cancellation. The small size of the Victor B.2 fleet meant that the Victor was never going to outlast the Vulcan as a bomber.

The size of the Victor’s bomb bay remains a mystery to me, but the size of the standard British 1000lb bomb might give a good indication. It is also certain that the Victor’s bomb bay could hold the 22,000lb “Grand Slam,” which also might give a clue as to minimum dimensions.

As far as fatigue life, the only thing that is certain is that the Victor had an inferior fatigue life compared to later commercial aircraft. The span was reduced on B.2 tanker conversion to was meant to minimize wing fatigue, although it seems that the reduction of span might not have been necessary, desirable or even successful in reducing fatigue.

So, would the Victor B.2 have made a better modern bomber than the Vulcan B.2 ? The Victor was marginally quicker and had a marginally great maximum altitude – although neither factor would have given a definitive advantage in survivability. The Vulcan was claimed to have a longer range, despite the marginally lower fuel consumption of the Victor’s Conway turbofans. Not having seen comparable range and fuel load weights, it is hard to judge the issue of range. It is undeniable that the Victor had the largest bomb bay – the types greatest advantage.

Perhaps the Victor B.2 could have managed the same longevity as the B-52H, but only if production hadn’t been curtailed in the late 1950s? However, more Vulcans B.2s were produced, in part because there was adequate clearance to carry Skybolt missiles beneath the Vulcan’s wings.

Yeah right??:rolleyes: Indian scientists and engineers are working in Israel for kosher food. I guess the Barak-NG and ER are just side business. :diablo:

But why assume that Indian engineers are only in Israel to work on Indian funded programs?

absolutely. the wages abroad are higher and that obviously is a draw for any person who can secure work. and yes, some do like to move back if offered very good wages in India itself. but that is the same in all other Asian countries where wages are lower than in western countries..for a troll like TinWing to say that Indians are working in Israel only because they charge less without even knowing the context of their employment (in that news case it was Indian scientists and engineers working on a defence program) was BS and pure racism.

Where is the racism?

India graduates very large number of engineers, far larger than the needs of domestic industry and business. So many India engineers are forced to emigrate to find work. It all comes down to supply and demand. If wage scales in India were equal to those in the west, you would see an immediate end to the mass migration of India professionals. It all comes down to money. Individuals seek the highest wages, while businesses seek the workers who will accept the lowest wages.

Now if you want to find racism, look to India. Why are the lower castes and certain religious minorities so poorly represented in India’s tech sector?

and no employer in a western nation will employ them unless they have the necessary skills to be employed regardless of their belonging to their own race/religion.

It all come down to money. If an engineer from country X will do the work for less than an engineer from country Y, guess who’ll get the job? The cheapest worker always gets the job. At the moment, India is frequently the lowest cost source of engineers. At some point that might change, so you might see Indian engineers replaced by cheaper foriegn professionals from another nation.

Wages for a profession in that country are paid roughly the same or in standard no matter what the race is.

You must be joking.

Individuals working on H1B visas are paid only a fraction of the prevailing compensation rates of their American counterparts. There are even exceptions to minimum wage laws. Today there are Indians with H1B visas who are working at “Indian wage scales” in Silicon Valley!

H1B visa holder can’t change employers, so they can’t negotiate compensation packages once they’re signed on. This isn’t racial discrimination. Receiving a H1B visa is easier and quicker than traditional immigration proceedures. H1B visa holder have fewer rights than traditional legal immigrants or citizens.

To be fair to the many unemployed and underemployed American engineers, the H1B visa program has probably held down wage scales, which in turn has helped keep inflation low and maintained the competitiiveness of American industryin the global marketplace. The H1B visa program has been good for society and business, etc…..

Or else you are going to have a long conversation with the Department or Ministry of Labor or whatever is the equivalent.

It’s all legal.

Keep in mind that H1B visas and “guestworker programs” in general grant exceptions to existing labor and immigration laws.

The Rafale and a suitable carrier would have been prohibitively expensive and the need to rely on US catapults worrying. At the time the US route was out for similar reasons, cost and politics.

Why does everyone thing that a CATOBAR carrier based aircraft is incapable of STOBAR operations?

The reality that any Western carrier based fighter is just as able to take off from a STOBAR carrier as any MiG-29K or Su-33!

Off course, a skijump is a poor substitute for a steam catapult for non-STOVL operations. CATOBAR is a superior operating concept compared to STOBAR. Even the Soviets accepted this, but were force to abandon catapult development for financial, technical, and political reasons. The Soviets were building too few carriers to justify the development of steam catapults, and it didn’t help that initial development had apparently been problematic. Another factor was the hostility of the MiG and Sukhoi OKBs toward steam catapult operation because both the MiG-29 and Su-27 had high mounted nose land gears that were fundimentally inappropriate for tow bar-style catapult attachment.

So, the Rafale M could have operated from the Vikrant (ex-Gorshkov) just as the MiG-29K will (eventually). The IN actually prefered the Rafale, and was willing to embrace a smaller inital order, with the prospect of future follow up orders.

couldn’t find much info on the weapon on the web…no two sources could agree on its range either (50 Km or 70 Km?)…info on the specs and capabibilties of this important weapon would be great! Thanks in advance for any info…

There is a tremendous amount of information on the Kh-31 on the web.

The capablilities of this weapon are very well known. It was even purchased for use as supersonic target by the United States.

Information on the range of the Kh-31/MA-31 is readily available in the public domain. Range depends on many factors, such as release altitude, flight profile, and the trade off between fuel capacity and payload.

from http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/about/history/mittelaus/hawk.html

The fleet has 19‘570 hours total, the highest airframe with 1’376 hours to the lowest with 687 hours. Average per jet is a little over 1’000h.
So theres plenty of life left and the Hawks are in excellent condition.
Of the 20 (all Mk66) deliverd, 1 crashed and 1 example is slated for a museum if I remember correctly, so 18 are being offered with all of them stored currently. They’re out of service since 2002.
Unfortunately, I dont have any pics.

If all else fails, perhaps BAE Systems should be interested in buying these airframes back for future resale.

Of course, the Hawk would also make an interesting “warbird” for civilian enthusiasts.