Originally posted by plawolf
matt:

1) i was simply trying to piont out that it is unfair to compair two types in AA combat when one is optermised as primarily a fighter and has a multi-role capacity as almost a sales pitch while the other has been specifically redesigned to serve as a fighter bomber with a secondary fighter ability.

2) if u still dont get it, look at it this way. the rafale was designed and built to turn and twist as a fighter, but has the very useful add-on of being able to carry and drop PGMs; on the other hand, the MKs (all bar MKI) were redesigned to carry as much weapons load as possible, but still has enough of the su27 left in them to make them decent fighters if needs be.

if some of u wish to ‘prove’ that the rafale is a good fighter, then why are u so unwilling to pitch it against proper fighters instead of just getting ‘feel good’ points by compairing it to a fighter bomber that has the flanker name? as if by being able to ‘defeat’ such a flanker would be somehow elovate the status of the rafale.

(please dont get me wrong, i have nothing against the rafale, in fact its one of my favourate types. i just fail to see the point of all these kinds of mis-match comparisons.)

Oki

Point 1 i understand ! i had no problems with that, but u should realise in life the bombers will be met by all sorts not only fighters.

point 2. the French when they first started with the project wanted a Ground attack AC first!.. that was its primary goal! that was the reason they did not join the EFA program.

Originally posted by google
“There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns.”
-Donald Rumsfeld”

About your signature quote matt, you know Rummy won the Foot in Mouth award for that sentence!?

lol yeah thats why i chose it.. i mean its got to be the best comedy lines coming out of the US since, well yonks.

Originally posted by plawolf
AinuMan:

“I’m sure you mean Su-30MK, not KMs, there’s no such thing as KMs..”

yeah, sorry, sometimes these things happen.

“The Su-35/37 is NOT the same thing as the MKK or MKI. The Su-35/37 uses a different air frame with different materials being used as well as a slightly different radome area. The MKK shares some of the building components, while the MKI uses the larger radome.”

no arguments with the later half of ur arguement. purhaps i didnt word it properly, but it would be a pointless excerise to suggest alternatives if they are the same as the origanl dont u think?

of course the mkk/mki and su35/37 and the su27SMS are different a/c. however, they are of almost the same configuration as the MKXs, yet, like the rafale (or the typhoon for that matter) places more, much more emphysis on AA then AG. hence, would offer a better comparision in the AA role (v rafale) then the much more ground attack orientated MKs (purhaps exluding the MKI, but thats basicly the only MKX that could be excluded, and is a very small part of the whole su30mk familiy).

planes

Plawolf, can u please explain again what you are trying to say.. :confused:

sorry mate, no offence ment..

got pics of the l-15 google?

Originally posted by shamayel
Super pics from our man GD (as usual).
Xie xie.:D

lol !:p

Your funny…