No, it has helped to retain your ego, thinking that you were still ahead of soviet union during that time in aerospace technology.

You didn’t get my point, but I see that you are equally unable to do some reflection yourself. If I am a typical western moron, you are my eastern counterpart.

So, wedge-type inlets were the only solution to fly faster than Mach3?? Geez, anytime you write something about this, it`s even more dumber than dumbest.

Great, we are down to insult. I really can’t take somebody serious who is unable to deliver his mighty knowledge without this childish flaming.
By the way, I never wrote that wedge-type inlets are the only way to fly faster than Mach 3. Actually the only real Mach 3 aircraft used conical inlets (Blackbird), which was the preferred option for the Soviets at that time (see MiG-21 and early Sukhois).

The Germans & Italians couldn;t possibly have waited. They’d have had to buy something else, e.g. F-15 or F-16. Both have the problem of large parts of their air forces being physically worn out.

Actually we (Germany) already let one generation out. Phantom replaced by Eurofighter. Would be cooler though if the Starfighter was still in service.

Hi Schorsch- I have followed the arguments re the A2A performances of Rafale v EF2000 for some years now & enjoyed it.Hence the thought of a “Top Gun” shootout, It might at least show which aircraft was superior in BVR & WVR engagements “At this point of time”. Other factors come into play in Nation v Nation, AEW etc. etc.but a pure plane v plane may answer a few questions, maybe not.

No, it won’t. The experts know what they have and have not with their aircraft. The laymans (incl. me) can only guess and tend to twist reality. We have plenty of engagements between F-16 and MiGs (which were pretty one-sided), still if you open a thread saying F-16 superior aircraft you will have funny discussions.

Fully developed, well I supose this point is a bit unreal but I suspect you could guess what I meant . The promoters have promised plenty but we are still waiting,just check out what was promised to South Korea . It has been reported in the media that during the Singapore comp. both Rafale & EF2000 were told “Show us your stuff, stop talking about what might happen” To be fair the comp may have been lost for political reasons The future of EF2000 “Development ” was also bought into question.I have track lost of what point in its much changed “Tranching” journey it is at or likely to ever get.

Take a look at the design history of F-16, F-15, F-18 and Russian aircraft, which are sold to us as “truly multirole”. The F-16 is now at Block 60, the “real” multirole F-16 was the C-model (while A,C,E is sometimes confusing, as the real models are the block numbers). It came out 1983, 4 years after the A-model, 9 years after the prototype. That was under cold war conditions and the multirole capability of the F-16 (1983) is at least matched by the EF2000 T2. Same applies for all other current multirole fighters, which did not roll out the hangar for their first flight with HARM, Paveway and AMRAAM attached and armed.

With regards to workshare, well you have a point, here in Aust. there have been rumblings about how much JSF work we have got,other stakeholders have had the same problems. However the cost of development of Rafale & EF2000 has not been benificial to all but the big Euro countries . I still think the UK would have been better off to go straight to the JSF, the Germans never wanted the EF in the first place & probably think the same thing.
Both planes have cost more than it has been worth to get the point they are at. All they have proven is that big European countries can waste money better than most places.

We have an industry. We can call this industry “strategic”, because it has the ability to develop and produce airborne weapons. If the decision had been made to go for JSF, this industry would be dead today in Germany, Italia and Spain, and marginally alive in UK. I think it is worth some billions to keep the brainpower. The Eurofighter would have been less expensive if this mistake (to go for American technology with laughable workshare) wasn’t made in the 60s.
Australia doesn’t have this kind of industry.

Also take into account some “historical” issues. The country that invented the jet engine and was once the most advanced in aviation technology may want to keep at least a shadow of former capabilties. After all we spend a fraction of the American defence budget. We don’t have to sell our Grandma for the Eurofighter.

You always say that when you have nothing to back up your claims with. My summary of this topic is quite ans simple – so far there are absolutely no proofs about the connection RA-5C –> MiG-25 except rant of some individuals who could not swallow the fact that not everything was invented in the USA. So they quickly had to come up with some artificially invented fairytale about Mikoyan sh!tting in his pants once he has seen a Vigilante. Exactly what kind of data could have Russians obtained about the RA-5C, anyway? B/W photos from a mag plus basic tech specs? Gimme a break.. Is THAT the big deal?

flex,
the story about the MiG-25 and the A-5 is quite popular, probably because it fits the prejudice that Russians were unable to develop anything useful on their own. I guess Mikoyan started with a clean sheet when we got the assignment to make a Mach 3 interceptor. The Vigilante used some very useful concepts, especially the air intakes. No Soviet fighter had similar intakes, their technology was not able to deliver the performance needed. The Vigilante was an inspiration, but that’s it. You cannot design an aircraft from the visual impression you got from an airshow. But as design engineer you are well of if you use the things other people use. If the Americans build an aircraft that big and capable of Mach 2.3, it is a useful basis.

Often in technology the guy who has the first idea is credited most honor. I actually think that the design work that follows is much more demanding than having an idea. Most “ideas” get shelved and nobody hears of it any more. The problems the MiG-25 got were for real and they were tough. MiG solved them without looking at the A-5. Even if he copied the general arrangement from the A-5, that doesn’t make his work any less honorable.

Contrary to the seventies the projects which rolled out in 80-s and later were totally different. Their main assignment field was to operate at supersonic where choosing the right wing shape is no brainer at all. They were focusing on delta wings used in initial ATF studies, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Lavi and the soviet MFI while drawbacks of deltas at subsonic have been reduced with help of canards. The US designers quickly realized that by applying canard-delta design, they will have problems to fullfil the stealth requirements(RCS), what explains why they got stuck with a common aft-tail design. The F-22 inherited less design features from seventies and eighties, basically it is a tweaked 60th design. No blended wing-body design, no real LERXs exploiting the non-linear lift as on the F-16,F-18, Mig-29, Su-27, no delta wings with sweep angle around 60deg suited for supersonic flight and maneuvering as Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen.. etc. When lacking the TVC the aircraft would be almost considered as the F-15.

So, all stupid except for the glorious Sukhoi engineers, who did not choose the “no-brainer” aerodynamics? I maybe suggest to read a couple of lines on flight control, a field that evolved as major factor from the 70s on. In this field Soviet designs lagged behind due to the attached development costs. They rather went to better aerodynamic concepts (more CL max, more stability), but with a price in terms of weight and drag.

All these things have been discussed many times over the years,but we are still none the wiser. I wish the EF2000 & rafale would have a “Top Gun ” shootout to settle the A2A argument.

That would prove what?

Neither plane is really very well developed considering the amount of time they have been around & the future of some of these improvements for both planes under a bit of a cloud. I wish one or both would make an effort to fully develop their aircraft as both are performing well aerodynamically.

Please explain what “fully developed” means and give me examples for aircraft that were “fully developed”?

I sometimes get the impression the Europeans wish they had just signed up for the JSF, it may have been a better idea as their own planes will not be really in any advanced stage of development before the JSF comes on line.If you get the impression I think these planes are a waste of time you are right but they look really cool.

I can say from the closer perspective that this is not true. Nothing to gain for European industry. I don’t know what you rate as real workshare, but building landing gear doors is not what I call involvement.

A point that is valid: The co-existence of Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen all competing in the basically same market is a waste. While the Gripen is smaller, the other two have too much in common. It was a bad decision of the French to bail out of Eurofighter, but after all I can understand it.

EF cannot supercruise at 0 feet altitude, maybe not even the mighty F-22 😮

Another great aeronautic remark: each degree less on the ground continues to be less if you go up the atmosphere (disregarding cold air streams etc).
I suggest googling for “International Standard Atmosphere”.
The temperature corrections on performance charts of fighter jets is for real. I suggest to take a look on one of those, too.