Spoiler
5 Likes
That makes more sense, it didn’t look like a CM pod
1 Like
x-32
aim-120 and a bomb inside it
5 Likes
No
Yeah last time i was there i ahd asked about it but the staff on hand didn’t have a definitive answer when i showed him the photo, most of the F 35’s on display dont have it, or at least i didn’t see it.
It may be something i have to ask some swedish peeps since the F 35 was first delivered and tested with the swedish tri crown and paint on it, and the versions ive seen in our colors dont have that exact cylinder.
2 Likes
ew, why does it look like a frog ate a fighter jet?
1 Like
Generally prototypes are mostly done in the case of aircraft like Mirage 4000, Yak-141 and other similar aircraft. But its not impossible for production aircraft too, just normally unneeded or unnecessary.
3 Likes
this is photoshopped I think
1 Like
Would vehicles like the Gripen NG be considered under the irrelevant category then by chance?
Within the next orbit of the sun for sure.
22 Likes
no there is many photos of it on internet
1 Like
7 Likes
Too much Dakka
6 Likes
Gripen NG would be nice, you get the AESA, you get the engine upgrade, you get the extra pylons, but you still leave room for the E to be much better, and given that Sweden don’t have much left it seems a reasonable exception to make
1 Like
X-32 JSF weapons bay tests
Gripen NG doesn’t have the engine upgrade, it has the MS19 fuel efficient upgrade but it only has the avionic systems that were paved for the E.
NG has the raven radar, the EWS, MAW, the voice warning system (still waiting gaijin) and thats it.
Edit: my bad early NG was designed without the engine and hardpoints but when it was created they had the hardpoints and the engine added.
1 Like
video of armed x-32
2 Likes
:(
11 Likes
Sorry, not Ares, but anyways…
No F-2 would be 12.7, but the XF-2s and early service F-2s all have armament limited to AIM-7F/M, as well as AIM-9L and AAM-3, carrying at most four of each.
This would put them at a performance of maybe 13.3, considering the first Belgian F-16A at 13.0. Compared to that the (X)F-2 is more agile, carries more total missiles, has better J/APG-1 (or the lower performance prototype) AESA radar and has access to SARH missiles, while not really being slower since it makes up for weight and drag with the GE engine.
With ARH missiles initially the F-2s didn’t have J/ARG-1 for datalink, so an early F-2 with AAM-4 wouldn’t be higher than 13.7 either.
Later F-2s then get new J/APG-2 radar and J/ARG-1 transmitter for AAM-4 datalink and could very much be added at 14.0 and not be anything game changing. The 4+4 loadout is very limiting compared to what F-15s or Eurofighters carry, and the lack of HMD holds in back from the close combat niche unless Gaijin allows the planned HMD integration. The only way these can be placed higher would be with the addition of new missiles like the AAM-4B or AAM-5, which is unlikely without other nations equivalents.
Last update when we got the Rafale, which is equipped with a radar that should be slightly better than the prototype J/APG-1
Meanwhile XF-2 is limited to SARH and IR missiles, so it should’ve probably come sooner than the Rafale that can carry ARH missiles.
5 Likes
3 Likes