Looks like a merger between MiG-25, MiG-23 (the fin!) and YF-17.

Hmmm an odd silence on this topic from the Airbus bash brigade who were all so vociferous in slagging Airbus over the A380 delay 😀 😀 😀 :diablo:

And the “Airbus brigade” refrains from senseless bashing, as it should be.

Looks here somewhat differently.

As I said: single engine are less important for wartime than for peacetime. In wartime a missile hit will in 9 of 10 cases knock the whole aircraft out. In peacetime, an engine failure due to technical problems or bird strike or whatever is more likely due to high number of flight hours. So the decision single/twin engine is a matter of peacetime attrition, not war-fighting.

What is the cost of an A-4 compared to a F-35? (even accounting for inflation).

The engine doesn’t have to break by itself – these things are meant to be prepared to go to war after all… any kind of shrapnel in the engine and you lose the aircraft. In a 2 engine machine you might limp off home, and replace the engine saving the machine for future use.

While I remember that in damage scenarios, especially for fighters with closely mounted engines, the second engine normally goes with the first. More annoying would be loss of aircraft due to bird strike or other engine failures, I mean even with GOP-administration the average US Navy fighter will not constantly be at war and under fire, but will do training mission after training mission.

We had a similar thread called “Dreamliner – 1 month delay”.

I can recommend this for a reading:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=73183

As branded “Airbus supporter”, but foremost as engineer, I refrain on commenting this issue. Just one thing: blame the business men!

This is a very silly argument. When comparing two planes’ merits you whould assume all other factors being equal, or else your comparison makes no sense.

Do you ALWAYS assume that the people in the inferior plane have the advantage in tactical planning and skills?

Thanks for the flowers. I ALWAYS twist reality, that’s my problem, I can’t get over it. I hoped you would just call it a mildly silly argument.

Anyways, I am not comparing two aircraft but saying that the additional 0.1 to 0.3 Mach top speed don’t make a big difference. Speeds beyond Mach 1.5 are tactically irrelevant.

It is interesting to note that the naval proposal emerging from the ATF had swing wings – so some obviously feel it can still be the best compromise for naval aircraft.

For me those look like artist impression merging an F-14 into an F-22.
The Russians even skip the catapult and use brute force to launch from the deck. I think a conventional wing with some high lift devices should do the job, if it slightly optimised for low speed it performs pretty well. That is what the Hornet is.
I would bet that a Rafale won’t go much quicker when loaded, especially it won’t supercruise in any useful configuration. On dry thrust it may have a speed advantage of ~5 to 10% in cruise. When loaded with a2g weapons this might quickly vanish into 0.
On reheat top speed potentially 20% higher (SH with a2a weapons about 1.4, Rafale with a2a-weapons 1.7). As these speeds are only reached after some acceleration, the useful advantage will be lower.
All that blabla for these small advantages?

The French consequently kept weight down. The Rafale has half the empty weight of a Tomcat.

I think they shouldn’t have picked either tbh – they were both fundamentally land based aircraft, and it would have been better to make a new machine from scratch.

The last fighter design the Navy really made from the scratch was the F-14, and it didn’t really turn out to be a success. Considering that in the 1950s and 1960s many Navy defined designs went into the Air Force (Skyhawk, Skyraider, Phantom, Corsair), it can’t keep up with that. The legacy F-18 served the Navy well, was actually exported to 7 nations with more than 400 copies. Quite a good record for a “crappy” aircraft.

4. It then decided to iterate a design, but chose the design not made for carrier work.

Wait a minute, I remember that the F-18 has quite low approach speeds and a very tough landing gear. So, how can an airframe suit better the needs for a carrier? Or do you try to sell another expensive, heavy, life-time limited swing-winger again? Get over it, they’re dead.