There are other many other threads you can read if you don’t like this one.

And you can create dozens others according to the topics you want to discuss.

So what was it you had to say about the RAF F-4M FGR Mk.2 versus the RAF EE F.6 Lightning contesting within the RoE of the original post?

Why?

Training, experience, physical conditioning, and applied knowledge by the pilot was more important than technical specifications.

When they couldn’t use radar missiles, RAF Phantoms were usually clobbered by smaller, more maneuverable fighters because their ACM training was insufficient. They did not create an organized fighter weapons school to help their Phantom pilots in dissimilar air combats, and it showed.

Jackonicko seems to believe that the RAF did not require this type of training, apparently because they were British and because their feeling of sheer national superiority could always compensate for lack of experience.

You might have noticed that the thread title and OP contained nothing about RAF vs. USAF, or the respective importance of pilot training versus equipment capabilities, but was about two aircraft types (even with the F-4 in its British incarnation).

Please, reread the original post and get back on topic. All this childish “My AF can beat up your AF” talk from all sides is just tiresome.

So General Jumper, Major Moga, Paul Metz, John Beasley are questionable sources?

They aren’t questionable sources, but that’s exactly why their claims are questionable. 10 percent rule and all…

I’ve been wondering. The MiG-25 is perfect at shooting down other planes and it is perfect at not being shot down by other planes.

Then,

could one MiG-25 shoot down another MiG-25?

The mind boggles.

Is the price based on 25, 50, or 75 aircraft. Further, does that include spares, weapons, support. etc. etc.

In my post I already noted that it includes initial spares, support gear and (to some unspecified extent) training. Also, weapons were not noted in the report and are usually sold separately if I’m not mistaken or at least noted in such reports. Also, as the report spoke of all options costing $15.2 billion USD, I assume it means the full option of 75 planes. 🙂

I don’t think that’s a bad price, assuming it’ll have the planned performance parameters and comparing it to the international competition. But, even with generous pricing for the bells and whistles, it seems to be a bit off the promised price.

Not more so than with the F35, which is after all a new type too just like the Rafale.

As I’ve said in my follow-up to Sens: The F-35 at least would introduce an array of capabilities not provided by either Typhoon or Rafale that could make it worth it. The Rafale though is too similar to the Typhoon to be worth the trouble.

French MN pilots are trained in the US, and there is every reason to believe the RN pilots would be too for a CTOL Typhoon variant, as only in the US exists the infrastructure to do arrested landing and so on.

Which leaves everything else regarding logistics and infrastructure: training, spares, support and maintenance gear. Also, future upgrade paths would not be as easily decided using a foreign type or, in case of indigenous upgrades, resources would have to be split between two types.

In my opinion, if they want the carrier, they should go with the F-35 or Naval Typhoon.

But going with the Rafale would introduce much more overhead and not increase commonality.

Rafale: New training, new support gear, different spares, foreign production, no offsets
EF: Largely common training, common gear, common spares, own production, native offsets

I would definitely go with a navalized Typhoon over a Rafale.