This is a rather odd layout of an RAF Typhoon with 3x ‘Dumb Bombs’ & 3x Paveway IIs. I accidently came across it while I was looking for images of a Tornado GR4 with 5x Paveway IVs’, I couldn’t come across any but anyway.

I didn’t see them at first myself, but look closely at the starboard bombs, adjust for sun glare and check for green canards. 😉

3) penser que les avions irakiens pouvaient se balader sans souci dans le Golfe est une bétise sans nom : jamais entendu parler des Tomcat iraniens?

But the tanker air war was more or less irregulaire. The weren’t enough interceptors to maintain full patrol over the tankers in the gulf. (What with the “other” war going on.) There are reports of aircraft on both sides attacking ships with unguided bombs:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_209.shtml

1) les pilotes de SEM et de FEQ ont été entraînés par les Français à utilmiser leurs appareils au mieux de leurs capacités
2) ils respectent donc la p^rocédure NORMALE d’utilisation des missiles approche TBA – pop up – detection/aiming/firing – return TBA
4) n’importe quel missile peut être tirer sans acquisition/poursuite préalable : il suffit juste d’être suffisamment près de l’objectif et de tirer “droit devant”. Des missiles air-air à guidage IR peuvent ainsi être tirés en mode air-sol, à partir du moment où le rayonnement IR est suffisant!
5) oubliez vos raisonnements à la noix : ils montrent juste que vous n’avez AUCUNE CULTURE MILITAIRE!!!
A bon entendeur …..

Ok, I read this as saying the Iraqi AF wouldn’t waste Exocets by firing them from MiGs within LOS of a target, when they could fire them properly as stand-off weapons from their Dassaults. Ok, that makes sense.
Le truc c que les autres parlaient seulement (au moins de mon interpretation) de le question technicale, pas de la procedure operationelle.

Je crois que yavait un cas de lost in translation dans ce discussion.

Those two statements don’t contradict each other, though. You could perform a smaller number of precision strikes to great effect, yet perform most of your missions with unguided munitions.

Ppp, I agree people should bark more about these things, but make sure you’re barking up the right tree!

The cost of building the CVF is mainly set by industry (private contractors, BAE). Same goes for the M6. http://www.m6toll.co.uk/about/project.asp?mainmenuid=11

(Not that one shouldn’t bark up the government tree as well. I work in telecom and I think the services got much, much better after the sector got privatized. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for electricity suppliers in western europe, in general.)

Back to the original post, the JA-37 (this version did use all of its pylons – the earlier attack version had vibration issues when using the outer pylons, which reduced the lifetime of the wing, but IIRC they were cleared for wartime use) production ended in 90, so there would have been airframes with a decent amount of hours left.

I think the Swedes figured it’d be too much trouble trying to selling them. As mentioned, the upgraded JA 37s had AMRAAM capability, good datalinks, NATO compatible comms equipment… some of this might have been unsuitable for export to a non-NATO buyer. Sure you can software block the AMRAAM capability, but were there any Skyflash missiles with shelf life left on them in 2005?

It’s quite possible that buying brand new Gripens and operating them for 30 years, would be cheaper than buying 15 year old JA 37s, then having to work over the airframes after 5 years to get another 20 years out of them, replacing radar sets, integrating Meteor, etc etc. Isn’t the Gripen is cheaper to operate than the JA 37? I can’t recall, off-hand.

BTW,
The F-4E is 63 ft long.
JA 37: 53 ft 9 in. (85%)

Two of the F-4E’s J-79-GE17 produce 2×17900 lbf = 35800 lbf wet thrust
One of the JA 37’s RM8B produces 28,100 lbf (78%)
The AJ 37’s RM8A: 26,000 lbf (72%)

*Shrug.* Is the F-14, weighing nearly 20 ton empty, in the same class as the 12,5 ton F-15?

I would think the real power is in the hands of the British government. If they decide they want fast jets on carriers, it’s the military’s job to see it happens. If some RAF Air Marshal says “no”, he’s not following orders, and officers who don’t follow orders usually get replaced.

This is 2011 and it’s not a question of land-based nuclear deterrent (TSR.2) vs carrier-based (CVA-01).

Indeed. That article is factually wrong.

Although the United States has significant stockpiles, its munitions do not fit on the British- and French-made planes that have flown the bulk of the missions.

You’d think a journalist would spare two minutes to google the name of the main US munitions supplier + “France” or “UK”.
A quick search on “raytheon+france” brings up “France Awards Raytheon $22 Million for Enhanced Paveway” on the first page of

Embarrassing for the venerable Post, not to be able to match the journalistic accuracy of a Boston NPR affiliate (http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/03/21/mission-libya-international/aptopix-france-libya) and the Lexington Herald… (http://www.kentucky.com/2011/04/13/1706778/carrier-officers-say-gadhafis.html)

Its like Israel working together with Germany.

For the sake of clearing up a very common misconception, I would just like to point out that there are indeed jews currently living in Germany – between 100’000 and 200’000, depending on what source one reads.

Israel has a significant amount of German defence equipment in service most notably Submarines and surplus Patriot launchers.

Germany also uses Spike missiles and Heron UAVs.