20 % subtracted from 471 is 376,8. In other words, A380 can fly the same routes as the 375 seat B747-400 while burning just 0,24% more fuel.

This should put to rest the question of A380 being too big for any routes where 747-400 already flies. If you cannot fill the 500 seats but you do currently fly 747 on the route, you can just fly an A380 and leave the extra seats empty or not install them to begin with – you are not suffering any extra cost.

The problem I see is that many airlines rather turn to reduced seats and much lower fuel burn, or in other words a B777-300ER. Interesting is that SIA actually seems to keep the economy and business at current (=B747-400) levels and just increases the cattle class, which they can put on the market with much more aggressive prices.

I am lost brother. Please provide some examples.

If VG wings were born from contradict requirements what is exactly changed? Why everybody first jumped on VG then abandoned them if as you say “swing wing enjoys a considerable advantage in lift over drag, especially when loaded to max TOW”?

Because it is a narrow advantage but comes with considerable disadvantage in many other areas, especially cost and empty weight.
“Everybody” jumped on swing wing? Please compare all operational swing wings and see the similarities. Obviously nobody considered swing wings for the other aircraft of that period.

With 4 times the number of Gripens, you have to fight 4 whole burritos. Remember what Comerade Stalin said: “Quantity has a certain quality all on its own”

Who honestly believes the JSF will offer return on todays projected prices ?

In Gulf War II (1991) a pair of F-117 could fly a mission you otherwise needed a flight of approx. 12 aircraft (2-4 strike, 2-4 SEAD, 2-4 CAP, 1-2 ECM, + Tankers & AWACS). Of course, the targets were hand-picked and attacking a moving tank convoy at day in the open desert isn’t really an F-117 mission (neither any strike/interdiction aircraft’s mission).
A B-2 can fly the mission of a whole USN aircraft carrier when it comes to pure striking power.

In terms of pure air defence under favorable conditions the F-35 can possibly destroy 4+ Gripen for one loss. When merging under confusing conditions the ratio would most likely drop to 1 and maybe even below (like F-5E vs. F-15A).

Strange in Norway is that neither deep strike into defended airspace, nor air superiority battles over enemy territory are really the key requirements for the air force. 95% of their missions can be flown by F-16A Block 5, even in 2020. A low level dogfight in a typical Fjord with typical Norwegian weather will see a considerable number of aircraft lost due to CFIT.

I can agree that in the early 1970s it was a very advanced machine but in the second half of the 1970s, the F-14, MiG-31, Panavia Tornado, B-1A or even Su-24 got advanced radars and avionics..

It was anyw ay one of the most beautiful and powerful designs to come out from the 1960s.

A system that works well in 1972 may also work well in 1979, as long as the environment hasn’t changed too drastically. The job of a low level pentrator is to – surprise, gentlemen – low-level penetration into heavily defended airspace in adverse weather conditions with a high level of accuracy. The later two conditions don’t really change (weather doesn’t get worse over decades, the nights aren’t darker). The defense against air defense assets happens two-fold: low detection probability due to low level flight, high subsonic speed and use of ECM. The later is subject of constant refinements, I guess hardly anyone can successfully judge about it, especially not make comparison for a given time frame when we hardly agree on the initial operational capability.
The only thing that changed in the mean time was the limited capability of the WP air defense to hunt down low level targets with the MiG-23M. However, this was also true for the NATO air defense, so no real advantage. And the MiG-23M capability was limited, more capable MiG-31 weren’t available in the West and not operational until mid 1980.

Is that the motive?

No.

You’ve really helped him, Schorsch.

Can you please point out the helpful content of your post?

stick their nose into some utterly unimportant detail of the original message

I think that the word “ultra-advanced” is actually the only characteristic provided in that article.

yeah yeah sens.

let us see this, first not all the F-111 variants have the same max take off weight, second the F-111 production total is slightly more than 550 aircraft while the Su-24 total production is around 1400, so the Soviets built slightly more than 2.5 times more Su-24s than the americans F-111s, in fact the total production of Su-24s equals almost the total combined production of Panavia Tornados and F-111s.
Third the Su-24 with VG ramp inlets can achieve a speed of Mach 2.1, however it does not need to fly fast at high altitude but fast at sea level or low altitude and its max speed at low altitude is more than enough.

The terrain following radar is what it is needed to fly low.

Another thing where the Su-24 scores higher than the F-111 is exportability, more countries adopted the Su-24 than the F-111, in fact the US only bought 76 of the FB-111s and only 24 F-111s were exported to Australia.

Su-24: 1400
F-111: 554
Tornado: 992

The “exportability” is because most other aircraft were unsuitable as fighter bombers. Whereas an F-4 Phantom can be used as such, MiG-23BN/-27 and Su-17 are not really payload haulers.
The export version is downgraded. The production started in 1988 and surely all were paid in desperately needed hard currency.

“The Il-78 wasn’t a factor. Neither the MiG-29 nor the Su-27 had IFR capability. The A-50 was not a serious factor either, as the Soviets were using a GCI structured air defense network.”

Why then soviets built 40 A-50?

How they wanted to fight over say France or Japan, if they counted only on CGI?

The Soviets never satisfyingly addressed the problem of their Northern border (until MiG-31 & A-50 arrival). In the early days the bombers came in high. When the B-52 switched to low level penetration things became tricky, while the B-52 is still a good radar target and limited to 300ish KIAS at low level (that is about 550 km/h, compared to ~850 km/h it does at altitude). The B-52 had the SRAM which was designed to take out GCI stations ahead of the bombers (with a nice 100kT greeting card 😮 ). Although the B-52 looks outdated, it still was a quite capable weapons system. As warhead were nuclear, even a 50% loss rate would still mean hundreds of warheads to cope with. A second strike is unlikely anyways.

With the B-1B things changed. Besides its lower RCS, it has a speed advantage and much better ECM. The MiG-31 was the answer. Its capability is a huge step forward compared to MiG-23P, Su-15 or MiG-25PD. But still any fighter aircraft has limitations in view angle, radar and processing power. AWACS is needed.

That the whole scenario is insane, and that a few tousand warheads on the Northern hemisphere would potentially make life a bit harsh in aftermath is clear (not only the nukes itself, but the simultaneous conflagration of all cities).

In the 1980s the Soviets developed many capable weapon systems but lagged behind in fielding them. There is a huge gap between developing something and making it operational. In the 1980s the economical downfall prevented the quick procurement of such expensive systems. You cannot just take a brand new MiG-29 and put it on the tarmac where the MiG-23ML(D) stood yesterday and expect the pilot to operate it to its maximum potential. The Soviets never used the full potential of its MiG-23ML(D), either. Using the -23 as a “dogfighter” needs much more training, despite some features on the -23MLD it remained a tricky aircraft. The MiG-29 required new piloting philosophies and tactics. Even when serial aircraft arrived in 1982, it needed time to have operational squadrons. And lots of money: the high operating costs of the MiG-29 made it a money eater. Reducing flight time to 70 hours a year (Soviet standard) will hardly make a capable machine. Details again. The ex-F-4F pilot will not become mastermind in its new Eurofighter over night, either. Expecially when the second guy now speaks binary.

The West already knew in the early 80ies that it had “won” the Cold War, and some Soviets knew so, too.