Has the missing ejector rails on the belly pylons for the Aim-120Bs been reported?
Don’t think so
1 Like
I remember when “stopped using x” didnt stop gaijin in the past, cough L15 ammunition on challenger tanks… xD
I have to ask, weighing up the pros and cons, in the fullness of time, is it really going to be that big of an issue giving them the dual carrier when the plane only carries dumb bombs anyway at 11.7/12.3? Everyone and their mum at that BR carries way more payload or even smart weapons. It would allow the plane to carry 2 extra bombs, so instead of 3(?) it can take 5?
The real question shouldnt be “did they still use them”, it should be “would the plane be able to use them still?”.
1 Like
What I’ve been told is that the twin stores carriers stopped being used just because they didn’t safely separate from the aircraft in the event of the carrier being jettisoned. I don’t know whether this was only when they were empty, or with stores as well. Either way, they were restricted to emergency/wartime use for the aircraft that were certified to carry them. And that’s why you practically never see photos of them being carried outside of e.g weapon trials.
Even during the Gulf War it appears only the Saudis carried them on Tornado, and the RAF had either chosen not to or got rid of them by then (entirely possible we just gave them to the Saudis). So effectively they were no longer used by the UK by the early-to-mid 1990s when Sea Harrier FA.2 was introduced to service.
At some point it’s likely that aircraft were never even certified with them in the first place because of the known risk associated with them that might delay the aircraft’s entry in to service. But as you say, it’s almost certain that the FA.2 would have been able to use them as much as the other 1st Gen Harrier airframes could.
4 Likes
Question.
Was the BOL rail ever used in the duel rail config?
Seems a shame that we can only take the BOL rail with a single ‘winder.
1 Like
Probably never done, but likely possible
2 Likes
I suppose the more important question is “could we prove it was possible (the dual SWs + BOL)?”
moreover dual AMRAAM racks would be nice, although I get why they’re not a thing right now
1 Like
I mean…Tornado F.3 & Late have duel ‘winder racks with BOL.
They do not work the same way. F3 have 2 pylons at the oposite side, they are independent and one was wiered for bol.
1 Like
Yeah, really interesting.
My most schizo take would be that the modeller is a Russian. But like I said that’s quite a schizo take
1 Like
It should have 106
Either 105 or 106 is fine. But I’d prefer 106 as there isn’t another Shar that could come after this to carry it.
7 Likes
this isnt the shar is it? as its showing it could hold missiles on the inner wing pylons. so is this the av 8b or a latter gr variant?
Look at the bottom of the page
It’s a proposed future variant of the Shar.
The Mk.3a & 3b