Nothing is debatable about that. The J85 and R13/25 are just a fraction in cost compared to a F100/110 or RD-33 alone. Several thousands of that built with plenty of spares and still available with an user friendly = less demanding technology. 😉

Neither R13 or R25 is much simpler than R33. It’s one engine versus two at the same level of complexity. The J85 of the F-5 is far simpler.

The F-5 airframe is also much simpler than the MiG-21.

I think some of you are missing the point here. Semi-Active Radar homing isn’t much different in practice than laser designated missiles, only the illuminators are much wider at range. So even if you did track the target the missile is steering to the return signal it is tuned to steer towards. (it’s not always the strongest return.) it’s going to detonate according to its fusing, which may or may not be selectable or have safeguards against premature detonation. And depending on the type of warhead it may or may not inflict any damage.

If you research individual missiles only then will you know if it can or cannot do what you ask in the OP.

If the Rafale deal is dead in the water you wouldn’t know it by Dassault’s participation.

Apparently the UK garrison is expanding by 1,000 troopers due to this ‘false’ report. The MoD is taking it as truth.

They can pool with the Czechs (most likely) or Hungarians.

I thought all three were going to pool services, including cooperation on air policy.

No. The Su-27UB staggered seat layout adds a considerable amount of drag. Absolutely no need to trade better forward visibility for the radar intercept officer for reduced performance.

Actually all lift is drag. The stepped seating (probably a better term) on Su-27UB adds significant lift from the body. It also adds to the backseat visibility, which is a huge plus in combat. The DAS of F-35 more or less negates the need, but before that time it’s difficult to beat stepped seating.

The tanks on the other hand didn’t hurt the performance all that much iirc. If they wanted a higher fuel fraction, they could have had the F-111B. A centerline fuel tank would block all the stations there, so not an option. There’s no place for F-15 style CFTs, but the proposed USAF interceptor version had this ugly installation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USAF_ADCOM_Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_proposed_interceptor_-_1972.jpg

McDonnelL-Douglas had a brilliant idea coming out with Fast Packs. It only got better with F-15E. Now if Grumman had adapted this CFT concept to F-14 than those ugly centerline extensions never need to happen. You have room to lug around Pheonix on the CFT rather than the ugly centerline stations. I always thought the F-15’s tail made better sense in construction, too, and maintenance of the back end on the F-15 was simpler than on F-14. More or less Grumman stuck to what they had rather than evolving.

F-14 could have evolved to a point Super Hornet never happens. Opening the centerline area to a big fuel tank opens up the buddy refueling role. (KA-6D retires to make more F-14.) A heavy interceptor mission means four AIM-54C off the CFT’s, and a pair of centerline AIM-7 (or AIM-54C) with wing stations each carrying a Sidewinder and another Sparrow, or twin Sidewinders. The CFT’s boost its fuel fraction over the F-14’s original drop tanks.

F-14/CFT could have been also playing an Air Superiority role, carrying four to six AIM-7 and four AIM-9.

F-14/CFT could have been configured just like an F-15E. Bombs strapped to CFT’s and wing stations. Maybe they lug GBU-15 centerline.

Did Mig-23 carry air to ground smart munitions?

MiG-23BN