Sea Jet
FB11
Would a single AMRAAM be the only air to air armament, or would a couple of Sidewinders accompany it? Would I not be right in thinking that a Sidewinder armed aircraft with radar is more useful (as a fighter) than one without?
How come Nozzles (poster on some of the earlier pages on the thread - also other Shar threads from 2002) states that he did indeed fly the FA2 with reasonable weapon loads? And why have I seen quite a few pictures which appear to show Sea Harriers carrying more than one AMRAAM, including ones in this gallery?
Would a single AMRAAM be the only air to air armament, or would a couple of Sidewinders accompany it? Would I not be right in thinking that a Sidewinder armed aircraft with radar is more useful (as a fighter) than one without?
How come Nozzles (poster on some of the earlier pages on the thread - also other Shar threads from 2002) states that he did indeed fly the FA2 with reasonable weapon loads? And why have I seen quite a few pictures which appear to show Sea Harriers carrying more than one AMRAAM, including ones in this gallery?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE Branch Fanatic
Which part of the world were the pictures taken in? What was the temperature and pressure?
The first AIM120 flown operationally on Christmas Day 1995 were a pair on the belly station and a single 1000lb bomb on the centreline. There was a 'demonstration' for the ships company to show some bombing, masking the fact that the aircraft could not get back on baord with 2 AIM120 and 1 1000LB.
The temp and pressure that day were LOW and HIGH respectively. If you operate the aircraft where we do now, in warmer climes, there are days when you'd be struggling to get back on board with one, let alone two.
And even if you could because it's the middle of winter, you still have a poor fuel load, poor aerodynamics..... read the other threads for the other deficiencies.
I don't know who Nozzles is.
Not. In. The. Current. Environment.
The tax payer does not pay for an aircraft that can only operate in certain parts of the world or during the 6 months of the year it's cool enough to get back on with more than 1 AIM120.
How many air to air kills have British aircraft achieved in the 27, sorry, 23 years since the benchmark Falklands? Nil. How many air to ground deliveries have there been in the same time. Hundreds.
If you want to be on ops, if you want to be a part of what's going on, if you want to exercise the skills you spend a lifetime learning, you need to be in an aircraft that can do air to ground, not air to air. (Ideally both.)
Before you start, the Sea Harrier is not, repeat not an bomber, no matter how good the IN/GPS has made it when attacking sea level targets. It does not have the range, available pylons, engine perfomance or weapon clearances to be an effective and flexible air to ground aircraft. Please, in case you were going to, don't use Deliberate Force as a reason for saying the Sea Harrier can do it as well.
Can it do air to ground? Yes. Can it do it well considering criteria other than just hitting a sea level target with a 3KG? No.
Which part of the world were the pictures taken in? What was the temperature and pressure?
The first AIM120 flown operationally on Christmas Day 1995 were a pair on the belly station and a single 1000lb bomb on the centreline. There was a 'demonstration' for the ships company to show some bombing, masking the fact that the aircraft could not get back on baord with 2 AIM120 and 1 1000LB.
The temp and pressure that day were LOW and HIGH respectively. If you operate the aircraft where we do now, in warmer climes, there are days when you'd be struggling to get back on board with one, let alone two.
And even if you could because it's the middle of winter, you still have a poor fuel load, poor aerodynamics..... read the other threads for the other deficiencies.
I don't know who Nozzles is.
Would I not be right in thinking that a Sidewinder armed aircraft with radar is more useful (as a fighter) than one without?
The tax payer does not pay for an aircraft that can only operate in certain parts of the world or during the 6 months of the year it's cool enough to get back on with more than 1 AIM120.
How many air to air kills have British aircraft achieved in the 27, sorry, 23 years since the benchmark Falklands? Nil. How many air to ground deliveries have there been in the same time. Hundreds.
If you want to be on ops, if you want to be a part of what's going on, if you want to exercise the skills you spend a lifetime learning, you need to be in an aircraft that can do air to ground, not air to air. (Ideally both.)
Before you start, the Sea Harrier is not, repeat not an bomber, no matter how good the IN/GPS has made it when attacking sea level targets. It does not have the range, available pylons, engine perfomance or weapon clearances to be an effective and flexible air to ground aircraft. Please, in case you were going to, don't use Deliberate Force as a reason for saying the Sea Harrier can do it as well.
Can it do air to ground? Yes. Can it do it well considering criteria other than just hitting a sea level target with a 3KG? No.
Last edited by FB11; 12th Jul 2005 at 07:41.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tax payer does not pay for an aircraft that can only operate in certain parts of the world or during the 6 months of the year it's cool enough to get back on with more than 1 AIM120.
Nope...But thats what they get !!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
I know it was a few pages back, but I've only just got back from some leave. I can assure you the light blue GR7s flew just as much as the FA2 boys did in Sierra Leone as I was 'happily' on board Lusty at the time and doing my operational low flying work-up over the jungle. There were enough politics going on about the shiney new 'Joint Force Harrier' to ensure all the ATO lines were divided up equally.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I know it was a few pages back, but I've only just got back from some leave. I can assure you the light blue GR7s flew just as much as the FA2 boys did in Sierra Leone as I was 'happily' on board Lusty at the time and doing my operational low flying work-up over the jungle. There were enough politics going on about the shiney new 'Joint Force Harrier' to ensure all the ATO lines were divided up equally.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
"Sir, I wish to cancel my insurance as I have never needed to make a claim, and therefore never will".
This week, Invincible is visiting London. The front page of the news and events section on the Navy's website has a picture of a Sea Harrier on the ramp. And London based folks likely to visit?
Invincible's own website has a page which mentions her role in helping develop stuff for the JSF/F35, as well as a look back at her career.
FBII - Nozzles is/was an ex Sea Harrier FA2 pilot. Amongst his many posts on this and other threads he stated that he had personally returned to the carrier with the weight of several AMRAAMs, at the height of the Adriatic summer.
This week, Invincible is visiting London. The front page of the news and events section on the Navy's website has a picture of a Sea Harrier on the ramp. And London based folks likely to visit?
Invincible's own website has a page which mentions her role in helping develop stuff for the JSF/F35, as well as a look back at her career.
FBII - Nozzles is/was an ex Sea Harrier FA2 pilot. Amongst his many posts on this and other threads he stated that he had personally returned to the carrier with the weight of several AMRAAMs, at the height of the Adriatic summer.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen
The decision to phase out the SHAR AMRAAM capability before there is a replacement available must have been a difficult one given the financial, political and technical issues that had to be considered.
I only feel competent to comment on one facet of the technical issues involved – the weight limit on a VL in hot ambient conditions.
It is a pity that people talk about whether one or two (or more) AMRAAMS can be brought back in high OATs because the technical fact of the matter is that a great deal more load than that can be accommodated without modification to the aircraft.
Allow me to explain – and my apologies to those who already understand these matters because it will not be a short explanation if it is to leave any reader able to think for themselves about this topic.
By the standards of today the Pegasus is a pretty basic low bypass and low tech turbofan engine whose design was determined in the 1960s. It uses turbine blades cooled by pumping ‘cool’ air through internal passages to save them reaching temperatures that would physically damage them. There is a JPT sensor that puts on a red (primary) warning in the cockpit if a certain JPT is exceeded. If this warning is tripped it requires the engine to be removed and the hot end inspected for damage. I seem to remember this warning was set at 760 but it may have been 780.
What I am certain about is that the temperature of this warning could not be reached with the engine running. It could only be reached if the engine surged (which reduced the compressor delivery pressure of the cooling air to the turbine and so the blades were rapidly burnt away) or on a ‘hot’ start where the JPT was allowed to rise out of control before the compressor was able to deliver its cooling air. Goodness me we tried hard enough to cook the backend on more than one occasion in the early days before a JPT limiter was fitted. (Yes that is right the original development batch Harriers did NOT have JPTLs…..).
One way to break the engine however was to overspeed it so that the fan just flew apart - the fan being the weakest component when it came to rotational loads. As a tp in those days I rather naturally developed a close relationship with John Dale the engine chief designer at that time. In fact the Kingston and Dunsold team led by airframe chief designer John Fozard had monthly meetings for many years with their opposite numbers at Bristol led by John Dale and I was privileged to attend most of them.
Be clear - I am asserting that the only way to break the Pegasus while it is running out of surge is to overspeed it. Because the RPM at which the fan would burst was far from certain I can only say that it was more than 110% as I reached that without it happening at a time when the service release allowed 107%. John Dale said to me that I would be OK to 110 but he was not sure after that – and I for one believed him.
So much for the circumstances that will bust the Pegasus.
When it comes to deciding service limits of RPM and JPT we need to do so much more than just stop the donk going bang. We have to agree a service LIFE.
So at last we have come to the SHAR problem of today. The JPT limits for the engine that is in the SHAR were set back in the late 60s and they were set by ministry men who wanted more life for the same purchase price and engine men who did not want a warranty problem. So the short lift dry JPT limit was set at 715. Nobody ever envisaged that this would in any way bother Harrier pilots in 2005 who wanted to go to the hottest parts of the world and commit themselves to a deck VL.
Thirty years ago I used to brief my mates who were worried about being forced into an ‘overweight’ VL to just turn the limiter off, turn on the water switch (whether or not they had water as this reset the RPM governor to 107) and go about their business without looking at the JPT gauge. They did need to make sure they were not running out of RPM but that was all. And yes the JENGO might comment about a few extra counts on the engine life recorder – but really so what?
Today’s operators/ministry men/airworthiness ‘experts’ and military staffs just know what they are told – namely that they should not exceed the JPT limit published in the book. And they believe it because they know no better. But why should they? Most were not born when the trade of life versus performance was agreed.
Pity eh?
PS The engine in the GR7A and GR9A has no JPT limits only RPM ones. But that was agreed after it became clear that a JPT limit was a hell of a bind in some circumstances.
PPS In my view it may be reasonable to phase out the SHAR for many reasons but not because it cannot bring back AMRAAMS. If you really believe that you don’t understand the Pegasus.
PPPS SHAR pilots will appreciate that turning off the limiter before hand is a much better thing to do that going ‘through’ the limiter once it has cut back the thrust and the aircraft is on its way down thus calling for extra thrust to arrest the descent.
JF
The decision to phase out the SHAR AMRAAM capability before there is a replacement available must have been a difficult one given the financial, political and technical issues that had to be considered.
I only feel competent to comment on one facet of the technical issues involved – the weight limit on a VL in hot ambient conditions.
It is a pity that people talk about whether one or two (or more) AMRAAMS can be brought back in high OATs because the technical fact of the matter is that a great deal more load than that can be accommodated without modification to the aircraft.
Allow me to explain – and my apologies to those who already understand these matters because it will not be a short explanation if it is to leave any reader able to think for themselves about this topic.
By the standards of today the Pegasus is a pretty basic low bypass and low tech turbofan engine whose design was determined in the 1960s. It uses turbine blades cooled by pumping ‘cool’ air through internal passages to save them reaching temperatures that would physically damage them. There is a JPT sensor that puts on a red (primary) warning in the cockpit if a certain JPT is exceeded. If this warning is tripped it requires the engine to be removed and the hot end inspected for damage. I seem to remember this warning was set at 760 but it may have been 780.
What I am certain about is that the temperature of this warning could not be reached with the engine running. It could only be reached if the engine surged (which reduced the compressor delivery pressure of the cooling air to the turbine and so the blades were rapidly burnt away) or on a ‘hot’ start where the JPT was allowed to rise out of control before the compressor was able to deliver its cooling air. Goodness me we tried hard enough to cook the backend on more than one occasion in the early days before a JPT limiter was fitted. (Yes that is right the original development batch Harriers did NOT have JPTLs…..).
One way to break the engine however was to overspeed it so that the fan just flew apart - the fan being the weakest component when it came to rotational loads. As a tp in those days I rather naturally developed a close relationship with John Dale the engine chief designer at that time. In fact the Kingston and Dunsold team led by airframe chief designer John Fozard had monthly meetings for many years with their opposite numbers at Bristol led by John Dale and I was privileged to attend most of them.
Be clear - I am asserting that the only way to break the Pegasus while it is running out of surge is to overspeed it. Because the RPM at which the fan would burst was far from certain I can only say that it was more than 110% as I reached that without it happening at a time when the service release allowed 107%. John Dale said to me that I would be OK to 110 but he was not sure after that – and I for one believed him.
So much for the circumstances that will bust the Pegasus.
When it comes to deciding service limits of RPM and JPT we need to do so much more than just stop the donk going bang. We have to agree a service LIFE.
So at last we have come to the SHAR problem of today. The JPT limits for the engine that is in the SHAR were set back in the late 60s and they were set by ministry men who wanted more life for the same purchase price and engine men who did not want a warranty problem. So the short lift dry JPT limit was set at 715. Nobody ever envisaged that this would in any way bother Harrier pilots in 2005 who wanted to go to the hottest parts of the world and commit themselves to a deck VL.
Thirty years ago I used to brief my mates who were worried about being forced into an ‘overweight’ VL to just turn the limiter off, turn on the water switch (whether or not they had water as this reset the RPM governor to 107) and go about their business without looking at the JPT gauge. They did need to make sure they were not running out of RPM but that was all. And yes the JENGO might comment about a few extra counts on the engine life recorder – but really so what?
Today’s operators/ministry men/airworthiness ‘experts’ and military staffs just know what they are told – namely that they should not exceed the JPT limit published in the book. And they believe it because they know no better. But why should they? Most were not born when the trade of life versus performance was agreed.
Pity eh?
PS The engine in the GR7A and GR9A has no JPT limits only RPM ones. But that was agreed after it became clear that a JPT limit was a hell of a bind in some circumstances.
PPS In my view it may be reasonable to phase out the SHAR for many reasons but not because it cannot bring back AMRAAMS. If you really believe that you don’t understand the Pegasus.
PPPS SHAR pilots will appreciate that turning off the limiter before hand is a much better thing to do that going ‘through’ the limiter once it has cut back the thrust and the aircraft is on its way down thus calling for extra thrust to arrest the descent.
JF
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF
Again I have learned something new. Some questions/observations:
1. The GR7A/GR9A does have JPT limits. 780 dry/800 wet. I'm not sure if again, based on the engine life logic, if that's an artificial limit. The obvious point from the numbers is that this is an engine that doesn't need the water on board, just the access to the rating (the 20 degrees extra available negated by the weight of the water in the first place.) We only carry the water for the CofG issue because unlike the AV-8B, we bolted the 107 in as an afterthought and require the weight of water to stop us running out of front puffer. I believe (am currently away from the jet) that the CofG expansion is being done now or may have already been done by Hargs and team.
2. The current engine does get hot. People have reached the limit. It's been done in ground effect too often back at the ship causing numerous pilots to flag the JPT warning. This problem has been exacerbated by the FOD resistent blades which seem to create a heating effect on the engine that is not linear. Doing a perf hover at 1200lb fuel might show an RPM/JPT combo of 99.6/703. The next hover at 800lbs shows 98.4/703 - it really throws the calcs out. (At least the GR7 has a computer unlike the pencil and ODM on the FA2.) This is evident on both the GR7 and the FA2.
3. The issue, a real one, of the current limits and bring back is not the only reason for removing the Sea Harrier. Available weapons stations, defensive aids, handling with the bolt on AAR probe, limited fuel load, cockpit ergonomics and a rash of other limitations are the real reason that, without significant monetary inject, we can't move forward any more. Money will never fix some of the issues such as limited fuel.
Again I have learned something new. Some questions/observations:
1. The GR7A/GR9A does have JPT limits. 780 dry/800 wet. I'm not sure if again, based on the engine life logic, if that's an artificial limit. The obvious point from the numbers is that this is an engine that doesn't need the water on board, just the access to the rating (the 20 degrees extra available negated by the weight of the water in the first place.) We only carry the water for the CofG issue because unlike the AV-8B, we bolted the 107 in as an afterthought and require the weight of water to stop us running out of front puffer. I believe (am currently away from the jet) that the CofG expansion is being done now or may have already been done by Hargs and team.
2. The current engine does get hot. People have reached the limit. It's been done in ground effect too often back at the ship causing numerous pilots to flag the JPT warning. This problem has been exacerbated by the FOD resistent blades which seem to create a heating effect on the engine that is not linear. Doing a perf hover at 1200lb fuel might show an RPM/JPT combo of 99.6/703. The next hover at 800lbs shows 98.4/703 - it really throws the calcs out. (At least the GR7 has a computer unlike the pencil and ODM on the FA2.) This is evident on both the GR7 and the FA2.
3. The issue, a real one, of the current limits and bring back is not the only reason for removing the Sea Harrier. Available weapons stations, defensive aids, handling with the bolt on AAR probe, limited fuel load, cockpit ergonomics and a rash of other limitations are the real reason that, without significant monetary inject, we can't move forward any more. Money will never fix some of the issues such as limited fuel.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11
Thanks for that interesting detailed info. All new to me as you will appreciate I am not exactly in touch with today any more!
Recirculation in the Harrier world is a bugger. And always has been. As you know it is susceptible to good/poor pilot technique. A fwd CG would be bad news indeed given the need to open the front puffer close to the ground. Maybe a bit of lead in the tail will be part of the solution - much more moment than the water tank.
BTW the fan efflux on the F1356/F136 LiftSystems promises a real solution to recirculation judging by IR pics of flow close to the ground.
Your hover numbers are interesting. I wonder if there is a CoG effect here on the amount of bleed pulled at the two different fuel states. Mind you it is the RPM that matters for performance not the JPT. The only reason in my book to even record the JPT values would be to produce engineering and life usage data not to assist in hover weight calcs.
As to your para 3 I could not agree more. I hope I did not give the impression that I was arguing for the SHAR regardless. I just wanted to give my reasons why I believe technically that the service could VL the SHAR safely some 40/50 deg hotter than the current release.
Nice to talk aeroplanes. Makes a change from encouraging local widow ladies to use the chains on their doors as per the NHW advice.
JF
Thanks for that interesting detailed info. All new to me as you will appreciate I am not exactly in touch with today any more!
Recirculation in the Harrier world is a bugger. And always has been. As you know it is susceptible to good/poor pilot technique. A fwd CG would be bad news indeed given the need to open the front puffer close to the ground. Maybe a bit of lead in the tail will be part of the solution - much more moment than the water tank.
BTW the fan efflux on the F1356/F136 LiftSystems promises a real solution to recirculation judging by IR pics of flow close to the ground.
Your hover numbers are interesting. I wonder if there is a CoG effect here on the amount of bleed pulled at the two different fuel states. Mind you it is the RPM that matters for performance not the JPT. The only reason in my book to even record the JPT values would be to produce engineering and life usage data not to assist in hover weight calcs.
As to your para 3 I could not agree more. I hope I did not give the impression that I was arguing for the SHAR regardless. I just wanted to give my reasons why I believe technically that the service could VL the SHAR safely some 40/50 deg hotter than the current release.
Nice to talk aeroplanes. Makes a change from encouraging local widow ladies to use the chains on their doors as per the NHW advice.
JF
Suspicion breeds confidence
FB 11 and JF thanks for the interesting posts above. The Spanish operated AV-8A (Matadors) for many years in the hot conditions of the med. The Indians still operate Shars in the Bay of Bengal. Yes, we all accept and recognise that hot weather will compromise landing performance, but I get the distinct impression that smoke is being blown up my backside to mask a financial reason.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to mask a financial reason.
Right we've made the decision, now lets think up some ways to justify it, ah, how about bringback, thats a good one ......
I can just imagine the scenes at High Wycombe and in the MoD.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wishing to flog a dead horse the SHAR today is totally outclassed by other kit (ours and other peoples) in all roles other than deploying AMRAAMs from small ships. So it becomes a judgement call to decide whether it is worth spending the money needed to keep it going in that role until there is a replacement.
As I have indicated I believe it could technically bring back a couple of AMRAAMS under the current hot theatre conditions. But (even if I am right) is that capability enough to justify keeping it? The answer of course depends on how the future turns out. I am just glad I did not have to make the call.
As a young Harrier pilot said to me recently “I was asked to talk about the future – but as I have no experience of that I declined”
If only more people had that level of wisdom.
As I have indicated I believe it could technically bring back a couple of AMRAAMS under the current hot theatre conditions. But (even if I am right) is that capability enough to justify keeping it? The answer of course depends on how the future turns out. I am just glad I did not have to make the call.
As a young Harrier pilot said to me recently “I was asked to talk about the future – but as I have no experience of that I declined”
If only more people had that level of wisdom.
Look at this: From the MOD Website.
So they (the Government/MOD) think that they need to have contingency plans for this sort of event, yet they have no contingency plans for naval/maritime forces facing air attack?
So they (the Government/MOD) think that they need to have contingency plans for this sort of event, yet they have no contingency plans for naval/maritime forces facing air attack?
HMS Invincible was decommisioned today - as mentioned on this page from the RN site.
CVF still has not passed main gate, so surely the early decommisioning of the carriers is yet another risk. However:
The warship will be at reduced readiness until she becomes due for disposal at the long-planned date of 2010, when the scheduled entry into service of the new generation of much larger aircraft carriers will be approaching.
If a carrier can be mothballed "just in case" she is needed again, then why not aircraft? Why not keep a few Sea Harriers in storage just in case they are needed?
Also see this story from the Telegraph.
CVF still has not passed main gate, so surely the early decommisioning of the carriers is yet another risk. However:
The warship will be at reduced readiness until she becomes due for disposal at the long-planned date of 2010, when the scheduled entry into service of the new generation of much larger aircraft carriers will be approaching.
If a carrier can be mothballed "just in case" she is needed again, then why not aircraft? Why not keep a few Sea Harriers in storage just in case they are needed?
Also see this story from the Telegraph.
Suspicion breeds confidence
>> If a carrier can be mothballed "just in case" she is needed again, then why not aircraft?
I suspect this has more to do with having pilots "current" on said aircraft than having the cabs ready and available. All of the FAA's BVR training goes down the pan in April. What a waste.
I suspect this has more to do with having pilots "current" on said aircraft than having the cabs ready and available. All of the FAA's BVR training goes down the pan in April. What a waste.
Isn't it also to do with the fact that the jet needs MASSIVE spending if it is to remain even marginally viable now, let alone at some unspecified point some time in the future?
And storing jets for future use is an expensive business. You can't just tie them up alongside and post a dim Marine at the bottom of the gangplank!
And storing jets for future use is an expensive business. You can't just tie them up alongside and post a dim Marine at the bottom of the gangplank!
What are/would be the implications under RAB for retaining (a) the carrier and (b) the SHARs? I imagine 'expensive' would be the answer.
The Australians are talking about procuring a carrier/aviation capable vessel, aren't they? (albeit for when the JSF). Perhaps they'll end up with Invincible 25 years after they first agreed to buy it?
The other candidates for both ship and airframes must be the Indians, who want to replace the Viraat in the fairly near term future and who, I imagine, would welcome the opportunity to obtain a CAG without having to go to the fun of upgrading the FRS 51 SHAR?
The Australians are talking about procuring a carrier/aviation capable vessel, aren't they? (albeit for when the JSF). Perhaps they'll end up with Invincible 25 years after they first agreed to buy it?
The other candidates for both ship and airframes must be the Indians, who want to replace the Viraat in the fairly near term future and who, I imagine, would welcome the opportunity to obtain a CAG without having to go to the fun of upgrading the FRS 51 SHAR?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Indians have recently signed a contract to upgrade their FRS51s with Israeli radars and the Derby BVR missile.
I suspect that most countries wouldn't be interested in the FA2 as most wouldn't be allowed to have AMRAAM and they'd have to pay for an upgrade to allow Derby/Mica/PL12 integration.
However, even if - like the RAN - they were cleared for AMRAAM - the FA2 is essentially a 1960s airframe, expensive to maintain and arguably past it's sell by date already in anything other than a very bespoke role.
Agggghhhh! I can't believe that I've been suckered into this dreadful SHAR roundabout debate again!!!
Regards,
MM
I suspect that most countries wouldn't be interested in the FA2 as most wouldn't be allowed to have AMRAAM and they'd have to pay for an upgrade to allow Derby/Mica/PL12 integration.
However, even if - like the RAN - they were cleared for AMRAAM - the FA2 is essentially a 1960s airframe, expensive to maintain and arguably past it's sell by date already in anything other than a very bespoke role.
Agggghhhh! I can't believe that I've been suckered into this dreadful SHAR roundabout debate again!!!
Regards,
MM