You are referring to the infamous Eagle Claw operation. Google it.

What is best known is the aftermath of the operation.
US was humiliated.
President Carter lost the upcoming elections to a failed actor Ronald Raygun.
Most analysts agree that this happened mainly because of the failure of the operation.
President Raygun escalated the cold war in a form of enhanced military and space funding to lead the Soviet Union to bankruptcy within a few years.

Chaos is such a bitch.

check this also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YOtm9UCQEc

I too would like a Trojan hore, please! 🙂

How is the after sales support btw?

Do you mean Trojan horSe?

Some pictures from the arrival.
http://www.ar.admin.ch/internet/armasuisse/de/home/aktuell/evaluation_tte/eurofighter/fotos/ankunft_eurofighter.html

http://www.kriensnet.ch/videos/EADS_Eurofighter_061108.wmv

A video from the arrival.
File size is about 100MB

STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH
STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH
STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH
STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH
STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH
STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH
STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH STEALTH ]

LordAssap I really want to answer to you, but as you can see my computer cannot “READ” your posts. Seem to be VLO ones.:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

sorry I was not clear enough, I meant the rafale airframe exept the nose. Surfaces on the side of the aircrat are not orientated vertically (cf picture n°2). It is not angular like on the F22 or the F117 but more in line with UCAV with more “rounded” shape to meddle as much as possible the wings with the main body. Transition between the wings and the fuselage is smooth on the rafale.

The difference of the junction of the wing with between the fuselage the rafale A and rafale C (pics n°3 my previous post on that subject) is pretty straightforward. This modification has been done fore stealth reasons.

There was a special issue of A&C which detailed the modification between the demonstretor and regular rafales. They mention this modification we are talking about for stealth reasons. That was my point, and I was thinking about that document to expalin the RCS reduction measures to show that theese measures were implemented early in the design stage.

Agreed.
And I must admit that the efforts of the French to lower the EM return of the aircraft are laudable.

The problem is that it was never completed.The rafale still has a quite large RCS, as proved by the DACT in which it gets involved into.
IMHO the French kicked a fine opportunity to build an actual 5th generation fighter that can counter the F-35, in sales and in combat.

You should think again, the leading egde from wing and canard are highly sweeped!

Indeed, but there are still quite a few sources of specular reflection even from direct head-on.

Anyway, I suppose that if the French incorporated this feature, then they reckon it as useful.

over-G

the only purpose of saw tooth is stealth. I had the confirmation from two rafale pilots three weeks ago in paris. The rafale B301 was displayed at “place de la concorde” for the celebration of one century of french aeronautics as well as many other aircrafts. I posted a personal picture of this event on this thread.

True.

The question IMHO is how effective this feature is.
No dought these teeth, difuse creeping EM waves and reduce radar return.

But is this effect in the same order of magnitude as the main source of reflecting energy, which comes from specular reflection?
Leading surfaces of the Rafale still produce a lot of specular reflection

The similar declarations from Russia, France, and Boeing are also the official claims of the manufacturers, but what are the evidence and basis for such official declaration. Has any manufacturer provided the evidence that its IRST can do the tracking, identifying, and range measuring works almost as good as modern fighter’s radars ??

evidence to whom? You and me?

This information is never published BUT might be accessed by classified officers involved into military purchase programs.

If company X makes a bold declaration like this, now, the customer has chance to ask for a proof. The customer not the public.
And this proof MAY (I say may) lie into DACT exercises with L/O aircraft already flying. At least this is what I would ask.