Cuito-

They may be floating a political balloon about launching from Tabruk, but it won’t be coming from there. No, if I was a betting man I’d be putting my money more like 800 miles to the East by South East. UAE is just as warm to the prospect of neutering Iran as the Saudis, and (again I am guessing here) an air corridor will be open for at least 48 hours. The trouble is they are still upwards of 700 mile round trips even with that relative starting point. Can they put a knock out punch on Iran in such a tiny window frame.

You know its Boeing with this rush to judgment.

I find it strange that people think F/A-18E is a better choice than F-35B, let alone F-35C. The latter two are yet to enter production yet people are already writing them off. The F-35, any version, is going to be superior to the F/A-18E in any version save the Growler in ONE role. To maintain F-35, any version, is going to be slightly more expensive now and progressively cheaper down the road as it reaches full production. It might even reach the point in a decade where Super Hornet costs are prohibitive to maintain because there are so few users left.

The M53 would have been used if the F2/F3 programs received a reboot. Not sure why you brought up the TF306E, but it was an engine modified to the french specification. It was not the same TF30 used on either the Tomcats or Aardvarks. I had a feeling you didn’t read the thread before posting. Now I am sure you did not, because this was covered in a previous posting within this same thread.

However, your response still didn’t relate to what was being discussed in the posts you answered to.

I guess we have different interpretations of the word ‘relate’.

Given what we know now about how fighters these days perform and what they are used for, I think Dassault went with the right choice in developing the Mirage 2000.

The Mirage 2000 looks great compared to the undersized F1.M53 because the latter is a little airframe with a big engine. The Mirage 2000 was quite a bit heavier, more in the class of the F2 or F3. I feel the M2K was better over the F1 in this respect simply because the former was built around the engine it used while the latter was merely to test the feasibility of engine swaps in existing F1’s. Let’s not forget the origin of the M53 was for a Mach 3 super plane called the ‘Mega Mirage’. Fitting a new mission to the M53, in the guise of a single engine fighter, required a new program from scratch and all its associated risk.

The M2K is given a lot of credit for having a huge wing. The Mirage F2 had a 388 square foot wing, not too much (12%) smaller overall than the Mirage 2000. The F2 was able to fly level at 10000 feet higher than the M2K. The F2 also maxxed out about a ton higher than the M2K. The latter had some serious design advantages; like a newer engine, better seat, FBW, new radar, cannons, more wing stations, etc. With ten more years of serious honing the F2 may have outclassed the M2K in more ways than it already did.

Israel should barter for some retired F-111’s from down under. With some Israelization they would gain the significant capability to carry out a strike anywhere in the Middle East.

What is that based upon?

I hear you on the P-8.

I always thought cruise efficiency meant flying slower and steady to demonstrate endurance. More or less I saw the future for long range endurance to be three-bladed helicopter-like rotors that tilted forward at an angle on takeoff and once clear from the ground pivoted down so it’s axis lay in the line of flight. The bigger the plane the more the props. And like the A400M, alternate the direction on each set so they cancel out torque. Long rotor diameter and fewer rpm’s. Less wear and tear on the equipment because it’s slow and steady. Maybe even drop cruise down to a couple hundred miles per hour.

But the P-8 is like sticking a thoroughbred in a yoke. It can do the work faster as long as the load is really lightweight. Just don’t expect it to work a full shift or to do field work like a draught.