Around the corner, yes but that can be an awfully ‘big/long’ corner.

JUST AROUND THE CORNER, absolutely not.

“You go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Rummy.

Change that to Airforce and it still keeps its meaning, my point being these ‘oh the AESA will be ready in 2012’ or ‘the Block __ will be delivered in 2015’ is of no use during the present and does not alter facts. Thats what alot don’t realise. It all means nothing if it comes to late.

I don’t think Ariel cohen to be a reliable source. He sometimes writes some furiously Russofobic articles in a fascistoid American site called Heritage Organization.

Oh come on, a “fascistoid American site called Heritage Organization” is pushing it a bit too far.

It almost looks like the “repairs” they make to old asphalt roads where they put tar in the cracks to keep them from eroding further. Thing is I’d think that’d be too rough of a surface for an airplane. Bumpy certainly, especially at those speeds.

Could its reason for existance be more unexciting I wondered, perhaps simply having a laugh with foreign governments by showing what appears to be a long runway but what was infact an area construction machinery actually scrapped up some dirt and sand and that for use for example to cover up a freshly built partially submerged below the ground facility because if you just dug a hole too take all the earth to cover the new section of building it would be alot more blatent. Maybe even just use the dirt to make berms and stuff inbetween different sections of the base.
I find the thing about high speed tyre studies very interesting too as it could mean it was meant for a vehicle that uses a ramjet (with no secondary powerplant) I assume or even a scramjet? I don’t know though I’m only guessing from the comfort of my armchair. 🙂

Ah yes, the lack of an AESA radar makes the entire sensors and electronics 4th gen :rolleyes:
The LO treatment of the Rafale or Typhoon weren’t an afterthought for marketing purposes, but designed in. There was no requirement for VLO, however and the limited flexibility as shown with the F-22, associated with its huge costs didn’t justify stealth. Let alone that the Rafale or Typhoon were designed to replace a couple of types in different roles, unlike the F-22 which was designed to replace a single type in a single role. Supporting assets are far better than what most nations can pose, the US apart.

Why are you automaticaly comparing with the Americans? Its not thier fault we went for and pumped so much money into a conventional and therefore obsolete design is it? Spare me the ‘stealth was there from the start’ Typhoon fairy tale as well, it doesn’t wash. I accept the Rafale is a semi stealth design but Typhoon – you’re having a laugh.

That’s worth a full tanker of laughing gas!

No more so then the utter garbage that you come out with kid.

Come now PII, you know that just isn’t possible. After all, no matter what the topic starts as, it will eventually work its way around to deploring the evil, imperialistic, murderous United States. You know, the horrible juggernaut of global domination, butchering people at a far greater rate than Saddam’s woodchippers and torture chambers ever did. Yep, Iraq was a paradise, under gentle and benevolent leadership before the mean old USA decided to change things. :rolleyes:

Well said.

Agreed appart for the comparative to concurent aircrafts in both roles.:cool:

You got MORE laughing gas for us please?

Have a good laugh. “Inferior” Mirage III vs SEA Harrier, F-16, F-14, F-15, and a very British Lightning.

Oh thats really definitive proof, a magazine article showing some pictures and exclaiming a 4:1 kill ratio without explaining the circumstances or goals and aims of the excersise. :rolleyes: