RAF without Jaguar

[uk 75]

The row between Healey and Messmer after the demise of AFVG coincided with yet another financial crisis in London and led to the cancellation of the Jaguar.

The Gnat trainer had only recently been introduced and RAF 38 Group and RAFG were bringing in Phantoms and Harriers to replace Hunters and Canberras. So noone, except for BAC, were too upset by the demise of Jaguar.

Deprived of AFVG and Jaguar BAC returned to its P45/UKVG studies.

Healey had secured the Harrier for Hawker Siddeley and US Marine interest would soon increase their order books.

The RAF were happy to at last have a two seater two engine modern supersonic fighterbomber in the shape of the Phantom.
Frankly they could have done without Harrier if it meant more Phantoms.

The decision to end naval fixed air power added the Buccaneer S2 to the RAF inventory which not only could do maritime strike but also replace Canberras in RAFG.

The RAF were relieved to be spared a BAC product and Healey was left with the thorny issue of which aircraft should replace the present lineup of Vulcans, Buccaneers, Phantoms and Lightnings in the 1970s.

Cooperation with France was dead (Concorde was protected by treaty and did not involve Dassault!)
Dollars for more Phantoms even at generous prices were like hens teeth.

Hawker Siddeley rubbed BAC's noses in it by offering more Buccaneers in the strike role.

It was the Luftwaffe that came to BAC's aid.. Desperate to have a decent fighter to replace the F104 and not so impressed with the twin seater F4 they had a design for a super fighter called the NKF (New Combat Aircraft).

NKF was very close to the BAC P45 and the RAF needed to replace its Lightnings with a homegrown product. Italy was soon on board and NCF/NKF 75 was born.

The aircraft had two engines and the fighter versions were single seaters but a two seater combat trainer was also ordered..This later provided the basis for all the RAF fighters.

 

[red admiral]

Isn't P.45 just a bit small though? For either fighter or strike roles?

 

[Archibald]

On the other side of the Channel, the lack of Jaguar was not seen as a great loss. Free moar money for moar Mirages - but what Mirage ?

And there, all hell broke loose in a hail of prototypes.

Before the Mirage F1 solved the issue, at least partially.

Unfortunately it could not cure the AdA almost suicidal appetite for "a french F-111" or "a french Phantom" and soon "a French F-15". All of them unaffordable.
Mirage G4... NO
Mirage G8 ? NO.
Mirage ACF then. NOOO !!!
Mirage 4000 ? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The solution found (by default, and after a decade lost) was to roll a M53 into the second half of the F1 order, 120 out of 240 airframes. It becames, first, a low end to the (unaffordable) twin M53 combat aircraft. Later it became the one and only survivor.
Luckily enough, the Aéronavale and Belgium adopted it, and even if it proved o match for the F-16, it sold in the hundreds.

Then SNECMA reminded about the M45, and Dassault started toying with F-18-size aircraft. And the answer was a resounding YEEES !!!

 

[zen]

P.45 especially the fixed wing version would have made a better option than the Jaguar.
Being powered by two RB.153 to keep the Germans happy. It would have far more favourable thrust-to-weight ratio.
Built in Attack, Anti-ship and Fighter versions, it's chief issue is it would be even less affordable as a supersonic trainer than the Jaguar's original concept.
But it would be rather attractive as a F104, Hunter and Lightning replacement.

 

[lancer21]

France is quite easy, either off the shelf Mirage F1A or Mirage-5, or same but with the Jaguar avionics. How did the prices compared between Jaguar and the Mirages?

UK though is a bit more complicated as they don't have a suitable indigenous replacement (and i don't see them having the money for yet another aircraft program other than Tornado), they could buy more Phantoms, more Harriers, or possibly the single-seat PA100 Tornado or more likely a mix of the above. Again, how to the prices compared?

Biggest winner is Dassault, in addition to 150-200 more french orders, very likely they will get at least 200 more from India and other countries that bought Jaguars OTL.

 

[zen]

Well SAAB could try licensing the Viggen again. Bung in a Pegasus straight through version and you're laughing. Timing could be good.

 

[uk 75]

An aircraft that might have entered the scene was the LTV A7 Corsair.

 

[GTX]

Although I doubt it would have happened, a F-5E might have made a very similar classed/capable platform to the Jaguar.

 

[Hood]

The Plan in 1966 was:

Long-range strike and reconnaissance - F-111K
Medium-range tactical strike and reconnaissance - AFVG
Short-range tactical support and reconnaissance - Jaguar
Close support - P.1127 Harrier
Interceptor (and back-up tactical support and recon) - Phantom

It was an interlocking set of aircraft. The Air Staff settled on Jaguar as a way of freeing up the Phantoms to replace the Lightning (which it only ever partially did). Losing blind-bombing capability and reduced warload but the Jags could be forward based which Phantom couldn't. Harrier was the Army's favourite as it was very much forward-forward based near the frontline.

Now the cancellations of '68 knocked out F-111K and AFVG, knock out Jaguar too and all you have left is Phantom and Harrier. Assuming you leave Phantom to carry out tactical strike and reconnaissance then logically you need a Lightning replacement sooner than later. As MRCA is already forming up so it makes sense to bake in an interceptor and strike platform from the get go.

Probably means skipping the Jaguar niche altogether. The Air Staff wanted to lift 4,000lb from a field strip, so that would rather limit the takers in this scenario I would think.

 

[zen]

Contradictory requirements.
LRI as for AFVG and then MRCA which became Tornado can not provide a replacement for QRA Lightnings.
F4 at low fuel weights and low armament might just.....underperform
But even then both F4 and Tornado are not going to deliver on performance or cost.

Jaguar eased up the F4 load.

 

[Archibald]

Although I doubt it would have happened, a F-5E might have made a very similar classed/capable platform to the Jaguar.

I realized recently that the N-156 suceeded where ECAT (partially) failed. I mean, Northrop pulled a tactical fighter out of a supersonic trainer - which was ECAT exact objective in 1965.
While the Jaguar was a success as a tactical fighter, it failed at the supersonic trainer role. Proof on the pudding (and croissant): despite the two-seat Jaguar, the Hawk and Alphajet happened.
In stark contrast, not only did the F-5A not killed the T-38, but it had air defense capabilities the Jaguar did not had.

So in a sense: T-38 suceeded as a trainer, F-5A as a tactical fighter and F-5E for air defense: three missions for N-156, versus only one for the Jaguar.

Weirdest thing is that Sud Aviation circa 1965 discussed with Northrop to take a F-5 licence... not exactly for ECAT, but close.

Northrop got a much better bargain out of N-156 than SEPECAT out of the ECAT.

 

[alertken]

#7 uk75 is right: A-7(U)K. MoA Jenkins placed Allison/Spey in A-7 12/65 as F-111K Offset: flew 8/4/68, deliveries from 9/70. Shorts (owned by MoA) had collaborated with (LTV), 1962 on (schemes for NBMR 3/4, and) Bid F-8(Spey)/RN, so a Shorts licenced A-7 could fly.

Timing: UK 16/1/67 had redefined its (17/5/65 150) Jaguar/Trainer commitment as 35/Trainers, 165/Strike, and deferred its Advanced Trainer. AFVG/RAF died 29/6/67: UK could then have ditched Jaguar; massaged compensation into the Heli and/or GW packages; brought forward the Advanced Trainer ( to be settled 1/10/71 as HS Hawk); and bought even more Phantoms, Spey or not, to bridge to the eventual Canberra Replacement. So, why not?

1 reason: preservation of BAC/Military/Preston: on 29/6/67 the Saudi Air Defence Scheme, signed 5/5/66 could, conceivably, have come apart by Riyadh worrying that its Prime Contractor had no long term stability (AMD, amongst others, would so suggest). Maybe Warton/A-7(U)K might have eased that, but staying with/avoiding nugatory cost of Jaguar was preferred.

 

[zen]

1967 is the period of the Brough (formerly Blackburn) P.146 studies.
These tending to be based around Spey or development of RB.199 (scaled up to 24,000lb reheated thrust).

Partly as a conventional backup to Harrier and an effort into light fighter/attack concepts.

STOL and carrier compatibility relied of use of blow over the wing and tail. Essentially a sort of single engined Jaguar design but this would evolve through the years into the 70s as P.153 and ultimately the P.163 lightweight fighter attack type.

1967 is also Mirage G territory.

Breuget still limping along could offer up alternatives around the Toan concept and yet another Etendard variant.

However giving HSA work on the Brough concepts would offset handing BAC the MRCA side and produce some more export oriented. Especially as it's compatible with Spey.

 

[Archibald]

Loved the P.141 and P.146 studies. I modeled both 15 years ago, they are still at my mom house, on the shelves with 200 other 1/72 aicraft fleet.

 

[kaiserbill]

A Mirage F1 with a British engine... Spey perhaps. Commonality with the Brit Phantom, more local work for RR. Maybe some British avionics.
Come up with some counter-buy for British platform or weapon system to balance things.
The F1 was a superior plane to the Jaguar in almost every metric.
(I'm discounting the trainer origin of the Jaguar here)

 

[Archibald]

A Mirage F1 with a British engine... Spey perhaps. Commonality with the Brit Phantom, more local work for RR. Maybe some British avionics.
Come up with some counter-buy for British platform or weapon system to balance things.
The F1 was a superior plane to the Jaguar in almost every metric.
(I'm discounting the trainer origin of the Jaguar here)

Would be similar to the F1-M53. Spey was one engine option circa 1969 along J79. According to Liébert & Buyck.

 

[GTX]

Although I doubt it would have happened, a F-5E might have made a very similar classed/capable platform to the Jaguar.

I realized recently that the N-156 suceeded where ECAT (partially) failed. I mean, Northrop pulled a tactical fighter out of a supersonic trainer - which was ECAT exact objective in 1965.

Indeed. As you rightly touch upon, the Jaguar grew out of the British and French requirements for a trainer with light attack capabilities. Therefore something packaged around the T-38/F-5 combo could be a good fit.

 

[red admiral]

Any views on cost difference between Jaguar and F1? Jaguar was pretty cheap compared to most other combat aircraft, which plays into numbers

A-7 licence build (maybe without radar for lower cost?) sounds quite attractive

 

[phantomphan]

Although I doubt it would have happened, a F-5E might have made a very similar classed/capable platform to the Jaguar.

How about a F-5 with two Viper engines? More palatable to purchase?

 

[Archibald]

Although I doubt it would have happened, a F-5E might have made a very similar classed/capable platform to the Jaguar.

I realized recently that the N-156 suceeded where ECAT (partially) failed. I mean, Northrop pulled a tactical fighter out of a supersonic trainer - which was ECAT exact objective in 1965.

Indeed. As you rightly touch upon, the Jaguar grew out of the British and French requirements for a trainer with light attack capabilities. Therefore something packaged around the T-38/F-5 combo could be a good fit.

Would be fun to team Aerospatiale with Breguet (+Northrop) to get a second combat aircraft "pool" besides Dassault. But De Gaulle, Messmer (MinDef) and others did not wanted that.
After 1960 the heavy handed message was (give or take)
- Dassault for combat aircraft + bizjets (because Falcons)
- Public companies for everything else: rockets, transports, helicopters, missiles... anything but combat aircraft.
It was a matter of consolidation and efficiency, TBH.
Of course this did not prevented in the next decade, an Aerospatiale bizjet (Corvette) nor a Dassault airliner (Mercure) - and both ended as commercial disasters.

 

[uk 75]

A slightly bizarre thought. The Lightning F53 for Kuwait and Saudi had some ground attack capability.
To keep BAC ticking over with orders if Jaguar was cancelled, Lightning F8 derived from F53 with similar weapons fit to Jaguar could have served with the RAF in UK and W Germany.
If the RAF really needed a two seater supersonic trainer (presumably to replace the Hunter), there was already the Lightning T5.
The savings achieved could have been used to speed up MRCA or even pay for say 50 UKVG to replace the Vulcans.

 

[_Del_]

If you are looking at something as large as the Lightning, it would have been pretty easy and cheap to find some F-101's by the late 60's. Fantastic range. Later Voodoos got LABS, and someone already designed the recce nose and associated kit if RAF is so inclined. All models are out of frontline service by mid-60's and out of the ANG by 72.

USAF is happy to divest as they are replacing them with Phantoms. Timed right there could be some cooperation between Canada and UK's industry for refurbishment freeing up McDonnell (or MDD, depending on your timing).
Canada wants the B model. A or C model would fit UK better for strike. Though, one could strip the avionics for Falcon and possibly the radar altogether in the B's, and keep the second crew member.

Doesn't really help BAC/EE, but far more effective, comparable size, and near-free. Far cheaper than more Buccs. Both Lightning and Voodoo are a lot of plane for a trainer, but perhaps as a leading trainer could work. Voodoo would be quite similar to the bigger Phantom in many respects.

 

[zen]

Or a

A slightly bizarre thought. The Lightning F53 for Kuwait and Saudi had some ground attack capability.
To keep BAC ticking over with orders if Jaguar was cancelled, Lightning F8 derived from F53 with similar weapons fit to Jaguar could have served with the RAF in UK and W Germany.
If the RAF really needed a two seater supersonic trainer (presumably to replace the Hunter), there was already the Lightning T5.
The savings achieved could have been used to speed up MRCA or even pay for say 50 UKVG to replace the Vulcans.

Certainly there was the earlier multirole offerings from EE that could be revised.
Cost of more Lightnings is relatively cheap, as it's already in service.
It's even possible to bung in a pair of RB.153 or similar for a more modern engine.

 

[red admiral]

I don't think more Lightning's are cheap compared to Jaguar. RDT&E costs for a new type were much smaller at this time, and it's much more expensive UPC and O&S costs. e.g. compared to Buccaneer then Jaguar had multiple times lower O&S cost

Plus where's the nav system on those ground attack Lightning's? It feels like a much worse and much more expensive ground attack aircraft than Jaguar...

 

[Hood]

A GA Lightning is giving me Su-17 vibes... and those are not necessarily good vibes...
I've always thought of the F.53's GA capability as being salesman's patter.

For France, let's not loose sight that for ECAT they wanted subsonic (Mach 0.9). They just wanted a bigger Taon but BAC talked them round (the sales patter again) that going supersonic was a jolly good idea. Jaguar had barely flown and the AdA went to pitch a subsonic trainer/strike platform to West Germany - resulting in Alpha Jet. There is a good chance that in this scenario the AdA would use the Alpha Jet for tactical close support like the Luftwaffe did (at least as a wartime role).

For the RAF a souped-up Hawk probably isn't what's wanted given it has to be supersonic. BAC had a lot of irons in the fire at this time, the AA-107 derivatives of the 'BAC 107 Family' like the P.61 etc. that were in effect low-end fighters, some with VG, some fixed, most of them supersonic. Then there was PANNAP (Panavia New Aicraft Project).
Actually for all the talk of Dassault stabbing Jaguar in the back with Mirages, BAC were no slouches in drawing up Jaguar competitors at the same time!

 

[zen]

So let me get this right....
Some are saying it has to be cheap like the Jaguar.
Some are saying it to be in production already.
Some are saying it has to more of a fighter.
Some are saying it has to be more Attack oriented.
Some are saying it has to a collaborative design.
And now some are saying it has to be BAC design?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Although I doubt it would have happened, a F-5E might have made a very similar classed/capable platform to the Jaguar.
[image deleted for space]

I dunno, the F-5 was always supposed to be a plane for a country that couldn't necessarily design or build their own high end aircraft, particularly the F-5A.

So that might be a tough sale to the UK. It certainly was to the Canadians!

If the RAF was willing to buy yet another American plane, my vote would be for A-7E. 15,000lbs of boom is impressive, and it is using a British engine (that greatly improved the breed at that!)

 

[zen]

And wasn't it an Elliots computer at heart of the A7 navigation and attack system?

 

[GTX]

If the RAF was willing to buy yet another American plane, my vote would be for A-7E. 15,000lbs of boom is impressive, and it is using a British engine (that greatly improved the breed at that!)

Go back to the original requirements that led to the Jaguar: Training first and foremost with light attack secondary. Therefore a T-38 led proposal of what was the USAF's own premier trainer could have found favour with the light attack/light fighter added in later. Add in German and possibly other NATO buyers and you have a common NATO wide training platform and eventual light attack/fighter pairing. One has to look at what was required not what eventually resulted.

 

[zen]

Except Jaguars tookover the MRI role that had tied up F4M, as a solution to the lack of dedicated MRI with the cancellation of the P1154.

This is why they shifted from substantial number of two seat Trainers to single seat Attack aircraft. With an avionics suite very much what had been intended for P1154 save for the radar.
And why those numbers closely match intended P1154 numbers.

Northrup F5 of any flavour isn't upto it.
Dassault F2 yes. F1 with a Spey maybe. Mirage G definitely.
Viggen, maybe but not a comfortable ride amongst the weeds.
A7 definitely too.

 

[kaiserbill]

There is no maybe about a Spey powered F1 being up to it in the attack role covered by the Jaguar.

It was a superior platform than the Jag even in vanilla ATAR powered format.
This is borne out by operators who used both the Jag and F1 retiring the Jag before the F1.

However, the caveat remains about the training role.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The first Jaguar deliveries to the RAF were in 1973, so if RAF involvement is cancelled in 1967 that doesn't leave a window for a clean-sheet design without it being delayed to the point that it impacts on NKF/MRCA-75. That implies something off-the-shelf as a Jaguar alternative.

Jaguar, in the late 1970s and 1980s, equipped eight squadrons plus an OCU with a shadow squadron:

Coltishall: No.6, No.54, and No.41 (Recce) squadrons, part of the mobile force and intended to reinforce the Northern Flank, in a war with the Warsaw Pact No.6 and No.54 would deploy to Denmark and No.41 would go to Bardufoss in northern Norway
Bruggen: No.14, No.17, No.20 and No.31
Laarbruch: No.2 (Recce)
Lossiemouth: 226 (OCU) - also a shadow squadron to be allocated to SACEUR on the outbreak of war

Given that it was a truly outstanding multirole tactical fighter, with a recce pod available and R&D funded, my preference would be for another 200 F-4Ms to replace the Jaguar one for one, and potentially adding another operational squadron by removing the need for the OCU. However, this may be excessively expensive. An alternative might be a mix of additional Buccaneers and Harriers:

Buccaneer: Strike aircraft for No.6 and No.54 plus an additional squadron at Lossiemouth in place of No.226, Buccaneers were ultimately deployed to Lossiemouth in the 1980s anyway. Reconnaissance packs could be procured for No.2 and No.41 squadrons, No.41 would be co-located with Buccaneers at Coltishall and No.2 was colocated with No.15 and No.16 squadrons with Buccaneers at Laarbruch anyway. Another, probably cheaper, option would simply be for the 226 OCU replacement squadron to be based at Honnington alongside No.12 and 208 and 237 OCU with Lossiemouth becoming a Buccaneer base in 1979 when No.216 squadron stood up with the last of the FAA aircraft. In 1979-80 there would be 8 strike (2-3 TASMO) and 2 reconnaissance squadrons for a total of 10 frontline with an 11th as a reserve squadron in 237 OCU, prior to the impact of the fatigue discovery.

Harrier: An additional four squadrons to equip No.14, 17, 20 and 31 at Bruggen. The actual Harrier wing in Germany started life as a 3 squadron force consisting of No.3, 4 and 20 at Wildenrath (a fourth, No.1, was at Wittering with the OCU). When it moved to Gutersloh, No.20 was disbanded (its number being immediately adopted for a Jaguar squadron) and its aircraft used to increase the UE of the remaining two squadrons to 18 aircraft. The net result would be the equivalent of 8 frontline Harrier squadrons at 12 UE.

The above makes most sense to me as it allows for a rationalisation of the number of types in RAF service and potentially an additional operational squadron instead of the OCU that would be made redundant. However, if a different type really was felt necessary the most logical choice is probably an A-7E derivative. It could be license produced in the UK with Rolls Royce manufactured Speys, Elliot Brothers made the HUD so it had other British content too (see here for details on the A-7D/E nav-attack system). The only other potential modification might be inclusion of the Ferranti LRMTS, Marconi-Elliott did propose a Jaguar modification that would include both the Thomson/CSF AGAVE radar (ultimately used on Indian maritime strike Jaguars) and the LRMTS (this might have been a sensible upgrade for the Buccaneer too), see attached image. An A-7 was fitted with blisters under the intake for the Laser Spot Tracker (LST) and Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor associated with the TRAM upgrade.

The Mirage F1 would be unlikely in this scenario based on it being triggered, in part, by a row between Britain and France.

 

[kaiserbill]

You'll never find me arguing re the Buccaneer.

A very capable and great, great strike jet/bomber that really needed more development money (especially avionics) invested in it as it progressed through its career.
Much loved and respected for good reason by both the Brits and Saffas who used it.
Infinitely more potential in its raw platform than any Jaguar.

Capable, strong and tough, long legged whilst toting a heavy load, fast whilst carrying it.

South Africa even considered a major radar and avionics replacement to its dwindling fleet as late as around 1990, which speaks volumes.
As it was, they did fit more advanced ECM and PGM's.

It's mystifying how many theoritical "what-ifs" and still-borne projects there were, when a platform with such great development potential was readily available.
Politics and budget...

 

[zen]

Certainly we know the later study showed the use of blow over the wing after acceleration could cut TO run substantially for the Buccaneer.

Would be an ultimate irony if it did lead to avionics updates for what is a larger number of Buccaneers.

Once that ball starts rolling......who knows what happens.

 

[kaiserbill]

Indeed.

Often times there are unrealistic "what if's" yet .... all the ingredients were actually there and available.
The raw aerodynamic platform and development work was there and done, and just stood on the cusp of the digital avionics revolution.

Throw in the readily available drop-in later Spey editions in production with 10% more thrust, and an equivalent modern digital pulse Doppler multi mode radar similar to what the SAAF were looking at a bit later (Cheetah C Elta radar) and modern ECM, some cockpit rationalisation with MFD's and perhaps HOTAS...
And the production line was still warm courtesy of the later RAF order.
I also really wish the govt had just given the go-ahead of the additional 16 airframe SAAF option follow up order (Simon's town Agreement) that they really wanted to exercise.
I truly believe it would have made a subtle but big difference.

Industrial suicide when least afforded...

All readily available timeframe fits, and not pie-in-the-sky stuff.
Many US platforms (A4, A6, F-111 for eg) benefitted from such continual investment.

Sigh...

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the RAF was willing to buy yet another American plane, my vote would be for A-7E. 15,000lbs of boom is impressive, and it is using a British engine (that greatly improved the breed at that!)

Go back to the original requirements that led to the Jaguar: Training first and foremost with light attack secondary. Therefore a T-38 led proposal of what was the USAF's own premier trainer could have found favour with the light attack/light fighter added in later. Add in German and possibly other NATO buyers and you have a common NATO wide training platform and eventual light attack/fighter pairing. One has to look at what was required not what eventually resulted.

TA-7C says hi.

Decent trainer, though maybe not as good as a T-38, and vastly more capable in light attack roles. Yes, F-5E was better as a light attack plane than the F-100, but that's not saying much.

And using the A-7 would open up the options for an A-7F in service... either using the afterburning Spey from Phantom or even an F-100. Or a Spey with a modified F-100 afterburner. The higher bypass of Spey made for 26klb thrust in afterburner!

 

[Scott Kenny]

A GA Lightning is giving me Su-17 vibes... and those are not necessarily good vibes...
I've always thought of the F.53's GA capability as being salesman's patter.

For France, let's not loose sight that for ECAT they wanted subsonic (Mach 0.9). They just wanted a bigger Taon but BAC talked them round (the sales patter again) that going supersonic was a jolly good idea. Jaguar had barely flown and the AdA went to pitch a subsonic trainer/strike platform to West Germany - resulting in Alpha Jet. There is a good chance that in this scenario the AdA would use the Alpha Jet for tactical close support like the Luftwaffe did (at least as a wartime role).

The excess power necessary to go supersonic is a great help for maneuvering to escape opposing fighters on your attack runs, but that's about it for most attack aircraft.

 

[kaiserbill]

It is also needed to get off the deck with a worthwhile weapons and fuel load for certain missions, particularly in hot and high environments.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It is also needed to get off the deck with a worthwhile weapons and fuel load for certain missions, particularly in hot and high environments.

Very good point!

 

[red admiral]

Was it actually feasible to fit updated avionics in Buccaneer without massively expensive rebuilds? There was very little space in the nose or rear fuselage avionic compartments. Wasn't this one of the reasons why all those Buccaneer developments had 1ft or more fuselage stretches? The Buccaneer testbeds with Tornado radars had the bomb bay entirely full with their avionics. So when you've then added ECM pod and chaff/flare pod under wing, you're then left with two external pylons for either fuel tanks or weapons.