I also think Argentina was mad to turn down F-1 MF-2000

The problem was that the F-1Ms offered by Spain had all reached 2/3 of their airframe lives (7,200 flight hours). So Argentina needed to pay for the overhaul, and at best they’d only get an interim type for ~10-12 years (2,400 flight hours).

I think the F-1Ms on offer also lacked refueling probes. Might be an issue against you know who…

Still a good deal, mind you. Not sure why no one has picked-up Jordan’s lightly used F-1s yet. Now that would be a GREAT deal!

2008 by Turkish AF in extended attacks against Kurds in northern Iraq, and very possibly in Aug 2011 attacks in same area. 2012 one was shot down by Syria.

Yes, it turns out that you are correct. 😉 I wasn’t aware of those bombing missions in 2007-08 and 2011 by the F-4 2020s. So the F-4 is going to be hard to beat, at least among Western fighters – 46 years of combat ops!

(I wouldn’t count the RF-4E shoot down though…it doesn’t deliver ordnance, and were the Turkish crew aware of the deadly threat facing them?)

How about longest combat record? From combat debut to last combat sortie?

From what I can find it looks like a toss up between the Mig 21 and B-52…

Western aircraft
1. B-52: 1965-today (Vietnam thru Afghanistan)
2. Mirage F1: 1979-today (Angola thru Mali)
3. ???

Soviet aircraft
1. Mig 21: 1965-today (India-Pakistan thru Syria)
2. Su-22: 1973-today (Yom Kippur thru Syria)
3. Mig-23: 1974-today (Syria thru… Syria!)

For all the fans of the outrageous “pink” Rafale… you may not get a real-life manga Rafale, but this sure is close enough. 😀

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2012/09/rafale-picture-of-day.html

If the UK did purchase a Nimrod replacement it would have either new build or the cheap alternative 2nd hand aircraft which would be old tired Orions.
The requirement would be probably between 9 and 12 and it it sheer madness to go alone as the development costs would be huge.
If the UK found a partner the only nation that maybe interested would be France
and they would only require a similar number of airframes and still the costs would be stupid.

A recent French parliament report cited talks between BAE and Dassault for a joint Nimrod/Atlantique replacement circa 2030, to be called Mercure X / Nessie. :diablo:

(Un)fortunately, this was an April fool’s joke by a French aerospace magazine. The defense commission rapporteur apparently gobbled it up hook, line and sinker, having failed to notice that the purported joint project chief was a ‘Colin Aprilfish’! 😮

(Mind you, this goes to show how bad most pols are at understanding defense issues…)

More seriously, there are 9 unused Atlantique 2 airframes available that could give the RAF a credible “gap-filler” until ~2032, since the French are only MLU’ing 18 of the 27 Atlantiques built. 😎

Modernising the ATL2’s ASW systems to the latest standards (new radar, FLIR, sonobuoy processor, tactical displays etc) will cost approx. €20 million per airframe. Less if MRA4 systems can be reused, more if the RAF decides (like the French) that it also wants to update the ESM, jamming, and comms/datalink systems. The ATL2 already comes with some interesting non-maritime capabilities, such as Paveway II compatibility and a Pelican COMINT payload. It was used as a ‘manned UAV’ over Libya and continues to provide regular intelligence on terrorist groups in North Africa.

Maybe worth an FSTA tanker/Atlantique MPA exchange or cross-lease?

I was saying that as of right now, Typhoon has a better low cost dual mode IN/GPS LGB capability than Rafale.

Typhoon has a capability while Rafale does not. That’s a superiority.

Though the helmet wasn’t used in Libya, it’s being used now, and it brings a great deal to the party in the Air-to-ground role, especially in the LGB role. That gives Typhoon a powerful advantage in some aspects of air-to-ground.

I was saying that (probably before Rafale gets GBU-49) P1E will further extend that lead (but only in this one very narrow area), because PW IV is a better weapon than GBU-49. That’s a superiority.

NB that AASM Laser is a different class of weapon and isn’t in service yet.

(…)

But none of this adds up to an overall Typhoon superiority in air-to-ground. Rafale’s air-to-ground crown remains undisputed today and in the future.

None of this ought to be terribly contentious.

Jackonicko,

I think the source of contention here is that you appear to be counting your chickens before they’ve hatched. You describe Typhoon capabilities using the present tense, while dismissing Rafale capabilities as “not in-service yet.”

Well, it won’t be news to you that none of the capabilities you describe are in service yet on Typhoon…. not Paveway IV or Litening II (beyond the austere Tranche 1 implementation), certainly not air-to-ground cueing using the helmet mounted sight, and even less so Brimstone.

Now some of those capabilities may be only months away, but the same is true of Rafale. It’s unfortunate to try to spin what is a constantly moving development path for BOTH aircraft into a conversation about the superiority of one aircraft or the other. You appear to flip flop between arguing that Typhoon is superior today and arguing that it will deliver on its “superior” potential tomorrow… but in both cases, you insist on finding areas where you make black & white (and sometimes unsupported) claims of superiority even though other posters such as Scorpion82 and Tmor will admit that the reality is a lot more gray.

…in doing so you are only a tad better than some of the rabit anti-Eurofighter members here (to which I do not belong). At least you are able at times to discuss facts, and your spin is certainly quite elegant. :p

Seriously though, we should leave the pissing contest to the bad apples. 😉

A more appropriate weapon. A MUCH cheaper weapon (7.5 times cheaper). A helmet mounted sight. A better Laser designator.

Let me rephrase, just to make sure I understand your argument… 😉

You’re saying that in a few months, when P1E is finally released, if a close air support mission occurs where:
a) you need to deconflict people on the ground, AND
b) there are no offboard sensors (UAVs) in the area to that job for you, AND
c) for some reason you need to launch from long-range and 90 degree off boresight (i.e. to avoid SAMs), AND
d)the target isn’t worth spending an extra $50,000 on (the difference in unit costs between Paveway IV & AASM laser),

… then Typhoon will be unquestionably superior than Rafale.

Ahh… I get it. But somehow that’s not quite as sexy as your spin. 😉

Mind you, I will be mighty glad to see an operational Typhoon with Paveway IV over Afghanistan… since the evidence of Typhoon’s superiority in CAS will then be obvious for all to see. 😀