Yeah, a key point from most of the collaborative projects (not just UK) is that more than 2 partners makes things much worse. And you get most of the cost reduction from adding the first partner before it's diminishing returns.
Phantom's pilot is well advised to turn off the A/B regardless, since it burns fuel like there is no tomorrow (so getting back home becomes a problem), and because the manuals say so (since it might wreck the engine due to very high thermal loads).
We are not guessing the Lightning at $1.7m, you are.
The military aircraft programs became multi-year programs by late 1950s (from the time the RFP or a spec is issued until the start of series production). During these years, a bi-lateral program can be a matter for 4 governments do deal with? It takes just one of governments to say "we actually don't want this A/C" and 4-5 years are just wasted, so is the money, and the industry takes a serious blow. Even the 1-national programs can be cancelled very easy.
But you can't fit an illuminator to the radar in the space the Lightning had so the radar Red Tops are useless. Or it happens in the 80s or later...
Be more Sweden and simply buy in whole systems from abroad on a supply basis Vs collaboration. Much simpler, and you're then using existing systems that are lower risk as well. But the market might not have what you need, or the optimum for your requirements.
Sweden was making the military aircraft at home.
It depends what you view as "making". Building an airframe doesn't actually get you an aeroplane. This gets into which bits are the most value added activities - generally metal bashing airframe bits is one of the lowest of these. But the overall design ("architecting" in todays speak) is one of the highest. I think Sweden took a pragmatic approach of only doing some elements in house, and buying others in.
I am unclear how making more radars somehow makes them smaller.
This just seems more and more like the standard Industry whinge of blaming the government for everything with zero self reflection. What actual features did potential export customers want which weren't provided? It's still not as cheap as a Mirage III, Draken, F-104, F-5 etc. and not as good as a Phantom.
I wouldn't necessarily say Draken, but yes I'm pretty sure that a lower cost single engined aircraft in greater numbers would have been a better choice than chasing that last little bit of climb rate peformance. An easy opportunity for this would be taking Delta 2 forwards as a fighter instead of P.1. I wouldn't argue that this is going to be some guaranteed world beater, but is a reasonable choice with lower cost and more growth potential into the 60s.
Crazy to think that the Drake did nearly everything the Lightning could do, and some things better, using just a single Avon instead of two.
forum.dcs.world
Same can be said for Mirage III, or F-106, and a bit less so for F-104 and MiG-21
Interestingly the Swedes did look at fitting AI.23.
And detected large ships out to 250nm if memory serves.
What fighter aircraft was outfitted with radar that was able to pick up returns of the ground radars (and presumably know what to do with the returns)?
Thank you.
Instead of 4 Sidewinders, have it being outfitted with 2 Red Tops.
Thank you.
Instead of 4 Sidewinders, have it being outfitted with 2 Red Tops.
You don't say
Somehow I was expecting that.
What all-weather nav/attack electronics was onboard of Jaguar in the 1st 15 years of service?
