I’d picture 100 F22 in AA config shooting anything that flies
accompanied by 50 F22 with SDB and what not to shoot any radar that lights up on the ground
Then every single B1B and B52 flatten the whole area with MOAB and such things.

Nic

Captain Overkill is in the house!!!!! 😀

My thinking was the same as what I understand the original Israeli thinking to be- As small a strike force as can be used, but still guarantee the target is destroyed, flying as coverly as possible, without A-A refueling to draw attention to it. 1 or 2 F-22’s would be my choice since it can ingress and egress stealthily at high altitude and high speed, fight it’s way in or out if need be, and still carry enough penetrating armament to knock out the reactor vessel (using the SDB which I’ve heard can penetrate better than the Mk84’s the Israeli’s used). Since nobody seems to know the combat range of a loaded F-22, I guessing the 500 mile internal fuel range in a hi-hi-hi profile is conservative. If that’s not true, then I’d load at least 2 externals, climb to altitude, accelerate and fly as far into the target area as possible, then dump the tanks to return my stealth.

I once cut up an old 1/48 scale F-16 to make something totally different. I removed the intake and moved it to the spine, faired over where the intake used to be and replaced the single tail with twin F-18 rudders. Then i reshaped the wings into a smoother Mig-29 like shape and clipped the horizontal stabs like on the F-2. I was going to move the wings back and put canards on it, but never got that far. I ended up putting a ricket engine up the tail and shooting it off into the the middle of a lake. It flew pretty good too.

Would the question be better phrased to ask what would be the weapons used and maximum range possible to conduct an Osirak type raid on a reactor site? Would the countries en route be hostile to the airstrike overflying their territory?

The reason I ask is because I picture in my head an F-22 loaded with 4 SDB and 1 AMRAAM in one bay, 3 AMRAAM, in the other bay, 2 Aim-9’s in the side bays, supercruising at high altitude from 500 miles out an lobbing all 4 SDBs at the reactor dome from 60 miles out. All without being detected. If the answer to my second question is no, then load that raptor up with 4 600 gal. externals and do the mission from 1000 miles.

Well, “regular” F-111s were in fact based in England during the Cold War, at Lakenheath and Upper Heyford (along with some Spark Varks at UH). Being that the FB-111 was technically a strategic asset, I doubt if it would have been home-based overseas.

Sean, were the ‘Varks at UH and Fairford nuclear tasked during that time, or was their main task conventional strike with a nuclear capability? I’ve seen FB’s with SRAMs and B61s, and F-111 E’s with B61s (or at least B61 shapes), but never loaded with SRAMs.

Hiya

did the mig-27 ever recieve a RAM-* designation, like RAM-L (MiG-29)

or another designation before it was known to be the mig-27…been building a model dipicting the wests idea of a mig-27, before the actualy plane came out adn ned another name for it 🙂

Regards

If I’m not mistaken the RAM-X designation was only given to never before seen designs at the test facility at Ramenskoye. The -27 was obvously an offshoot of the -23, so I don’t think it got a RAM-X designation. Of course I could be completely wrong.

I’ve also heard from several different sources that the downdraft of the main rotor interacting with the tail rotor causes a lot of the noise of the typical helo. That being said, I’ve heard both the typical MD-500 with both the conventional tail rotor and the NOTAR system, but they both sound just as loud to me. It may be my inexperience with helos that keeps me from hearing a difference in the same way I can tell the difference between TF30 and F110 powered F-14 while most others can’t.

Instant migrane from trying to remember 2 years of French class 10 years ago. 😉