Good bnew for the UAE, so they won´t buy the least developed fighter offered.

Signature reduction is limited in what can be possibly achieved, while ground based detectors are way less limited when it comes to power output, processing power or sensor fusion. So at some point a reduced signature alone won´t be enough to penetrate the most modern defence networks. Add speed to the mix and you reduce the time available for gathering and processing data of said networks complicating the problem for them even more. So speed will buy you more years in which your aircraft remains “untouchable” and forces the opponent to up-grade its network again, which might not be possible due to costs.

Why would they need armed forces above the Irish level? If you want to get out from british domination and have a government for the people, you do not have armed forces that size and you do not join NATO to take part in the global wargames of US lackeys.

[INDENT]3) The Mirage III had a few things going for it as a fighter/interceptor:

– All aspect missiles. Sure the Matra R530 is much maligned, but it was a decade ahead in some important technological & reliability respects (solid state seeker, electric controls, 3-5µm IR seeker – partial thanks due to the Brits for sharing some of their work on Red Top), at least compared to the AIM-7E (1950s vacuum tube technology, hydraulic controls) and AIM-9B (1.8-2.7µm band IR seeker with its tendency to home in on the sun or the ground). In firing tests in 1962/63 the R530 had a 90% success rate, and the Israelis had a 50% kill rate in combat (1 for 2). Compare that to the Israeli’s 0% success rate with the AIM-7E prior to 1978 (0 for 12) and the US’s 10% kill rate in Vietnam…

First the WEU treaty forbade the Luftwaffe from using the R530, for the same reasons the F-4Fs came without AIM-7. Secondly the WEU treaty also forbade the possesion of nuclear weapons. The US was willing to go with a dual key solution, where US troops controlled the nukes, which would be then handed over to the Germans for use. Now by the later 50ies it is very unlikely the France would have agreed to similar solution, considering that they were just about to become a nuclear power and German-France friendship was a little less developed than today.

But did the F-104 have enough fuel to sustain high transonic low-level flight?

The F-104’s max mission time was 3 hours hi-hi-hi with 4 tanks (all dropped) and almost no use of afterburner… translate that to low level fuel burns + more AB use in order to sustain high transonic flight, and the “two hours high speed low level” that Sens keeps harping about seem rather exaggerated. I’d love to see real numbers on average mission speed & duration at low altitude…

Anyway with these 1960s designs I’m not sure that sustained comfort at low-level/high speed was an important criteria… unlike dedicated strike aircraft like the F-111, Buccaneer & Tornado with much higher fuel loads.

It is max. 250km from the bases to where the Soviet spearheads would be 24 hours after crossing the border.

Which is exactly what the global market misses.

thanks for the info, Seahawk…

what do you mean for Egypt ?

for wikipedia /updated 22 oct 2013/ :

friendly, Etienne

(the full URL :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_non-U.S._operators )

The serviceability of the Egyptian F-4Es is rather low.

J-10 and the a stealth design from China to get a first strike capability against Israel.