Toryu

The A-4 is the better bird payload-range wise, but it doesn't feature the adequate fire-control radar (Agave on the S-E). That's nothing a good modification (= weight) couldn't take care of. One thing should be noted: A-4Fs were already hurting, bringing back two Shrikes. Imagine a modified (= even heavier) A-4M that brings back one or even two Harpoons! Can the S-E bring the Exocet back to the ship in case it wasn't fired? Funny that nobody thinks of the Sea Jaguar - image two juiced-up engines, an Agave-radar (as found in the Jaguar Internatinal M of the indian Navy) and stand-off missile-capability (Exocet, or as in case of the Jag IM: Sea Eagle missiles). Probably not the most elegant solution, but a poor plan violently executed is better than no plan at all

The Harrier will be enough for a limited war (e.g. "Jaguar Diplomacy" as did the French in Africa in the 70s and 80s). For a full war, the Harriers don't carry enough fuel and armament. That is unless you fight a foe that is undersupplied and acting at the limit of his capability (e.g. Argentina in the Falklands War)

Die ganzen Russenvögel waren nicht zeitgemäß. Weder was Avionik anging, noch was Wartbarkeit anging (Design for Service kannte man da nicht). Dazu kamen noch Avionikstandards, die außerhalb der Aggressorrolle völlig sinnfrei im Zusammenhang mit anderen NATO-Vögeln waren. Die MiG war nunmal der bunte Papagei und aus genau diesem Grund hat man sie übernommen. Vom Kampfwert wird sie aus verschiedensten Gründen von vielen überschätzt. Das gilt auch für die Russenversionen. Keine MiG-29 konnte bis Mitte der 90er in der Luft betankt werden. Das ist ziemlich übel für ein Flugzeug, dem schon kurz nach dem Einfahren des Fahrwerks der Sprit zur Neige geht, und das nur einen Zusatztank operationell (!) tragen konnte. Die Überführungstanks sind in der Einsatzfliegerei Blödsinn, da nicht abwerfbar. Wenn Deutschland schlau gewesen wäre und einen guten Wahrsager besessen hätte, hätte man Anfang der 80er F-18 gekauft und hätte heute damit ein einsatzfähiges Flugzeug, mit dem man bis zur Einsatzfähigkeit des €-Fighter locker durch die Hose atmen könnte. Die F-4 hätte man dann - bei aller Liebe - dort hin schieben können, wo sie ja Anfang der 70er ohnehein noch bald hätte enden sollen. Den Schrottplatz. Lustigerweise sind es immer die "Zwischenlösungen", die sich als die langlebigsten Konzepte erweisen.

Der große Vorteil der X-31 ist, dass sie fast aus dem Shelter heraus starten kann Frage mich gerade, ob eine Jaguar für die Lustwaffe bzw. die Marinierten Sinn machen könnte. Man hatte ja anscheinend Interesse bekundet, dann aber doch nicht zugeschlagen. Hat jemand nähere Informationen zu der Geschichte mit dem "deutschen Jag"?

Very cool!

Patient young pandawan has to be

No. The missile may have a blunt nose, but it is a lot more streamlined than just a half-shere as it is longer and enjoys a pretty good fineness-ratio. Thus, there is less pressure-drag associated with the missile than with the half-sphere itself. You also can't just take over the values given by some table, without checking it's Reynolds-number. The CD given above for the sphere is fpr Re-numbers smaller than 1.7*105, which is not exactly, where aviation takes place (rule of thumb: >106). At those Re-numbers, the sphere would - for example - have a CD of 0.09 to 0.18. That is due to different flow-characteristics between turbulent and laminar boundary-layers concerning spherical or round objects. In layman's terms: The turbulent flay manages to stay attached longer, creating less pressure-drag - although turbulent boundary-layer itself (e.g. over a long, flat plate) creates more friction-drag than laminar-flow. If you're into that topic, visit the following page, have a coockie and drink some coffee. Not very simple, but highly interesting: http://scilib.narod.ru/Avia/DAC/dac.htm

Die macht was her in grau, aber tatsächlich wäre das Flugzeug völlig ungeeignet für operationelle Fliegerei - kein Platz für Avionik und Sprit. Ist leider ein absolutes "X-Plane". Was interessant sein könnte: Die Luftwaffe hatte Interesse an der Jaguar geäußert. Ist zwar nicht so knallerhaft als absolute Ablöse der F-104, aber wäre eine Möglichkeit für ~Mitte der 70er.

Because asking "any random" dude isn't of any statistical relevance and thus does not provide a valid scientific background. The experiment has to be reproducable and falsifiable. Asking "any random dude" on the street does not factor in the tested persons' educational, sociologocal, ethnical or religious background. Only if those factors can be normlaized, one can speak of a standard behaviour in human males. Another side-track of the experiment could be studying the behaviour of close cousins in the animal-kingdom, such as chimpanzees.

Just because some guy at BBC writes that way, doesn't mean the entire scientific work was about "why" birds flew in V-formation - it might have been a side-product of the work or a proof by new methods. The wingbeat-timing was new to me (though it sounds intuitive).

That's true, but the Mirage IIIE - which was used for attack and strike - had a package that was alright (no INS, but Doppler-navigation). The Mirage IV also did have a good nav-suite. The Jag was initially designed to be a trainer, so the attack/ strike-versions were more an fterthought during the design process. I wonder why the AdlA never bothered to put in more advanced gear? Propably due to tight budgets... The Jaguar International even had a version featuring an Agave-Radar that enabled use of anti-ship missiles.

The Corsair II had the benefit of coming off the american industry when it was heavily involved in going to the moon. Hence lots of advances in technology that were taken over into fighters and attack-planes of the time. The A-6's navigation and attack-system was a direct spin-off of Apollo's guidance computers IIRC - no surprise there, as Grumman built the LM. The Jag did not directly benefit from these developments (Europe didn't have a proper space-programme back then - Concorde took over the "high tech stuff"-role, though). The NAVWASS of the RAF-Jags caused some delays, but really was almost as good (even though far from as reliable as) the systems aboard the A-7 or even the A-6. Both american planes were much larger as well. And they couldn't operate off grassy airstrips. All of those aircraft (Jag, A-6 and A-7) were gigantic leaps into the area of today's technology.

Unless, of course, the NAVWASS topples at gear-retraction, as it did regulary Interesting little aircraft anyway - ahead of it's time.

I love the way this plane is underpowered - did the Armée de l'Air ever opt for a replacement of the Adour 102? The RAF later put in the 104 and 106 with increased thrust - made the underpowered Jag slightly less underpowered. Must have been quite a ride for the FAF guys deployed in africa - runway-markers flashing by on take-off and the plane just wants to hug the ground

Great job!

Oopsie - aplogies! The statement about the Skyraiders remains true, however! A Corsair with afterburner was built - called the A-7F "Strike Fighter". Performance was said to be somewhat similar to the Crusaders, albeit with much improved attack and strike-capability! If one would need such an aircraft is a different story, though. Harriers off merchand-ships is a good idea - the maintenance would have been troublesome to nightmarish, though! Imagine keeping a stock of spares on a merchie that keeps your Harriers (you should have at least 5 of them per ship) operational at all cost...24/7!

With AD-capability you mean "AD" as in "AD Skyraider"? The only aircraft to replace a Skyraider is another Skyraider! Sounds corny at first, but the AD got replaced by several aircraft (A-4, A-6 and A-7 - additionally by the S-3 to some extent). I guess the best plan would be going for A-7As and A-7Bs - they offer the most bang per buck. I don't know, if their cat-strut would fit into the Essex-class cat-shuttles (would be pretty easy to retrofit, though!). If you want to keep it "nice and simple", the A-4M could be worth a shot. Even though operationally not quite sound, special situations require special action! Theoretically, the specs for landing-gear sizing call for a sink-rate on touchdown (forgot the exact figures, but they're constant for any design anyway). Therefore, the A-3 would have a greater maximal kinetic energy (heavier at same vertical speed) in vertical direction*. The horizontal direction is another story, though. I know that F-4s were flown off Essex carriers (not operationally, though), so the match of the two does work out. Generally, there's nothing that couldn't be retrofited - apart from "re-decking" the flight-deck with metal, which would certainly have been prohibitive due to cost. ______ *Do you have any figues for max. trap-weights and corrosponding approach speeds? Would be interesting to have a quick run through the numbers.

Especially, when there are other, more pressing things to do than buying a fighter that isn't of any good, other than looking shiny. Who's gonna attack Brazil? Brazil - a country mostly made up of tropical rainforest and surrounded by sea on one side and 4-5km high mountains on the other. Good luck "invading" that country!

With regards to the Skyhawks: They could be wired for Sidewinders and it was done - albeit not neccessarily in the US. All Skyhawks starting from the Bravo could be (and many had themselves) wired for Sidewinders. I'd rather take TA-4Fs for the fighting service, as they have the more powerful -8 engine, as opposed to the TA-4J's -6. The Fox also has two guns, while the Juliet only (normally) carries one. You may even consider upgrading to the -408 engine for additional vertical and horizontal turn-performance. The A-4M was too heavy for carrier-work (very reduced bring-back capability and trap-fuel), an only very seldomly operated from carriers at all. The limiting factor for F-4s on Essex-carriers was the wooden deck in combination with the F-4's downward-angled *hot* exhaust-jets. The weight was not limiting (A-3 Skywarriors also operated off Essexes without any trouble).

Looks like Toper Harley joined the RAF

It's always about short-term benefits only - thinking about ramifications that count on longer time-scales is not "en vogue" nowadays.

Human rights are only an issue if you're not a "friend" - haven't heard of any trouble, exporting stuff to Saudi Arabia or some other "philantrophic" country of the region.

A compromise is a solution where all parties are alright with the outcome, even though all of them had to trade-in a couple of paragraphs from their agendas. So certaily it's not about being unhappy for not completely getting throgh with your agenda*, but about being happy that a solution was found that covers everybody's needs to a satisfying degree. That's what a democracy and an open society is all about. If everybody is developing a partisan-attitude, the country will head nowhere but into a deadlock and the society will go down the drain. _____ * That's what seems to be the aim of our societies nowadays. There used to be times when agreeing on compromises was a sign for maturity.

I used to have the same problems with the F-100, up until I spent a couple of months flying non-afterburner attack-jets (mostly A-4s and A-7s). They'll teach you to go easy on pitch during dogfights and maneuvering in general. Afterburner-fighters such as the F-4 do really spoil your energy-management in the attack-pattern! After that I didn't have any trouble bagging some MiG-17s. They're mostly frustratig to fight against because they will jink all over the windscreen when you put your pipper on them - a totally annoying thing in flight simulations in general and particularily with TW. I mostly use high angle-off slashing attacks in order to work around that problem. MiG-19s have always been the mot annoying aircraft to fight against for me, because they're better energy-fighters than the MiG-17 and better angle-fighters than the MiG-21 - at least in the game. The real F-100 is actually a much bigger challenge with the aforementioned adverse yaw and the gyroscopic forces acting on the airframe during tight turns due to the engine-torque. Most aircraft are much more docile in game than they'd be in real life.

So do I! The Ark Royal wasn't larger (albeit it had more displacement) than the Clemenceau. With the modifications of the F-4K (especially the higher thrust and increased bleed-air massflow and the resulting higher lift when configured), the Phantom might have worked on the french carriers.