Stack up on R99A/E & P99, and on Il76s, then take a fighter with a decent AShM capability.

Mirage F1 similars to the Moroccan air force would be good enough if equipped with latest block exocets, AASMs in decent numbers and Micas. It’s cheap, and it can land on unpaved runways, and is very easy to maintain even from the Islands.

So you have an airliner on filled with Argentinian special forces faking an emergency and landing in the RAF airport, while at the same time a few civilian boats here and there unload their commandos in strategic places and a swarm of ground hugging F1s make pre-planned strikes guided by the latest updates of the R99s.

Paradrops from a few innocent looking airliners modified to drop paratroops plus air assault with the fleet of Il76s would allow to bring in enough troops to seize the main strategic places. Then you move in your stock of exocets & a squadron of Mirage F1 & a few P99s.

Case closed.

Nic

History has show who was making unreasonable demands… its self evident.

France had to go it alone because of its demands, while European collaboration was worked out with UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

Its plain for all to see which solitary country doesn’t play well with others, and because of that European defence has and will continue to suffer.

The reasons why France should have made the effort to stay in the European program are many, the reasons for the partners were far fewer but still beneficial.

Here is the proof:-
You will see that mistake acknowledged and rectified, the admission will be from future collaboration programs involving France and the partners. (Providing they play nicely….. God help us all!!) the alternative for French military aircraft production is a slow decline into irrelevance.

Cheers

This post is utterly ridiculous.

The alternative to each country retaining their national sovereignty and the capability to build a fighter is this: all european countries being forced to spend hundreds of thousand billions on ONE fighter made by one gigantic company that will develop a crap plane that nobody needs but everyone is forced to buy.

The fact that France & Dassault managed to make a 100 french fighter that is just as good as the Eurofighter is a proof that you are 100% wrong.

Nic

The plan was for a small run (50-odd) of the Mirage G8 as a reconn plane. It had no useful load and the only picture I found with an underwing load was the G4 prototype. There is no indication the underwing pylons were pivotable on wing sweep changes. No box glove pylons. No internal bay. It’s utility was pretty low potential-wise.

http://home.earthlink.net/~p51ace/swingwing/images/mirageg/mirageg4.jpg

Indeed some pivotable pylons were considered and actually tested on G4.

I think it would have been good for the reconnaissance, maritime attack & nuclear strike role, with either a recon pod or a modified nose & wing tanks, or with a nuclear bomb/missile and wing tanks, an exocet or two… and fuel tanks on the remaining pylons. A naval strategic recon/nuclear strike version would have been nice IMHO. I just love the old Mirages, like the G, F2, and all the VSTOL variants.

And there’s no reason you coudn’t put 2 pylons per wing, as per those very nice colour profiles, to add R550s on the external wing stations. The sheer size of the plane allowing it to carry jammers & ECM suites internally instead of carrying external jammers like the Mirage F1 or the Super Etendard.

http://fighters.forumactif.com/t46004p15-mirage-g801-two-seater-planet-models-1-72

Last but not least, there is no reason it couldn’t carry conformal pylons like most of the rest of the Mirage family, & or side rails like the crusader for instance…

Nic

3. Drug problem needs to handled. Super Tucanos or IA-63 would be fine. Tzhey could also do light strike. The Pampas even air policing.

Just keep the CIA out of the country and your drug problem should be greatly reduced.

Nic

He is very clear, he says if Syria falls, i.e if the Government falls or implodes on itself, ceases to be, that his forces will destroy Syrias weapons inventory to prevent weaponry falling into the hands of militants. He doesn’t mean wipe out the government forces if the rebellion fails. His concern is chemical, biological and advanced missile systems falling into the wrong hands.

If it was really a concern, they should just ask NATO to stop helping the terrorists.

Nic

Not exactly news, but it would’ve been nice to have these cables to reference a couple years back. *grumble*

And people don’t understand why the IAF didn’t want a US fighter.

Nic

The Gripen is a perfect example of how to make a low cost weapons system in the West….

If you aren’t interested in sovereignty.

Nic

When the 4% cost increase was mentionned, it was claimed that the calculation was done for the F3 standard with the originally planned capabilities, and excluding all the capabilities that have been added since then thanks to retex & other technological advances.

Obviously adding new capabilities will increase the cost.

Well except for the Gripen for some reason :stupid:

Nic