Истребители разных стран

у F-14 прорабатывалась версия бомбера, но по итогу не сошлось. разведчика на его базе тоже никогда не было
https://theaviationist.com/2012/09/08/f14-vs-f15/
However during this special period the five Black Knights’ crews were able to accomplish more than 300 combat hours dropping more than 50,000 lbs of ordnance.

These results were possible even if the Tomcat had some disadvantages when compared directly to some of the attack planes mentioned above: for example, the Strike Eagle has a maximum payload far superior than the one of the Tomcat and the F-14A could only employ Laser Guided Bombs (LGB) and it was not able to use Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) due to a lack of a digital databus (the Bs and Ds-models Tomcat could use JDAMs).

Still, the F-14 had also some advantages: the AN/AAQ-25 LANTIRN (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting, Infrared, for Night) pod used by Tomcat crews was more capable than the USAF’s AN/AAQ-14 and also than the first AN/AAQ-28s Litening II. In fact the AN/AAQ-25 provided the Tomcat with the capability to point the pod to chosen waypoints without the employment of radar, an ability that the F-15E didn’t have. The F-14s were also equipped with a Programmable Tactical Information Display System (PTIDS) and 20 cm X 20cm screen that provided the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) with a better display than the Weapons System Officer (WSO) in the F-15E.

All these features made the F-14 a really impressive attack platform- as a Tomcat driver once explained: “With the Strike Eagle you can put the bomb on the building. With the Tomcat you’ re putting the bomb into the third window from the left, from miles away”.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat
F-14 был принят на вооружение ВВС США в сентябре 1974. Американские «Томкэты» участвовали в двух стычках с ливийской авиацией над заливом Сидра, сбив в 1981 году два Су-22 (см. первый инцидент в заливе Сидра), а в 1989 году — два МиГ-23 (см. второй инцидент в заливе Сидра).
В сентябре 1980 года американский F-14 сбил иранский истребитель «Фантом».

8 августа 1987 года иранский F-4E «Фантом» безуспешно выпустил ракету AIM-7 по американскому патрульному самолёту P-3C, в ответ американские «Томкэты» сопровождения выпустили две AIM-7, но обе ракеты также промахнулись[4].

F-14 приняли участие в операции «Буря в пустыне» (1991), где обеспечивали воздушное прикрытие американским бомбардировщикам и штурмовикам. Один «Томкэт» был сбит иракским ЗРК С-75[5].

В последующих конфликтах (операция «Умеренная сила» (1995), война против Югославии (1999), войны в Афганистане (2001) и Ираке) F-14 применялись для нанесения ударов по наземным целям.
 
> F-14 применялись для нанесения ударов по наземным целям.
Ну JDAMы же таскал F14, только не так долго.
 
Изначально Ф-14 создавался конечно как чистый перехватчик.
В 81м году на томкэтах появились разведывательные контейнеры TARPS с фотоаппаратурой. Ближе к 90-м появились ударные версии. Но если разведчик это вполне логично, то бомбардировщиком его сделали, потому что десяткам машин не нашлось другой работы вообще. Поэтому они не так уж и долго бомбили. Ф-18 куда выгодней и практичней оказались, тем более когда пришел суперхорнет. Эти вообще вытеснили все смежные самолеты с палубы.
 
Почитывал тут вики на досуге и набрел
Also, as with APG-63, APG-70 also comes in two versions, both have identical air-to-air capabilities, but slightly different air-to-ground capabilities: APG-70 on F-15Is and F-15Ss exported to foreign customers has lower performance in that the resolution of Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) / Mapping / Synthetic Aparture Radar (SAR) modes for the APG-70 on F-15E of USAF is at least three times better than that of the APG-70 on F-15I and F-15S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-63_radar_family

Врут похоже, иначе вся эта красивая сказка про то, что американцы поставляют союзникам оружие, аналогичное тому, которое делают для себя, перестает быть сказкой..
 
APG-70S. This modified version for the Royal Saudi Air Force was “software de-tuned” to overcome software export concerns on Capitol Hill.
The first Israeli Air Force F-15I successfully completed its first flight in September 1997. The aircraft was known in Israel as the Thunder. Israeli F-15s also were equipped with a de-tuned APG-70(V)
:(
Не уверен что так и осталось.;)
 
Belgian Defence Air Combat Capability Program Request for Government Proposal
http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/default/files/articles/Request for Government Proposal_0.pdf
(Многа букаф, но интересно. :muscle:)
После объявления бельгийцами начала рассмотрения предложений на поставку 34 пепелацев, Боинг, как известно, сразу же сошел с дистанции. Как раньше в аналогичном швейцарском конкурсе, он заявил, что его "Супер Хорнет" слишком хорош для этих европейских слюнтяев, а требования составлены нарочно, чтобы он не прошел.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-pulls-out-of-belgian-fighter-competition-436354/

...А теперь прелестная новость о Рафале:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article5101.html
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21...for_Rafale_Fighters__Sticks_to_Tender_Process
Belgium Rejects French Lobbying for Rafale Fighters, Sticks to Tender Process
Belgium has rejected French offer of Rafale fighter jets for the country’s bid to replace aging F-16 fighter jets.

“The French government already promised an economic return of $4 billion, there is now even $20 billion. This is mainly proof that the lobby machine is running at full speed, Minister of Defense Steven Vandeput (N-VA party) was quoted as saying by De Standaard, Belgian news daily Thursday.

'The French offer is too good to be true. The lobbying is running at full speed that is clear now. But we have opted for a straightforward and objective method via the RfGP (Request for Government Proposal, tender through the authorities). It’s a pity that France is taking a different route. The claims that their offer did not fit within it is simply incorrect. The criteria are clear. Period,” Vandeput said.
 
У французов со своим ценообразованием в открытую с амерами конкурировать не получается). Их удел - "мутные" режимы типа нашего, к которым Конгресс своих оборонщиков не допускает, и с которыми можно "зарешать под полой")

А бельгийцы занимались бы модернизацией вайперов и не рыпались, "милитаристы" :D
 

silentpom

По дороге на губу
ну нет массовости - нет цены. вторая проблема французов - своеобразное вооружение.
про бельгов - у них самолеты 80х годов, апгрейженные до стандарта blk 50/52. в общем чудо, что летают до сих пор, некуда уже апгрейдить
 

silentpom

По дороге на губу
чойта мне кажется, что там вопрос решенный. у французов в общем-то локализация производства не отлажена, а ЛМ о ней думали с самого начала.

Lockheed Martin continues to actively work with Belgian industry on expanding business opportunities. In 2015, Lockheed Martin signed a memorandum of understanding with Esterline Belgium, ILIAS Solutions, SABCA and SONACA, signifying a strong interest in exploring industrial cooperation opportunities in high-technology defense, aerospace, cyber and security sectors. More recently, Lockheed Martin signed a partnership agreement to implement ILIAS’ F-16 Mission Driven Logistics system more broadly across global the F-16 fleet.
 
Ну так SABCA еще в производстве F-16 участвовала, так что этот козырь Локхида невозможно перебить) Да, похоже, что вопрос решен уже.

А по поводу их F-16 ирония в том, что, учитывая огромный ресурс планера, будущему оператору бельгийских вайперов предстоит еще долго и счастливо их эксплуатировать)
 

silentpom

По дороге на губу
а есть, он запас-то? вроде там 8 000 только с апгрейдом, если бельги летали по 200 часов в год с 80х - могло уже и кончиться все
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/green-light-usaf-fighter-study-expected-soon
Green Light For USAF Fighter Study Expected Soon
Feb 27, 2017 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein is expected in the next few weeks to green light a study on a potential low-cost, light-attack fighter fleet to augment the A-10 Warthog and other aircraft flying close-air support (CAS) missions in Iraq and Syria, a top general says.

Meanwhile, the service will abandon plans to immediately pursue a more robust one-for-one Warthog replacement, as the venerable attack plane will continue flying well into the 2020s.

A final decision on whether to actually procure a commercial-off-the-shelf light fighter is still far off. But these developments are the latest in the Air Force’s evolving strategy to continue ensuring critical air support for ground troops in the low-end fight, even as the proliferation of sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons drives investment in high-end fighters like the F-35.

Goldfein’s seal of approval would kick off a long-anticipated effort to study the art of the possible for a potential 300-aircraft light fighter fleet, also known as “O-AX.” Top service officials have been hinting for months that such a study is in the works, one likely to inform an emerging plan to consider buying a low-end fighter to help fight Islamic State terrorists in the Middle East.

“He wants to see it. He is ready to go,” said Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official. “Our goal is to get moving as quickly as we can.”

Funding for the study’s first phase, which would begin in the spring, is already built into the Air Force’s budget as part of roughly $100 million set aside for developmental planning and experimentation, Bunch said. The Air Force also asked for an additional $8 million to continue the study in a $10.6 billion updated wish list for the fiscal 2017 budget, sent to Congress and President Donald Trump’s transition team earlier this year.

Once the plan is approved, the Air Force will send out a broad invitation to industry to participate in the experiment, Bunch said. The service wants as many industry players as possible to take part.

The experiment’s aim is to look at the capabilities of the existing commercial designs—for instance Textron’s Scorpion light-attack fighter—and whether they can meet the mission without additional modifications or development-related costs.

“What we want to see is the results out of this and analyze: is industry really close? Are they not really close? Is it easy to operate? Is it not easy to operate?” Bunch said.

The Air Force Strategic Development Planning & Experimentation Office, based from Air Force Materiel Command, will run the study.

Buying a low-cost OA-X, rather than continuing to invest in upgrading and maintaining the aging fourth-generation fleet, could yield significant savings, said Gen. Herbert Carlisle, chief of Air Combat Command. He spoke during a Feb. 24 event in Washington. But Carlisle questioned the utility of investing in a light attack fighter, designed for the low-end fight, which would not be survivable in more hostile air space.

“Would it be viable in the environments we are trying to operate in the future? The threat is getting greater capability and the threat environment is increasing, and so when we look at OA-X we can’t look at it based on what we are doing today,” Carlisle said. “So I think the procurement cost and then the savings in [operations and maintenance] are very compelling, but I think the environment it’s going to operate in is the one we really have to understand before we commit too many resources.”

Still, Bunch said the Air Force won’t make a final decision on whether to invest in a light fighter fleet for some time. The results of the study’s first phase will likely lead to another experiment, perhaps one in which the Air Force looks at the various options in more stressful environments, Bunch said. He declined to provide a timeline for the process.

“The first thing we need to do is get through the experimentation and figure out what’s the art of the possible? Until we see that it’s really hard for me to say what the next step is,” Bunch said.

As for the A-10, the Air Force won’t begin divesting squadrons until at least 2021, Goldfein announced recently. Due to this decision, the service will abandon plans to pursue a direct replacement, previously dubbed “A-X,” at least in the near future, Bunch said.

“That may be something that we decide later, but that’s not the phase we are in right now,” Bunch said. “Right now what we’re focused on is the light attack experiment and then we will figure out where we go from there.”
 
Не прочнее, не совсем так. Просто в 50/52-х усилители уже встроены в планер, в более старых блоках они внешние, накладные:
 
Не прочнее, не совсем так. Просто в 50/52-х усилители уже встроены в планер, в более старых блоках они внешние, накладные:
ЕМНИП, эти накладки появились только на блоках 40/42 вместе с усиленным шасси.