G'day, gentlemen...
I dug out my 2010? Airfix Club Kit the other day, on a whim. I've got the SHar FA.2 (newer kit with the sea eagles) and their GR.7 of the time. I couldn't help myself, being the guy I am, and decided to make the GR.7 into an ADV - I swapped the GR.7 nose for the smooth pointed one from the kit - I would surmise that this is an AV-8 nose, since it also has the AV-8's gun mounting. I've reached a bit of a situational point here, with the Payload.
I've got her slinging Six Sidewinders - two on the Winder Rails, and four on the outer hardpoints with Winder Twin-Rails. I've used the remaining two wing hardpoints for AIM-120 - the US, I remember, gave one upgrade of the AV-8 a comparable system to the F-18's. I fitted the bigger GR.7 gun pods instead of the AV-8's trim-pack, and I'm considering the Centerline point. Do I mount something, and if so What, on the Centerline point or pull it and fill the holes? I've got it in a gear-up config, and the forward point is unfortunately a little close to the hardpoint so things might be snug.
Input requested, gentlemen.
A drop tank would be a handy addition, not sure whether one would fit ok, but it would be a good idea if it could.
Chris.
I would recommend a fuel tank on each the inner wing stations- Harriers and Sea Harriers almost have them and for good reason- they need the fuel for meaningful range or time on station. If you are thinking about an air defense role I think they are a must.
The centerline store is not plumbed for fuel. I would leave it empty, especially if you have the gun.
Gun is a great idea.
Six side-winders is a little much. I would recommend a drop tank, and AIM-9 (or two) and a AIM-120 on each wing. Two AIM-120's, Two AIM-9's, a gun and two drop tanks is a perfectly acceptable ADV load out.
Your proposed load may look good, but is quickly approaching too much weight. Remember bring back weight is important, especially for sea based vertical landings and hot and high conditions. You don't want to have to punch off unused weapons just to land- it gets rather expensive. You have also added weight with the radar, associated avionics and the gun. Not much margin on a GR7.
Just my 2 cents for added realism- but it is your WHIF- so have fun!
Fuel on the centreline. This is whif ! Or nowt.
But if you do fill the holes, I'd put smaller SHAR tanks on the inboard pylons ( better in the dogfight :thumbsup:) and reduce the Sidewinders to 4. Can you put the twin 'winder racks on the original 'winder rails with the smaller tanks ? then put the -120s on the outboard pylons ?
Either way, or any way, this is going to be great !
:cheers:
I tried to switch the twin rails, but no luck. They're a close fit on the outermost, but on the Winder rail they're too wide for the tanks. Tossed the Centerline Pylon, couldn't think of anything with the forward clearance on the rack. I pulled the adapters on the winder rails and put the 120's on those stations - I had to be careful on clearance for the wing gears, but they're clear and there's still substantial length for the hardpoint line to hook up the 120 and let the gear down. SHAR tanks fit smoothly, looks good.
Now... I just have to come up with some markings for it and some idea of camouflage...
The SHAR-2 was originally proposed with underwing tanks which also carried twin AIM-120s underneath the tanks. As it is Whiff-world, I see no reason why they should not be adopted. ;D :thumbsup:
That is an interesting proposal, but really, considering the nature of the beast, I think the 4&4 config is best... especially packing twin cannons as she is. That and my supply of 120s is a little narrow.
For the AIM-120s, you need a radar nose as on the FA/2 or AV-8B+.
Is it going to be RN or USMC ? I like the late RAF Harrier colours and the new GR.9 kit has some excellent instructions on the variations of it.
:cheers:
You could replace the gun pods with the pylons for the AIM-120. I think development aircraft for the Sea Harrier FRS.2 (designation before FA.2 was officially adopted) flew with AIM-120's in place of the gunpods. I can only find profiles though:
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/a/405/9/5
Quote from: Mossie on February 22, 2013, 04:18:28 AM
You could replace the gun pods with the pylons for the AIM-120. I think development aircraft for the Sea Harrier FRS.2 (designation before FA.2 was officially adopted) flew with AIM-120's in place of the gunpods. I can only find profiles though:
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/a/405/9/5
Later Sea Harriers did indeed sometimes fly with AIM-120's in place of the gun pods. Personally I do not think they look "right" there, but just my opionion. I still say go with the gun/guns on the belly- often handy to have guns. With the GR7 wing there should be plenty of space for AIM-120's, winders and tanks.
Over-wing launchers for the AIM-120s?
I put AIM-120s on the fuselage stations of my FA.2:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acme-engineering.nl%2Fmodel%2FHarrier%2520F8-3.jpg&hash=b796713519bfc350e4ce56356761844481d0d0bd)
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,30445.30.html (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,30445.30.html)
hmm I would keep the gun pods, mount a winder rail under each of the drop tanks on the inboard pylons (as per the original proposed SHAR 2 load out), a 120 under each out board pylon. And to add a bit of extra punch. Wing tip winder rails.
While the ideas are nice, I wound up destroying one of the winder adapters to get it off the hardpoint. I don't have resources really to put more 120's on, the nose is a smooth cone but doesn't have the short extension on it, though comparing to the FA.2 there's enough width to allow it to use the FA2's Blue Vixen without needing the extension, simply putting it a little forward in the nose as there's more diameter at the start of the cone.
I'm not sure about putting it in the hands of the top two suspects, I was thinking it might be interesting in a country that uses them as a secondary deterrent in more troubled regions of the world - you might be able to hit the airbases, but you can't destroy all the highways so to speak - a Swedish style approach.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 22, 2013, 01:32:15 PM
I was thinking it might be interesting in a country that uses them as a secondary deterrent in more troubled regions of the world - you might be able to hit the airbases, but you can't destroy all the highways so to speak - a Swedish style approach.
The Harrier could land and (if necessary)take off from a tennis court. True, you can't destroy all of the highways. Taking out every tennis club in the country is even more unlikely. RAF Wimbledon, anyone?
now That just fuels a very interesting idea... considering how heavily built most stadiums are, in the world, you could, in theory, hide a squadron base under a footy stadium, with some hidden elevators to move them up to ground level. A lot of stadiums like to be placed near highways, so they can be rapidly accessed by the masses, so you have an airstrip, a hangar facility, and an emergency landing position just in case somebody craters the highway. Footy stadium, doubles as military base and emergency shelter...
Cool idea !
:cheers:
sounds very Gerry Anderson ( and equaly good) to me!
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 22, 2013, 03:45:00 PM
now That just fuels a very interesting idea... considering how heavily built most stadiums are, in the world, you could, in theory, hide a squadron base under a footy stadium, with some hidden elevators to move them up to ground level. A lot of stadiums like to be placed near highways, so they can be rapidly accessed by the masses, so you have an airstrip, a hangar facility, and an emergency landing position just in case somebody craters the highway. Footy stadium, doubles as military base and emergency shelter...
Over here in the UK that might make for some "interesting" graffiti on bombs and other expendables :wacko: :rolleyes:
Quote from: NARSES2 on February 23, 2013, 01:59:42 AM
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 22, 2013, 03:45:00 PM
now That just fuels a very interesting idea... considering how heavily built most stadiums are, in the world, you could, in theory, hide a squadron base under a footy stadium, with some hidden elevators to move them up to ground level. A lot of stadiums like to be placed near highways, so they can be rapidly accessed by the masses, so you have an airstrip, a hangar facility, and an emergency landing position just in case somebody craters the highway. Footy stadium, doubles as military base and emergency shelter...
Over here in the UK that might make for some "interesting" graffiti on bombs and other expendables :wacko: :rolleyes:
.....and squadron markings in team colours?
Quote from: Rheged on February 23, 2013, 02:06:45 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on February 23, 2013, 01:59:42 AM
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 22, 2013, 03:45:00 PM
now That just fuels a very interesting idea... considering how heavily built most stadiums are, in the world, you could, in theory, hide a squadron base under a footy stadium, with some hidden elevators to move them up to ground level. A lot of stadiums like to be placed near highways, so they can be rapidly accessed by the masses, so you have an airstrip, a hangar facility, and an emergency landing position just in case somebody craters the highway. Footy stadium, doubles as military base and emergency shelter...
Over here in the UK that might make for some "interesting" graffiti on bombs and other expendables :wacko: :rolleyes:
.....and squadron markings in team colours?
Perish the thought! :banghead:
We had some silliness like that in motor racing a year or so ago and that didn't work too well either!
On mature reflection, I think that I have to agree with you. (Bring back British Racing Green) But I do have a slightly surreal image in my mind of a Harrier being wheeled out onto Wimbledon Centre Court!
Quote from: Rheged on February 23, 2013, 02:18:45 AM
On mature reflection, I think that I have to agree with you. (Bring back British Racing Green) But I do have a slightly surreal image in my mind of a Harrier being wheeled out onto Wimbledon Centre Court!
Can you imagine the uproar in the Times etc - the damage it would do to the grass :banghead:
Quote from: NARSES2 on February 23, 2013, 02:27:28 AM
Quote from: Rheged on February 23, 2013, 02:18:45 AM
On mature reflection, I think that I have to agree with you. (Bring back British Racing Green) But I do have a slightly surreal image in my mind of a Harrier being wheeled out onto Wimbledon Centre Court!
Can you imagine the uproar in the Times etc - the damage it would do to the grass :banghead:
,,,,,or Rear Admiral Mildly-Bonkers (retired) of Tunbridge Wells, writing to the Telegraph about some RAF wallah ruining his game of bowls Dash it all, Sir, what would Drake have said??
You Limeies are funny ... !!!!!! :cheers:
Quote from: Father Ennis on February 23, 2013, 02:58:31 AM
You Limeies are funny ... !!!!!! :cheers:
We aim to please. ;D
Quote from: Father Ennis on February 23, 2013, 02:58:31 AM
You Limeies are funny ... !!!!!! :cheers:
Several centuries practice, laughing at ourselves!
Squadron 617 "Manchester United" RAF?
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 23, 2013, 11:23:13 AM
Squadron 617 "Manchester United" RAF?
Quite possibly............but what about Milwall? What aircraft do we station there?
VERY resilient ones.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 23, 2013, 11:23:13 AM
Squadron 617 "Manchester United" RAF?
More like 'Lincoln City' I'd have thought...........
The concept would work great for a number of countries, it's a theory similar to the Swedish with the Draken and others - an Asymmetrical air defense scheme.
Quote from: Rheged on February 23, 2013, 11:27:02 AM
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 23, 2013, 11:23:13 AM
Squadron 617 "Manchester United" RAF?
Quite possibly............but what about Milwall? What aircraft do we station there?
Anything with a Napier Lion - I know "hat, coat" :banghead: Whatever it would probably end up down the local scrap yard (which is conviniently only a few hundred yards down the road) in a matter of hours ;D Go past the ground every time I go to London Bridge
Quote from: Sauragnmon on February 22, 2013, 03:45:00 PM
now That just fuels a very interesting idea... considering how heavily built most stadiums are, in the world, you could, in theory, hide a squadron base under a footy stadium, with some hidden elevators to move them up to ground level. A lot of stadiums like to be placed near highways, so they can be rapidly accessed by the masses, so you have an airstrip, a hangar facility, and an emergency landing position just in case somebody craters the highway. Footy stadium, doubles as military base and emergency shelter...
There were real world plans to do just that kind of thing. The Harrier could just about use any short stretch of road so the idea was to use any building that was large enough as a hangar, stadiums being one possibility. Schools, even road bridges could be used to shelter the Harriers. Bomb the 'strip'? Just move to a new bit of road, or even a dirt strip.
Quote from: Mossie on February 25, 2013, 04:00:30 AM
There were real world plans to do just that kind of thing. The Harrier could just about use any short stretch of road so the idea was to use any building that was large enough as a hangar, stadiums being one possibility. Schools, even road bridges could be used to shelter the Harriers. Bomb the 'strip'? Just move to a new bit of road, or even a dirt strip.
Somewhere on the web there is footage of a Jaguar using an unopened, newly built stretch of Motorway near Preston.
Way back in 1967, near Vasteras in Sweden, the party I was part of had to stop our minibus to allow two Lansens to taxi across the road from woodland on one side of the road to woodland on the other. We were wondering why the road there was so wide and straight.
The landing gear on the JA-37 Viggen had a fatigue case test programme to ensure it could withstand taxying around on rough tracks before using those mysteriously straight Swedish roads to take-off from. It looks very fragile but it isn't really.
Yet again I installed the umpteen channel test rig for that system, back in 1979 I thin. Doesn't time fly........?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2013, 04:31:51 AM
The landing gear on the JA-37 Viggen had a fatigue case test programme to ensure it could withstand taxying around on rough tracks before using those mysteriously straight Swedish roads to take-off from. It looks very fragile but it isn't really.
It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.
There is an "infomercial" of how the dispersed air base system worked on Youtube. The film is produced 1980 but as this in general can be seen as on the height of the cold war, it is reasonably accurate and way, way beyond of what the RSwAF is capable of today, unfortunately. Se film (commentary in swedish) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQtnugT6A4
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQtnugT6A4)
Quote from: Pellson on February 25, 2013, 07:03:29 AM
It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.
That's interesting, I didn't know the ultimate sink rate for the JA-37, but the problem with the rough ground taxying was the expected heat build-up in the oleos apparently. As it happened the oleos coped with it very well but looking at the aircraft from the nose, with those spindly legs banging up and down, was quite a experience!
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2013, 07:11:38 AM
Quote from: Pellson on February 25, 2013, 07:03:29 AM
It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.
That's interesting, I didn't know the ultimate sink rate for the JA-37, but the problem with the rough ground taxying was the expected heat build-up in the oleos apparently. As it happened the oleos coped with it very well but looking at the aircraft from the nose, with those spindly legs banging up and down, was quite a experience!
I just found corresponding numbers for the F-35, max sink rate carrier ops landing being 18 fps which incidentally translates to 5,5 m/s, approximately. I again can't help thinking the Viggen would have made one hell of a carrier a/c, the violently powerful engine and sturdy landing gear already being incorporated in the original design as well as pilot positioning for high AoA unobstructed forward view and rock steady landing glide path flight characteristics.. :wacko:
Another a/c coping well with uneven surface has to be the Jaguar. See from ca 1:45 into this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-uqMUA7U-k
Fieldworthy, dammit.. :wub:
Quote from: Pellson on February 25, 2013, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2013, 07:11:38 AM
Quote from: Pellson on February 25, 2013, 07:03:29 AM
It's actually designed to cope with "flying into the ground" at a sink rate of 5 m/s which should be compared to the "normal" design sink rate at 3 m/s for land based aircraft. At this time, I can't find correspodning numbers for carrier based a/c, though.
That's interesting, I didn't know the ultimate sink rate for the JA-37, but the problem with the rough ground taxying was the expected heat build-up in the oleos apparently. As it happened the oleos coped with it very well but looking at the aircraft from the nose, with those spindly legs banging up and down, was quite a experience!
I just found corresponding numbers for the F-35, max sink rate carrier ops landing being 18 fps which incidentally translates to 5,5 m/s, approximately. I again can't help thinking the Viggen would have made one hell of a carrier a/c, the violently powerful engine and sturdy landing gear already being incorporated in the original design as well as pilot positioning for high AoA unobstructed forward view and rock steady landing glide path flight characteristics.. :wacko:
Another a/c coping well with uneven surface has to be the Jaguar. See from ca 1:45 into this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-uqMUA7U-k
Fieldworthy, dammit.. :wub:
thats a good shout what was the landing speed like? deltas tend to land quick dont they?
That stretch of motorway the Jag landed on is the then new M55, just up the road from me. I bet it it did that on it now the tarmac would get blown off.
Chris
With a descent rate of 5.5 m/sec and that big flapped delta I bet the Viggen wasn't that fast to land.
They came in VERY nose-up, like a Vulcan, and had lots of aero braking plus reverse thrust too. IIRC they could engage reverse while airborne, maybe of our Swedish members could confirm or deny that for me please?
The engine reverse system could be selected while in air but the actual function was not released until depression of the nose gear occured when the gear hit the runway. No possibility to use it in the air, accordingly. It could however be engaged selectively to reverse on ground in order to be able to quickly turn around in restricted spaces in order to faster reach the refuelling/rearming area. Turnaround time, entirely handled by one professional technician (NCO or later officer) and 6 conscripts was between 8 to 20 minutes depending on version and mission, the fighter/interceptor version/mission being the quickest.
The landing speed was 220 km/h and the HUD had a "landing guide" function, enabling the pilot to plan touchdown as close as 30 m from the threshold - without ever risking to fall short!
One of the major reasons for the reasonably low landing speed is the fact that the canard wings have large trailing edge flaps that depress 30 degrees in landing mode. As this gives more than enough nose-up attitude, the elevons also can be depressed, although only 5 degrees, effectively creating an increased lift on the main wing rather than reducing it as is the case with single delta designs such as the Mirage or the more ubiquitous design with separate rear mounted stabilators, like the Jaguar.
Thanks for that Pellson, it was a LONG time ago that I had anything to do with the Viggen! It certainly was one impressive aeroplane. :thumbsup:
Yes, interesting stuff...thanks !
I've always planned on building a diorama of Harriers forward deployed to a farm, using the barn as a hangar. The barn 'hangar' doors would open and the Harrier would do a short roll before launching from a ramp disguised as a manure pile !
:cheers:
Just curious if the concept of container ships as 'forward air bases' for Harriers had been considered or the more radical idea of a submersible 'carrier' for jump jets ?
Mind nothing so grand as an undersea going Enterprise but something more of an 'traditional' submarine designed with a dedicated 'hanger' section for two or three Harriers, launch-recovery operations obviously made with said vessel surfaced.
Again just a a concept of 'covertly' delivering the strike fighters as close to the combat theater without surface ships, land-based facilities or mobile transporters involved.
That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2013, 12:07:59 AM
That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.
Perhaps a skyhook sub as a refueling/rearming point without an actual hanger?
Quote from: Rheged on March 01, 2013, 01:48:08 AM
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2013, 12:07:59 AM
That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.
Perhaps a skyhook sub as a refueling/rearming point without an actual hanger?
Didn't someone post a piccie of just such a sub on here a while back? With a Skyhook and a small hangar area aft of the conning tower.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 01, 2013, 01:50:02 AM
Quote from: Rheged on March 01, 2013, 01:48:08 AM
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2013, 12:07:59 AM
That would involve cutting a Harrier-size hole in the sub's hull, which would be incredibly difficult to seal tightly enough to withstand the pressure at depth. Also, you're looking at a sub the size of a Typhoon to carry 3 Harriers.
Perhaps a skyhook sub as a refueling/rearming point without an actual hanger?
Didn't someone post a piccie of just such a sub on here a while back? With a Skyhook and a small hangar area aft of the conning tower.
Somewhere in my younger son's library is a book with exactly the picture you describe as its front cover illustration. If I can find it, I'll post an ISBN.................if I can ever find it!
Added a couple of minutes later......found it! See link below
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strike-Beneath-Sea-Aircraft-Submarines/dp/0752417045 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strike-Beneath-Sea-Aircraft-Submarines/dp/0752417045)
Here you go guys, I posted the colour image from Popular Science, GTX the B&W image.
How deeply it was considered I don't know. The idea materialised with the Skyhook system and some artists impressions were drawn up.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2Fsubmarineskyhookcarrier.jpg&hash=b30f82864c2003ebf26b57571383060cba7c6b5a)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FGeneral%2FSkyhookSubmarinePopularMechanicsarticle.png&hash=dec72645d86348042e2861168425c45f4ad4815a)
I've found a pic on teh web with the P.1216 and submarine:
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1986
Regarding container ships, the SCADS (Shipborne Containerised Air Defence System) was proposed. The Royal Navy trialled the US Apapaho system on board RFA Reliant (previously MV Astronomer) as a helicopter carrier, I think the idea was to role it out for Harriers if succesful. They came to the conclusion it wasn't much use as it couldn't handle conditions in the Mediteranean, so wouldn't be capaple of us in the South Atlantic
Surely THE application of the SCADS system was the 'Atlantic Conveyor'? The conversion worked a lot better than the 'Reliant' trials, it just got in the way of an Exocet.... :angry:
Her sister ship 'Atlantic Causeway' was also converted, but the opposite way round in that the hangar was toward the bows and the 'flight deck' nearer the superstructure. Wikipedia also says she had a ski-jump fitted, but I'm darned if I can figure out how, and I've never seen a pic to show that either. In fact the 'Causeway' seemed to be very reticent about having her photo taken!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg221.imageshack.us%2Fimg221%2F7906%2Fatlanticcauseway2b.jpg&hash=b4bcf68b8cc6556422b3bf49bc66e0133e02d210)
'Atlantic Causeway'
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg836.imageshack.us%2Fimg836%2F8163%2Fmvastronomer.jpg&hash=a850af818cbec64843c2f161051ce28cf8a5b702)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg171.imageshack.us%2Fimg171%2F5603%2Frfareliant.jpg&hash=de549421cb1cce1f153c92a9d1dd587021673b09)
'Astronomer/Reliant' (the same ship actually)
Yet more thread drift but it's sort of relevant..... <_<
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 01, 2013, 08:39:43 AM
Surely THE application of the SCADS system was the 'Atlantic Conveyor'? The conversion worked a lot better than the 'Reliant' trials, it just got in the way of an Exocet.... :angry:
SCADS was the name of a specific system that included weapons, a ski jump, radar etc, all built into containers. Atlantic Conveyor was an ad-hoc conversion where as far as I know, the containers just served as storage.
Quote from: Hobbes on March 01, 2013, 09:19:53 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 01, 2013, 08:39:43 AM
Surely THE application of the SCADS system was the 'Atlantic Conveyor'? The conversion worked a lot better than the 'Reliant' trials, it just got in the way of an Exocet.... :angry:
SCADS was the name of a specific system that included weapons, a ski jump, radar etc, all built into containers. Atlantic Conveyor was an ad-hoc conversion where as far as I know, the containers just served as storage.
The 'AC's' containers were really used as breakwaters, only the two white 20 footers at the bow were used by the flight deck for storage.
The breakwater containers were mounted on 10 ft high support structures and access to the end doors was impossible for most of them and would have been difficult on the others.
Would the AN/APG-65 radar work with the IRIS-T and/or Meteor?