The long range requirement would point to PCA and the German rqrmnts for the joint development with France, but both might be too far out, timing wise, and hence LM might be able to play, as a partner to the Japanese:Lord Jim wrote: I believe the UK/Swede.Italian prgramme is more in sync with the Japanese timetable though.
Lord Jim wrote:almost wrecked and certainly curtailed the F2 programme, developing a F-22/F-35 hybrid has the same written all over it
Mig-31 was around then... and still is, nowLord Jim wrote:Tornado F3[, which] was a long range interceptor rather than a fighter, but ended up a pretty effective platform
I like that; but what is it (in a fighter a/c)?Lord Jim wrote:AC&C
I like that, tooSW1 wrote: If you can swap the bomb payload for a sensor that provides targeting data then you maybe able to use a traditional aircraft with more stand-off weapons.
SW1 wrote:keeping as much of expensive sub systems common and integration cost down will be of high importance going fwd. something major OEMs will be reluctant to do.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I like that; but what is it (in a fighter a/c)?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Mig-31 was around then... and still is, now
Lord Jim wrote:This was one of the reasons I think we might see the return of the second seat.
Lord Jim wrote:ArmChairCivvy wrote:I like that; but what is it (in a fighter a/c)?
Airborne Command & Control, in this case managing allies UAVs and UCAVs. This was one of the reasons I think we might see the return of the second seat.
Pseudo wrote:I'd be surprised if "wingman" UCAV's are intended to require the level of micromanagement that would necessitate a second seat.
shark bait wrote:It shouldn't matter how many wingmen there are.If the wingman is a single large aircraft the pilot will be monitoring a single unit. If the wingman is multiple small aircraft the pilot will be monitoring a single swarm. As far as the pilot is concerned they should be interfacing with a single off board system.
Users browsing this forum: Timmymagic and 6 guests