Vulcan and Draken.
One of the Batch III T22s declared herself winner at a Portland Weekly War without ever putting to sea.
She broadcast that since Harpoon has a 100-mile range, everyone else was in range and she’d won.
Since most other NATO members had fielded Harpoon on their ships for years (and had attended many Weekly Wars without doing the same) by this point and it was only the RN who were playing catch-up it didn’t go down too well with everyone who wasn’t in The Andrew.
In answer to OP: Block II definitely can; given the (amount of) marketing which went with that capability, that SUGGESTs that Block I couldn’t.
J-20
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260103[/ATTACH]
That is THE most Japanese-looking fast jet that I have ever seen. They might as well have named it the F-2 Akira.
Cherry Ripe
Also I noticed whilst browsing books today that the outer hardpoints of the ADV were plumbed, and with pylons installed could in theory carry another pair of Hindenburg tanks. Or an AMRAAM each, or triple-clusters of ASRAAM!
Interesting, do have the titles to hand?
I certainly saw a painting in one of my rather wonderful Salamander books from my youth of an F3 with triple Asraams on the outers. But as I recall some of the loadouts and information in those books were optimistic. Most NATO planes were pictured with mutiple Wasp launchers for example, and that didn’t even reach service.
Yes. Absolutely.
The Japanese needed an Air Superiority Fighter.
In the UK Range and altitude were primary and a lack of dogfighting ability (or de-prioritisation at the very least) was excusable*
Likewise USN needed Range and altitude (and the ability to land on a carrier) so the F14’s flaws and costs were bearable.
For their (USN) lo end Range and AAM load out likewise excusable (they had the F14 to do that)
Continental Europe dogfighting and the ability to do strike and short range air-to-air trumped range, single-engine and AAM load out so since F16 was cheaper than F15 that made sense
The Canadians and Aussies needed much shorter field performance so a carrier-based design had attractions for them which pragmatically made F18 a better choice
But the Japanese needed Range, AAM capacity, Two engines and dogfighting all in one airframe and they had no need for short-field performance. Nothing else Western came close to the mighty Eagle on those terms.
* I imagine I’m typical of most kids growing up in the UK during the Cold War in wishing that the RAF had F15s instead of Tornado F3s, but with a bit of distance and reflection it wasn’t a terrible decision.
PS: I’m hoping that the Japanese Technology Demonstrator is a scaled demonstrator; if that this is stretched by another 10% it could suddenly look a lot more elegant.
IFF designing new warplanes was what I thought it was as a child (with visions of lego bricks or Hasegawa 1:48 kits in my mind) this F22/F35 combo would be an absolute ‘no-brainer’ as the Californians would say.
IFF Lockheed can find a way of integrating known and matured systems to play nicely together then it could still be a winner.
Can the new RAM skin be fitted to the F22 skeleton?
Will the F35s motor fit into the F22s engine bays?
Will the F35s LRUs fit into the F22s avionics bays?
How quickly can F35 software be changed to deal with F22 kinematics? (If its all been done parametrically then conceptually simple, if not not)
Do the bays need to be larger?
Or would it in fact be better to develop smaller, lower-signature munitions?
BTW: I’d favour retaining the TVC and binning the big, vertical stabilisers, but see points 1 through 10 above!
Tango III
DIMDEX 2018: BAE Systems Showcasing Type 31e Frigate Design for the 1st Time
Interesting.
It looks a lot more war-y than I was expecting.
Presumably the Mk41 silo is amidships?
That COULD be a very clever idea to allow for scaleability of silo size.
roberto_yeager
I had never seen it before, Harrier GR.Mk.3 and AGM-45 Shrike
Since changing the wiring to use different stores on GR3s took a looooong time (some kind Universal Weapon Bus or even just a switchable one was a distant pipe dream during most of the GR3’s operational history) I’d guess that was either fitters having a laugh or some rush job trial for the Falklands Conflict.
mikoyan
So them Americans sold their british cousins Trident SLBM but wouldn`t sell them a tactical tool like the F-22……..even more, BAE developed subsystems (An/alr-94)for the Raptor……
Very few people come into contact with any part of the SSBN fleet. It is simpler to police technology transfer from any of the organisations involved. Fighter aircraft sit inside much larger (certainly in terms of personnel) organisations with greater opportunity for information to bleed out. (That’s not a dig at the chaps in Light Blue; if it was I would not have made it an inferred insult I would have come right out with it!)
With regard to the MIG31
Its extreme Range, Speed and Radar would I think be useful for offensive operations as well. Sweeping a safe(r) zone inside your opponent’s territory seems like a benefit to me.
FBW
They deployed there on exercises regularly. The four F-15 squadrons were: 3 in Germany, one in Netherlands.
At least some of the 12th Air Force would have reinforced units in UK.
Thanks for the info (and saving my blushes)
eagle (appropriately)
There were no F-15s based in the UK during the cold war. Strike Eagles replaced F-111s in 1992. F-15Cs arrived in 1994.
I did not know that. I don’t know why I didn’t. It would appear to be something I should have; I could bluff and bluster and claim that Eagles were rotated through or would have been based here if tension heightened; but frankly I was just plane (sorry) wrong.
Aurel
2010 is a bit late. The Mirage 2K assembly line offer expired in 2007 IIRC
Grrr. If correct that kills my first choice. Mirage 2000 and Mig31
I fully agree that India needs (needed?) to be building alliances, and the policy of doing so through purchasing is a good one.
Rafale and Mitsubishi F2 then.
USA and Russia have to tread carefully with court China or deter China. And India cannot risk being constrained by other people’s politics (also it might encourage more favourable deals with force multipliers purchased from both nations)
France would have much to gain from a BIG export order, so I’ll rewrite history and both sides didn’t dick about this (that) time. Rafale Ms in a big order at a sensible price, with a follow on local assembly under a sensible licence. Standardising on the M model allows for a single set of documentation, training syllabus and spares for Air Arm and Air Force.
Japanese change of policy (not law) comes a bit earlier than in real land. Mitsubishi does with its jets what they and other Japanese car manufacturers have done so well. Builds and invests in its own production line in India to make use of lower labour costs, tax breaks, investment incentives and local goodwill.
Freehand
Isn’t having a squadron of F-22s based in the UK just as good as having them in the RAF?
Better I’d suggest. Probably more than we’d have bought and actually updated (the pace of USAF upgrades may have been glacial but we in Team GB just wouldn’t have at all) and with access to sufficient spares.
I think that the reason we ‘got away’ with Tornado F3s was that our Transatlantic chums based enough Eagles in the UK.
(NB: I’m not a fan of all things US, I am not happy with our failure to act as a critical friend on the War on Terror and we have made industrial disastrous procurement decisions to keep favour; but the only foes against whom Eagles or Raptors would be required would be foes which the US faced with us)
Yama
Yes! F-15 doing strike with unguided bombs and Tornado F.2 in air superiority duties with AIM-9’s and concrete radars
LOL as the young people say
Presumably keep using the old G model AIM 9s as well? No need for all this fancy ‘all aspect’ nonsense.
Actually why bother with ‘winders at all. Just find some Red Tops and Firestreaks from storage.
Maybe put some Bullpups on the F15s?