[…]
Between the modification of the four basic weapons platforms you have an entire construction for a mobile army.

I don’t know what kind of war you have in mind, but contributing so much money for single-purpose weapons is big risk-taking. Your opponents read the newspaper, too. They know where you strongpoints are, and where are your weakspots. And they will exactly attack where you are weak.

Just don’t have weakspots? Sure, that would be the trillion dollar army, even the mighty US army cannot afford that. So you need platforms that suit multiple roles because you don’t know what awaits you in 5 years. Artillery has made a good stand in the last 100 years, is easy to procure and technology is easy to gain. Surely some missions are not covered well, but there are always times where soldiers have to fight (= die in larger numbers because equipment doesn’t fit perfectly, as I said, it’s war not fun we are talking about).

When it comes to the Rafale, I think the Rafale would need to be equipped of the AESA to be most effective against a F18E/F, and if it is equipped with the Meteor it would get very dangerous IMO

Also it depends on other factors… for instance in the Iran – Iraq war, the Mirage F1 was deadly because the US fighters that Iran had had ECM that was designed to counter warsaw pact threat, so it didn’t work all that well against western electronics…

So Rafale vs F18E/F would depend if the needed updates to the ECM and ECCM of missiles was completed.

Those things like ECM-performance is often overlooked but can be the decisive factor. I would say that Rafale definitely can have an edge over the F-18E, but on the other hand it may loose all engagements when the odds are against it.

I would assume both would have similar AEW&C and EW Types! So, fighter types and numbers could have a great impact on any outcome……..Of course the Super Hornet already has a excellent EW capability with its AESA APG-79 Radar!:diablo:

Then ignore the J-10, Sukhoi or whatever and go for the support aircraft. Who is offensive? Who is defensive? What is the target? Why at all? You don’t visit your enemy just to play ball.
If a force of Chinese aircraft go to attack and SH trying to intercept, the advantage is always on the SH-side. And vice-versa. Discussing the chances of the APQ-24i8 Superradar with AIM-175C-6(mod1K) BVR weapons is entirely pointless until you don’t have the exact parameters. The situation will be decided by tactical situation, not by the weapons used.

That is correct. This airshow BS is basically meant to avoid the lock prior to launch, not to escape incoming AAM.

What’s up, flex? Didn’t we have this discussion over and over again? The “airshow-BS” is great in showing the great design you have. It is trained month in advance by test pilots, flown under best conditions in a specially prepared aircraft. No line pilot can repeat any manouver nor will his aircraft allow it. Any pilot who decides to slow to 200kt to use his Cobra will be a dead pilot soon, because speed is life. No pilot will have the overview and awareness to throw in his Cobra at the right time. Normally he can be lucky if he even realizes that he is tracked (RWR is not just plug ‘n play).

My choice would be the F4D (F-6) Skyray. A fantastic looking jet!!!

That said, I read that the F4D was the first USN jet capable of level supersonic flight….

Than you need to add the F-11 Tiger. But both don’t really fit in the category. They are the first real transonic designs and had their shortcomings. At least the speed regime could be widened to close to Mach 1. Although both aircraft were able to achieve supersonic speeds in level flight, for both this was no operational speed regime.

This brings us to the McDonnell F3H-2 Demon series. This was an excellent subsonic all-weather general-purpose fighter, with an AN/APG-51 airborne intercept radar set. It had 4-20mm cannon (often 2 were removed), and carried Sidewinder AAMs. The F3H-2M was the first aircraft to carry the Sparrow AAM!
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f3hdemon.html

I wouldn’t rate the Demon a good aircraft. It was initially flawed, especially due to its engine. It had difficult handling, was not appreciated y its pilots and when it finally came into service with reliable engine, it was effectively outdated. It bridged the years until the Phantom became operational.

The Demon was inferior to most fighters due to poor agility and handling and still did not have any useful speed advantage. It climbed reasonably, but the missile and radar suite was unlikely to deliver an advantage in anything than night or adverse weather fighting (when the other fighters were not aloft anyways).

The Demon is a classical example of a fighter that did not incorporate the Transonic experience fully. To have a good transonic fighter (Gentlemen, the Spitfire was subsonic, the aircraft we talk about are transonic) you need to look at the BAe Hawk or the Harrier, and possibly a number of other aircraft, too.

Interesting question.

The MiG-17 comes to my attention. It is equipped with an afterburner and showed good handling characteristics. It has a powerful gun armament and it proved in Vietnam that it still is a formidable opponent that can win engagements (however, its kill ratio was always deeply negative).

The Sabre was also developped for long periods and the later versions were serious contenders of the MiG. Even the later versions still had no afterburner.

The Hunter was even more powerful. And it was equipped with 4x 30mm guns, which made a quite powerful armament.

My vote goes for the late MiG-17PF, although I think that each type of the list is superior to another at one single stage in development. These aircraft were pretty basic. Its maximum speed was largely determined by its wing (begin of transonic drag rise). That is the reason no aircraft would go beyond Mach 1 in level flight. All were kind of tricky at transonic speeds, with a lot of lessons learned of transonic regime not yet incorporated to full extend. The sinple swept wing design was simple but led to some tricky handling characteristics.
Most important was in my eyes the engine, and that changed in matter of month or years.

The Ethiopian AF has been build around fighting Eritrea, and have problems fighting against Somalia for 3 reasons:
-There is little infrastructure, forces and things in general to be destroyed by force, certainly not a blind force as airpower
-The only attack planes operated by Ethiopia have short legs, and the operating base is located far from the border and the actual warzone
-Large numbers of capable personell has long defected the Ethiopia Air Froce.

The planes also carry small bomb loads and training can be assumed to be limited. Bombing something small with an aircraft like the MiG-23 doesn’t seem like a no-brainer. If they changed their 8 Suchois against 24 A-26 Invaders, their air force would be better off.

@PLA-MKII
Maybe coporate America reopens the Invader production lines and you finally got a point.