By: benroethig
- 5th February 2012 at 13:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The whole reason France built Rafale instead of staying in Eurofighter was to get a new carrier-capable aircraft.
Since the specs of Rafale included operating from Foch & Clemenceau, the question must be asked...
How would Mirage 4000 have done as a carrier-based fighter on France's carriers?
It wouldn't have. The M4K was in the Eagle/Tomcat class. It would have had to wait for CdeG to be built which would have needed to be scaled up to CVV/QE size and added a second set of K15 reactors (which in retrospect probably would have been a good idea anyway)
By: merlin2
- 5th February 2012 at 13:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure, and my banker agree too. But we needed our F16/ 2000 AND our F15/4000 otherwise we don't answer the market needs fully or we let a huge hole in your offer.
They should have bought 40 or 50 M4000 and pray for other customers to come later. After all that's what they did with the 2000-5 before Taïwan bought the first batch. Without that we'd have missed the F16 blk 52 generation.
Now it's simplier, the Rafale is in the middle...
If the French MOD had ordered 40-50 M4000's just to show they are behind the program, other customers would have followed..Remember the Northrop's Tigershark project, the USAF didn't buy and nobody did..
By: Confucius says
- 5th February 2012 at 14:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remember the Northrop's Tigershark project, the USAF didn't buy and nobody did..
You're quite right that nobody did buy it, but mostly because the US government only marketed the F-16 to export customers (to bring unit prices down for the USAF)... and the rest is history. Sigh! :(
I must confess that I never knew about the M4000, but it does have a bit of a Lamborghini (i.e. gas guzzler) factor, whereas the F-20 was in some ways a precursor to the F-35 (the concepts, not the actual saga :diablo:), i.e. flexibility and low operating costs.
By: Mildave
- 5th February 2012 at 17:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Common Sense;1853608]
If Frenchies or Saudies ended up ordering Mirage 4000, would Rafale program even exist?
The Rafale would still have existed as a 'next' generation follow-on though it's configuration could well have changed. Probably a single engined in between the Gripen and F-35 since the M-4000 was a heavy twin engined system.
I don't see France going back to a single engined aircraft. However I don't think that the Rafale program would have survived the end of the cold war. The AdlA did what they could with the M-2000 which while been a very good aircraft is not what they wanted for AtG missions in general. Given the public pressure on the Rafale, the cost of development, the actual economic situation were it's increasingly difficult to sell new aircraft, they would have gone for a M-4000 "modernisé" or super M-4000.
The only reason France was able to afford Rafale was to provide the same plane for the the AdlA and the French Navy has a one plane fit all. They might have joined the EFA but would have dropped pretty early has cost increased.
Look at all the upgraded F15s been sold currently. France would have done the same and yes the French Navy would have bought SH. They were pretty excited about it at the time.
New
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog
- 5th February 2012 at 21:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Mildave;1853846]
I don't see France going back to a single engined aircraft. However I don't think that the Rafale program would have survived the end of the cold war. The AdlA did what they could with the M-2000 which while been a very good aircraft is not what they wanted for AtG missions in general. Given the public pressure on the Rafale, the cost of development, the actual economic situation were it's increasingly difficult to sell new aircraft, they would have gone for a M-4000 "modernisé" or super M-4000.
....
Look at all the upgraded F15s been sold currently. France would have done the same and yes the French Navy would have bought SH. They were pretty excited about it at the time.
hey man I agree with you!
If AdlA bought Mirage 4000 =
Mirage 4000 would've served high end of French AF
Its existence means AF need for Rafale much much less
Mirage 4000 = bigger = more room for upgrades
by mid 1990s or early 2000's, we would see Mirage 4000-5, similar to updated Flanker or Eagle variants
India could've been using Mirage 4000's instead of Su-30s
French Navy on the other hand, would end up buying F-18 as a replacement because Mirage 4000 is not compatible with carriers, but lack of French AF interest in funding Rafale, means death to Rafale in the terms of its current version.
"Rafale", or whatever you want to call the follow on of Mirage 4000, would appear in the mid or late 1990s and enter service around now, and would end up being a full 5th gen design. it may be a lighter single engined fighter aimed at replacing M2K directly.
so yes Rafale would exist..but in a very different form if M4K came into being.
By: Mildave
- 5th February 2012 at 21:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you forget is that if the French had bought the M-4000 the M-2000 would not have existed. The M-4000 was the original proposal of Dassault for the AdlA. Because of cost Dassault had to propose the less capable M-2000. If the AdlA had been able to afford the M-4000 I don't think they would have gone for a full 5th gen in the 90s. Too costly. They would have gone for electronics upgrade all the way. Thales has only recently with the work done on the Rafale's Spectra become top notch in fighter aircraft ESM. The UAE went for an Italian's ESM suite on their M-2000-9... That would be unthinkable right now.
New
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog
- 5th February 2012 at 21:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you forget is that if the French had bought the M-4000 the M-2000 would not have existed. The M-4000 was the original proposal of Dassault for the AdlA. Because of cost Dassault had to propose the less capable M-2000. If the AdlA had been able to afford the M-4000 I don't think they would have gone for a full 5th gen in the 90s. Too costly. They would have gone for electronics upgrade all the way. Thales has only recently with the work done on the Rafale's Spectra become top notch in fighter aircraft ESM. The UAE went for an Italian's ESM suite on their M-2000-9... That would be unthinkable right now.
your time line is reverse. M2K before M4k. M4k came from the M2K.
By: Mildave
- 5th February 2012 at 23:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
France launched a program in the early 70s for the future combat aircraft where Dassault proposed its twin-engine Super Mirage. It was too costly and was cancelled in 1975 at which point Dassault proposed the Mirage 2000 which was a concept of "mini mirage" (whatever that mean) on which it had been working on after loosing quite a few European contract with its F1 to the F-16.
The Mirage 4000 has it flew was certainly closer to the Mirage 2000, but both were derived from the Super Mirage that itself was closer to the Mirage 4000 than the Mirage 2000 ever was.
By: Phaid
- 5th February 2012 at 23:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are confusing the ACF, which was to be an evolution of the Mirage IIIG, with the Mirage 4000. Your entire story is simply confused. The ACF went nowhere, the Mirage 2000 and 4000 were based on the same design and developed simultaneously, but whereas the 2000 was specifically aimed at a AdlA requirement, the 4000 was a privately-funded expansion of the same design aimed at export more than at the AdlA.
By: Phaid
- 6th February 2012 at 00:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um... Mirage IIIG was a heavy, variable-geometry (swing-wing) fighter, having almost nothing in common with the 2000 in terms of planform. It would help if you actually read the link you pasted.
Dassault then worked on several new aircraft concepts evolved from their "Mirage G" variable-geometry experimental prototype, resulting in a sophisticated design with the designation "Avion de Combat Futur (ACF / Future Combat Aircraft)". The ACF prototype was almost complete when the French government canceled it in December 1975; the ACF was simply too big and expensive. However, Dassault had been considering other fighter options in the meantime, partly because the export potential of the ACF was unpromising.
These alternatives were smaller, simpler, and cheaper than the ACF, and took the form of a number of "Mini-Mirage (Mimi)" concepts developed beginning in 1972 on a "back-burner" basis. These concepts congealed into an aircraft known at first as the "Super Mirage III", then the "Delta 1000", "Delta 2000", "Super Mirage 2000", and finally just "Mirage 2000". When the ACF was canceled, Dassault was able to immediately offer the Mirage 2000 as an alternative, and the French Defense Council accepted it. It wasn't exactly an even trade, since the ACF was a strike aircraft first and an interceptor second, while the Mirage 2000 was exactly the reverse -- but the Mirage 2000 was much more affordable.
By: Kovy
- 6th February 2012 at 01:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are confusing the ACF, which was to be an evolution of the Mirage IIIG, with the Mirage 4000. Your entire story is simply confused. The ACF went nowhere, the Mirage 2000 and 4000 were based on the same design and developed simultaneously, but whereas the 2000 was specifically aimed at a AdlA requirement, the 4000 was a privately-funded expansion of the same design aimed at export more than at the AdlA.
this is not all the story
At the begining the situation was reversed : Dassault proposed the french government to found the 4000 (because the french air force was asking for a twin engine fighter) while they will privately found the 2000 for export markets.
The French president of the time (VGE) decided that it will be the other way around...because of the Mirage 4000 price which was simply too high for the french air force to buy.
By: Mildave
- 6th February 2012 at 02:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um... Mirage IIIG was a heavy, variable-geometry (swing-wing) fighter, having almost nothing in common with the 2000 in terms of planform. It would help if you actually read the link you pasted.
The Mirage IIIG vary from delta in high altitude and high speed to a more F1 like shape for low altitude and low speed. The Mirage 2000 simplify this by adopting a fully delta design balanced to be unstable to improve the handling of the delta platform with FCS. That is why the article says :
These alternatives were smaller, simpler, and cheaper than the ACF
So again I said while the M-4000 "as it flew" is "certainly" closer to the M-2000 due to the benefit of R&D, the M-4000 as in its very "concept" is actually very "close" to what the AdlA wanted originally with the ACF.
And while the M-4000 is certainly not the ACF, it was a simplify, lighter but unfortunatly still too expansive derivative.
In the same way, while the Rafale is no ACF or M-4000 it's certainly a much more modern and expansive "derivative". And while the AdlA made sure that the need of the ACF would find an answer with the Rafale, the need to replace all types of aircraft, the experience and R&D allowed Dassault to produce an aircraft with the same strength of the M-4000 and M-2000 (delta good for high speed, payload etc.) while pushing the amelioration already done in the Mirage series to the ultimate with the coupled canard and offering the capabilities close to the ACF as well (low altitude, low speed).
So I repeat again to make it clear the M-4000 is not the ACF. But the design and purpose is certainly closer to it (while the roles may be inverted since the ACF always intended to be multirole, with interception second), and so to what the AdlA wanted in the beginning. An heavy fighter, not a light one. The Mirages 2k and 4k aren't ACF but while they are simplify design they actually used many development made for the ACF. Including the use of delta (although not variable) with FCS, the engine, etc.
By: emile
- 7th February 2012 at 06:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not too expensive if related to its specifications.
Developing a program of a/c are mostly due to a nation's strategy, axiomatically, French considered their air-power for Navy.
Yes, got Mirage4000 in service would be shiny for the only Euro-country which have a fighter competable to F-15, but abandon it we called wisdom.
By: Blue Apple
- 7th February 2012 at 08:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thales has only recently with the work done on the Rafale's Spectra become top notch in fighter aircraft ESM. The UAE went for an Italian's ESM suite on their M-2000-9... That would be unthinkable right now.
The ESM function of the 2000-9 is provided by the Thales ICMS MK III, the Eletronica modules are jammers for the ECM function.
New
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss
- 7th February 2012 at 09:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mirage IIIG vary from delta in high altitude and high speed to a more F1 like shape for low altitude and low speed. The Mirage 2000 simplify this by adopting a fully delta design balanced to be unstable to improve the handling of the delta platform with FCS. That is why the article says :
So again I said while the M-4000 "as it flew" is "certainly" closer to the M-2000 due to the benefit of R&D, the M-4000 as in its very "concept" is actually very "close" to what the AdlA wanted originally with the ACF.
And while the M-4000 is certainly not the ACF, it was a simplify, lighter but unfortunatly still too expansive derivative.
In the same way, while the Rafale is no ACF or M-4000 it's certainly a much more modern and expansive "derivative". And while the AdlA made sure that the need of the ACF would find an answer with the Rafale, the need to replace all types of aircraft, the experience and R&D allowed Dassault to produce an aircraft with the same strength of the M-4000 and M-2000 (delta good for high speed, payload etc.) while pushing the amelioration already done in the Mirage series to the ultimate with the coupled canard and offering the capabilities close to the ACF as well (low altitude, low speed).
So I repeat again to make it clear the M-4000 is not the ACF. But the design and purpose is certainly closer to it (while the roles may be inverted since the ACF always intended to be multirole, with interception second), and so to what the AdlA wanted in the beginning. An heavy fighter, not a light one. The Mirages 2k and 4k aren't ACF but while they are simplify design they actually used many development made for the ACF. Including the use of delta (although not variable) with FCS, the engine, etc.
Hi, I agree with most of what you said.
True the ACF and 4000 followed the same concept of heavier fighter that AdlA wanted but didn't get.
But if i may, i think the 4000 wasn't simplifed and lighter than the ACF, she was the same class twin M-53 fighter, but a generation ahead.
After long testing of the VG wings, Dassault selected a compromise swept wing, so went from :
Mirage IIIG (1966)-> Mirage G-8 (1971)-> Super Mirage ACF (first called "G-8A", 1975)
The AdlA got the Mirage F-1…
Then with the "deal of the century" lost to the F-16 (generation ahead with FBW),
they went back to delta wings, but with FBW :
Mirage 4000 (1979) -> Mirage 2000
Then as you say, with Rafale, Dassault finally managed to sell a twin engine fighter to AdlA …
By: mack8
- 31st August 2012 at 20:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Too bad Iraq didn't order Mirage 4000s, it would have made short work of Iran's tomcats :diablo:
Forget about iranian Tomcats, maybe make short work of the F-15s and F-16s and F-18s! :diablo:
Anyway, that aside, i have a question which i hope our french aviation experts here would be kind to help with. Namely, how many BVR weapons ( Super-530 F/D specifically) and on which stations was the Mirage-4000 suposed to carry in a typical interceptor configuration? Are there are diagrams or models with the air to air loadouts anywhere?
I have managed (after looking the net far and wide) to find quite some impressive pictures from the eighties of it armed to the teeth for attack missions (no, not the one with 6 Magics), but couldn't find anything showing it armed with Super-530s.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 5th February 2012 at 07:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it wouldn't. it was far too big. even the rafale A, which was smaller than the M4k was considered too big and the final product is even more compact.
and, as said previously, the M4k is of the same generation as the M2k, the rafale would have followed anyway
Posts: 1,842
By: glitter - 5th February 2012 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Rafale would have follow but the first fly of the C01 would certainly have been latter than 1991.
As Obligatory said, a mirage 4000 in the French AF would have meant that the navy would fly with F-18.
Posts: 487
By: benroethig - 5th February 2012 at 13:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It wouldn't have. The M4K was in the Eagle/Tomcat class. It would have had to wait for CdeG to be built which would have needed to be scaled up to CVV/QE size and added a second set of K15 reactors (which in retrospect probably would have been a good idea anyway)
Posts: 305
By: merlin2 - 5th February 2012 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the French MOD had ordered 40-50 M4000's just to show they are behind the program, other customers would have followed..Remember the Northrop's Tigershark project, the USAF didn't buy and nobody did..
Posts: 218
By: Confucius says - 5th February 2012 at 14:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're quite right that nobody did buy it, but mostly because the US government only marketed the F-16 to export customers (to bring unit prices down for the USAF)... and the rest is history. Sigh! :(
I must confess that I never knew about the M4000, but it does have a bit of a Lamborghini (i.e. gas guzzler) factor, whereas the F-20 was in some ways a precursor to the F-35 (the concepts, not the actual saga :diablo:), i.e. flexibility and low operating costs.
Posts: 1,237
By: Mildave - 5th February 2012 at 17:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Common Sense;1853608]
I don't see France going back to a single engined aircraft. However I don't think that the Rafale program would have survived the end of the cold war. The AdlA did what they could with the M-2000 which while been a very good aircraft is not what they wanted for AtG missions in general. Given the public pressure on the Rafale, the cost of development, the actual economic situation were it's increasingly difficult to sell new aircraft, they would have gone for a M-4000 "modernisé" or super M-4000.
The only reason France was able to afford Rafale was to provide the same plane for the the AdlA and the French Navy has a one plane fit all. They might have joined the EFA but would have dropped pretty early has cost increased.
Look at all the upgraded F15s been sold currently. France would have done the same and yes the French Navy would have bought SH. They were pretty excited about it at the time.
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 5th February 2012 at 21:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Mildave;1853846]
hey man I agree with you!
If AdlA bought Mirage 4000 =
Mirage 4000 would've served high end of French AF
Its existence means AF need for Rafale much much less
Mirage 4000 = bigger = more room for upgrades
by mid 1990s or early 2000's, we would see Mirage 4000-5, similar to updated Flanker or Eagle variants
India could've been using Mirage 4000's instead of Su-30s
French Navy on the other hand, would end up buying F-18 as a replacement because Mirage 4000 is not compatible with carriers, but lack of French AF interest in funding Rafale, means death to Rafale in the terms of its current version.
"Rafale", or whatever you want to call the follow on of Mirage 4000, would appear in the mid or late 1990s and enter service around now, and would end up being a full 5th gen design. it may be a lighter single engined fighter aimed at replacing M2K directly.
so yes Rafale would exist..but in a very different form if M4K came into being.
Posts: 1,237
By: Mildave - 5th February 2012 at 21:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you forget is that if the French had bought the M-4000 the M-2000 would not have existed. The M-4000 was the original proposal of Dassault for the AdlA. Because of cost Dassault had to propose the less capable M-2000. If the AdlA had been able to afford the M-4000 I don't think they would have gone for a full 5th gen in the 90s. Too costly. They would have gone for electronics upgrade all the way. Thales has only recently with the work done on the Rafale's Spectra become top notch in fighter aircraft ESM. The UAE went for an Italian's ESM suite on their M-2000-9... That would be unthinkable right now.
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 5th February 2012 at 21:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
your time line is reverse. M2K before M4k. M4k came from the M2K.
Posts: 1,237
By: Mildave - 5th February 2012 at 23:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
France launched a program in the early 70s for the future combat aircraft where Dassault proposed its twin-engine Super Mirage. It was too costly and was cancelled in 1975 at which point Dassault proposed the Mirage 2000 which was a concept of "mini mirage" (whatever that mean) on which it had been working on after loosing quite a few European contract with its F1 to the F-16.
The Mirage 4000 has it flew was certainly closer to the Mirage 2000, but both were derived from the Super Mirage that itself was closer to the Mirage 4000 than the Mirage 2000 ever was.
Posts: 342
By: Phaid - 5th February 2012 at 23:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are confusing the ACF, which was to be an evolution of the Mirage IIIG, with the Mirage 4000. Your entire story is simply confused. The ACF went nowhere, the Mirage 2000 and 4000 were based on the same design and developed simultaneously, but whereas the 2000 was specifically aimed at a AdlA requirement, the 4000 was a privately-funded expansion of the same design aimed at export more than at the AdlA.
Posts: 1,237
By: Mildave - 6th February 2012 at 00:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because the M2k isn't a evolution of the Mirage IIIG perhaps ?:eek:
Anyway you don't have to trust me.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir2k.html
Posts: 342
By: Phaid - 6th February 2012 at 00:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um... Mirage IIIG was a heavy, variable-geometry (swing-wing) fighter, having almost nothing in common with the 2000 in terms of planform. It would help if you actually read the link you pasted.
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 6th February 2012 at 01:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
this is not all the story
At the begining the situation was reversed : Dassault proposed the french government to found the 4000 (because the french air force was asking for a twin engine fighter) while they will privately found the 2000 for export markets.
The French president of the time (VGE) decided that it will be the other way around...because of the Mirage 4000 price which was simply too high for the french air force to buy.
Posts: 1,237
By: Mildave - 6th February 2012 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mirage IIIG vary from delta in high altitude and high speed to a more F1 like shape for low altitude and low speed. The Mirage 2000 simplify this by adopting a fully delta design balanced to be unstable to improve the handling of the delta platform with FCS. That is why the article says :
So again I said while the M-4000 "as it flew" is "certainly" closer to the M-2000 due to the benefit of R&D, the M-4000 as in its very "concept" is actually very "close" to what the AdlA wanted originally with the ACF.
And while the M-4000 is certainly not the ACF, it was a simplify, lighter but unfortunatly still too expansive derivative.
In the same way, while the Rafale is no ACF or M-4000 it's certainly a much more modern and expansive "derivative". And while the AdlA made sure that the need of the ACF would find an answer with the Rafale, the need to replace all types of aircraft, the experience and R&D allowed Dassault to produce an aircraft with the same strength of the M-4000 and M-2000 (delta good for high speed, payload etc.) while pushing the amelioration already done in the Mirage series to the ultimate with the coupled canard and offering the capabilities close to the ACF as well (low altitude, low speed).
So I repeat again to make it clear the M-4000 is not the ACF. But the design and purpose is certainly closer to it (while the roles may be inverted since the ACF always intended to be multirole, with interception second), and so to what the AdlA wanted in the beginning. An heavy fighter, not a light one. The Mirages 2k and 4k aren't ACF but while they are simplify design they actually used many development made for the ACF. Including the use of delta (although not variable) with FCS, the engine, etc.
Posts: 559
By: emile - 7th February 2012 at 06:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not too expensive if related to its specifications.
Developing a program of a/c are mostly due to a nation's strategy, axiomatically, French considered their air-power for Navy.
Yes, got Mirage4000 in service would be shiny for the only Euro-country which have a fighter competable to F-15, but abandon it we called wisdom.
Posts: 394
By: Blue Apple - 7th February 2012 at 08:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The ESM function of the 2000-9 is provided by the Thales ICMS MK III, the Eletronica modules are jammers for the ECM function.
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss - 7th February 2012 at 09:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi, I agree with most of what you said.
True the ACF and 4000 followed the same concept of heavier fighter that AdlA wanted but didn't get.
But if i may, i think the 4000 wasn't simplifed and lighter than the ACF, she was the same class twin M-53 fighter, but a generation ahead.
After long testing of the VG wings, Dassault selected a compromise swept wing, so went from :
Mirage IIIG (1966)-> Mirage G-8 (1971)-> Super Mirage ACF (first called "G-8A", 1975)
The AdlA got the Mirage F-1…
Then with the "deal of the century" lost to the F-16 (generation ahead with FBW),
they went back to delta wings, but with FBW :
Mirage 4000 (1979) -> Mirage 2000
Then as you say, with Rafale, Dassault finally managed to sell a twin engine fighter to AdlA …
Posts: 559
By: emile - 8th February 2012 at 03:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Along with a twin engined clue, Sergelboss might be right.
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 31st August 2012 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forget about iranian Tomcats, maybe make short work of the F-15s and F-16s and F-18s! :diablo:
Anyway, that aside, i have a question which i hope our french aviation experts here would be kind to help with. Namely, how many BVR weapons ( Super-530 F/D specifically) and on which stations was the Mirage-4000 suposed to carry in a typical interceptor configuration? Are there are diagrams or models with the air to air loadouts anywhere?
I have managed (after looking the net far and wide) to find quite some impressive pictures from the eighties of it armed to the teeth for attack missions (no, not the one with 6 Magics), but couldn't find anything showing it armed with Super-530s.
Thanks.:)