Yes, including the never buuilt two seater 😉

OH Oo

Yep, i am going to buy a copy of that booklet… Hallo, warn when its released, thanks in advance.

Can add also the Jaguar and Atlantic after dassault took over Breguet… ?

Not the Jag, at least not two of the exports. The Indian and Oman Jag exports were entirely a British thing, facing stiff oposition from Dassault, the Peruvian and Nigerian exports i dont have data on them.

Cheers

This was spotted just off Norway. There’s nothing you can do about it. but it wouldn’t come to this if peaceful relations were sought

If peaceful relations were sought the entire Russian Northern Fleet would tele transport directly from their main ports to the midle of the Atlantic Ocean bypassing the Norwegian EEZ?!
Advanced Russian technology is … advanced…

I think you are confusing the JH-7 and JH-7A
also the Tornado cannot carry four AShMs

No, i was actually refering to aircraft that entered service, the JH-7A.
On the four AShMs, actually today it doesnt carry any, but in the eighties, untill the beggining of the nineties, when severall of the user nations had an anti ship mission in their Tornado fleets, sights of Marineflieger Tornados with four MBB Kormorans or even RAF Tornados with four Sea Eagles were common.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249137[/ATTACH]

The mirage airframe was very efficient for a single engine light fighter but the wrong layout for a large twin engine fighter. The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a higher wing loading. Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.

First the Mirage 4000 was a hot rod that outclimbed, out turned and out runned a Mirage 2000, its performance graphics were outstanding, nevermind the range of the ****** or the huge frontal real estate for the avionics/radar, the only problem that it had was the money bit, it was too expensive for the Adla budget, Macdonnell Douglas had cornered the Saudi market and good old Saddam Hussein didnt foot the bill.
The Tornado doesnt “handle like a hog”, far from it, and the swing wing was an entirely reasonable choice for what it was designed to do, blowing the second and third Warpac echelons beyond the Fulda Gap through low level fligh. The Tornado was not designed has an ATA, 9 G´s, mid to high altitude supersonic fighter.
And the bit about the “higher wing loading” is hilarious.

lol right the Europeans developped this super complex weapon that costs a small fortune per unit just for that..:rolleyes:

The Matra Super 530D, the Matra Super 530F, the BAE Sky Flash, the Selenia Aspide and the Matra MICA were all developed with those two goals (along with others) in mind, i dont see nothing particulary notorious that today´s European MRAAM was developed in part to maintain technical expertise and to avoid US restrictions.

Your first mistake was relying on wiki.

Your second was using a “publication” rather than a direct quote from a reliable source.

Third was taking it out of context.

The quote is “Meteor has a No Escape Zone three times greater than AMRAAM it is designed to replace”, so you have to look at what was in service when the Meteor began it’s dev (ie when the spec was written) and not what AMRAAM was in service when the dev was complete. Since the first non-US firing (let alone fielding) of an AIM-120C5 was not until June 2005, which was long after the dev started on Meteor, the “AMRAAM” it is designed to replace is the C3 (at best) and likely the B.

The RAF used the B prior to ordering their first C5 in 2005.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070210095714/http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/amraam.cfm

Feel free do show documentation of any of the Meteor launch customers (ie the ones paying for dev) using a C series AMRAAM when the process of developing Meteor began and it’s specs (ie 3x the NEZ of the AMRRAM it was designed to replace).

Let me intrude.

First, the MBDA Meteor Wiki page its one of the finest sources to gather information on this particular system, its vastly better than almost every single specialized press article that i´ve read, try it.
The MBDA Meteor specifications have never been publicly released, severall generic comments on range and NEZ have been made for more than a decade, and if you are relying on them to make a comparison with the “D”, than i would advise to use the one that was released this year and i quote: “Large No Escape Zone – several times that of current MRAAM“. Certainly they are not talking of the “B”…
file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/xplfb28/My%20Documents/Downloads/Meteor-Product-Data-Sheet%20(1).pdf

On top of that, there´s one fact that almost everybody seems to forget, the “D” uses whats basicaly the same rocket that was used on the “C4”, its range gains have been by tweaking its flight profile. How big is the burn time of that particular rocket? I do seem to remember something ten or twelve seconds on Janes? Anyone has better data? Mercurius?
The Bayern Chemie ramjet has a burn time of “several minutes”.
Another point, if the Japanese show interest on a version of the Meteor to replace the AAM-4B,wich is quite a big weapon, that alone should be enough to temper coments about range and/or NEZ of the European AAM.

Iran is fully capable of engineering their own J-10 class fighter.

If we discount the engines, the fly by wire system, a modern radar and almost every piece of modern electronic needed…
If they could build such an aircraft the IRIAF wouldnt look like the museum display that it is today.