actually, considering it was delayed for almost a decade because the customer (France) has cut the procurement fundings due to the end of the cold war) that would give something like 8-10 years of development time…

A good political reason, I’m sure. Nevertheless the Rafale took just as long as the F-35, as did the Typhoon. And so what, I say the client eventually gets the plane they wanted.

Rafale, too, has had essentially two different types tested, according to your logic..
This is how it flew back in 1986
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oa2RX7a3Pk

… and in 1999.. Scroll to 20:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhqlCq4OzDI

It just graphically shows how it takes years to get any fourth generation + type into operation service (how long has the MiG -35 being testing for?).

1986 Rafale – with F404s.

Pilots who have flown Vipers and F-35 are best sources. Not leftwing sites with unnamed sources.

I think many people have already up their minds – for or against the F-35 – and will choose for themselves who to believe regardless of what evidence is shoved before them.

Here is a well qualified man, not anonymous, who tells us that the F-35 compares very favouably compared to the F-16:

http://whythef35.blogspot.de/2012/06/first-non-test-pilot-trained-on-f-35.html

But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. “When I’m downrange in Badguyland that’s the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that’s where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16,” Kloos says.

A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet’s performance. “You put all that on, I’ll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that’s not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth,” he says. “It’s of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently.”

The F-35’s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50 F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,” Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it.”

In short, Iraq currently needs 1. rugged and 2. reliable weaponry, with 3. simple maintenance/high readiness, that all 4. quickly, 5. affordably and 6. in large numbers.
The AH-64E offer: 1. debatable 2. good 3. rather not 4. hardly 5. definitely not 6. hardly

All of the above may be true for the AH-64E but certainly true for the Mi-28 as well. Mi-28 initial purcahse price is probably less than that for the Apache.

Superior is a vague term. AH-64E may be equipped with ISIE11 EBAPS sensors which are superior to every night vision item on this planet but the bird still can get shot down by small arms fire… Does that count as superior?

I would not call the AH-64 vulnerable to small arms fire. No Apache has ever been shot down in Afghanistan if I recall.

yes, apparently, and for a reason,
ballistic missiles dont take evasive action, or at least didnt,
but Russia are now fielding maneuvering re-entry vehicles as to dodge latest SAM systems

Can a Typhoon pilot take evasive action against a S-300 missile, really?
Scott O’Grady wasn’t very successful taking evasive action against that 50-year-old technology missile, nor was that Turkish F-4 pilot who was shot down by Syrian AD a year or two back. I believe most pilots never realise what’s about to hit them till it’s too late.

Even in that configuration, the SMT look a tad slimmer vs F-35..

Wait till you actually hang some armament from the MiG’s wings…

In that case it can be a CV or container-ship.

That’s what I was thinking as well. Hardly the detection range of a forty-foot yacht?:confused: