Btw, in regard to the F-106 testing. The report from the leading edge testing is still available for download on the net. For those who are interested.

The B-52 can carry stand-off missiles and it did some makor attacks with ALCMs during the opening night of OIF.
On the other hand the heavy load, long range and long loiter time makes it also a good weapon for battle field interdiction missions and even CAS in conflicts like Iraq of Afghanistan. And with the ECM upgrade it should be able to handle all, but the most modern SAM systems.
It also plannd to use the B-52 as a stand-off jammer after the upgrade.

So there is much life left in that old beast. Certainly more then in the B-1Bs.

Well first of all we need to know what we want.

– Do you want a recce helicopter that can also give close support to the troops (in low threat conditions) and can be used in the anti-tank role, then A-129, Tiger, Ninja and others are the obvious choice

– You want an anti-tank solution that can be used for frontline battlefield interdiction in medium threat scenarios. You want the Ka-50,52, the AH-64, the Rooviak and the AH-1Z.
AH-1Z is also a bit lighter, while KA-50,52 is a bit more heavy.

– If you want an modern days IL-2 that can take the fight to the enemy and can keep up fighting when facing a wall of small arms fire. Then you want the Mil-28N.

Furthermore we need to look at the tactics. AH-64 tactics used by US Army aviation are not suited for the current situation in Iraq. They are firing from a hover, they fly low and they fly slow.
Marine AH-1 on the other hand, seem to have switched to a more Vietnam style flying. They always fly in pairs, with an UH-1 flying high up that provides control and early warning to the fire team. They fire on the move. One helicopter is always engaging the enemy, while the other is coming round for the next attack run. The fly higher when they fly to the target.

So the most of the differences we see today, are a result of different tactics, not different machines.

The Mil-28 for example would be excellent for that mission. But it would surely be less usefull as a recon asset. Ka-50,52 would surely suffer from the missing gun turret, as it could not use the gun without turning the helicopter. Meaning that engaging infantry to the side or below the helicopter would be more difficult. The side by side seating will further complicate things.

Tiger, would be too lighty armed and armored to overfly enemy concentrations. It would be limited to give fire support from behind friendly lines. On the other hand the small size and mast mounted passive detection equipment would make it excellent to monitor and control enemy actions.

So, imho there is no “best” attack helicopter in the world.

If I would have to pick the most flexible for the smallest money I would vote for the AH-1Z.

I agree Ja,

but the question was for the best attack helicopter. And given that I would pick the MiL-28N. It is a “flying tank” and should be much more able to take a beating the all other attack helicopters.

The role of the attack helicopter in general has to questioned. Do we really need those heavy machine, or are armed recon helicopters not the better choice. I would rather have more of the smaller helicopters.

Yet curved intakes offer protection of the engine compressor blades from enemy radar. And the signature of the compressor blade is quite usefull ti identify the type of aircraft on a radar.

Imho the time of straight-through inlets is over, as stealth features become more and more important.

Having not yet been able to climb into an Rafale intake I can not say if it is really straight-through or more curev to hide the intakes.

Typhoons inlet however does hide the compressor blades quite effectively. This and other measures taken in the inlet design, in combiantion with other measures, gives Typhoon a relative low frontal RCS.

In general I would say that there is no perfect solution for an inlet. It all depends on your design goals.

Yes, I remember the “wonderfull” Iberia catering when flying some charter airlines from Spain to Germany. Luckily most of them got rid of that nasty food.

Well, I would not say the F-4 is ugly. It is more like comparing todays cars with the classics from the 1960s. The classics have so much more charisma and style.

That makes me sick. That is the only RHINO patch I can accept.