Absolute correct. When the simpleminded USAF took care about the ground-warfare, the Russians did held an air-parade in the stratosphere.

And didn’t really adapt requirements: MiG-29 and Su-27 still have adjustable inlets for Mach2+, when the USA dropped this requirement with the F-16. Good move indeed.

It’s no worse for close air support than a Harrier GR7 or Jaguar… All three have pretty substantial payload/range tradeoffs.

Excuse my bias against the Etendard, but most books I got are originally from English/British/American authors. None of them really talks in favor of the Etendard, and to be honest, for a 1970ies design it is severely under-sophisticated.

A good example is the F-15 and F-16 fiasco. The purpose of the F-16 was to be a cheaper simpler replacement for the larger heavier more complex fighter (F-15). The late model F-16s are actually just as expensive as the F-15s were. On paper both are fighters and the F-16 is also a light bomber. In practise the F-15 was used as the fighter where it was available and the F-16s were largely used as bomb trucks. In other words the multirole jack of all trades stopped being multirole when a better platform was available (ie F-15).

The F-16 was used as bomb truck as the pathetic Iraq air force was unable to challenge the USAF in 1991.
In case of a conflict with a real air force, the F-16 would be a very useful (and very potent) fighter aircraft to free the skies of MiG-23 and Su-17. Then it can haul bombs.

The F-16 is able to deliver 2 tons of bombs over a radius of over 300nm, which in the old days even qualified as “medium bomber”.

The F-16 was further no replacement but a supplement to the F-15, primarily due to budgetary constraints caused by the expensive F-15 [and if Congress had been a bit less stingy, they would have equipped it with medium range missiles, too].
As such, the F-16 was a huge success as it fitted NATO air forces with a powerful aircraft in time at acceptable costs. In 1983 the 1000th F-16 was delivered, a time when the MiG-29″A” was hardly operational.

It’s an Alkan chaff/flare dispenser, installed on 2 dedicated pylons added to the SEM Standard 4 aircraft a couple of years ago. This was supposed to free the 2 outboard pylons, but I’ve never seen any picture of a SEM using both sets of pylons at once, so I’m not sure what the point was. (Bombs and fuel tanks are always carried on the same inboard pylon, which is a bad tradeoff).

Which basically means, it can carry only one bomb in a practical mission?

(The CdG is getting maintenance at the moment, which will take several months.)

Which demonstrates once again that you need 3 aircraft carriers to have one available short term (one week), and two to have one available mid term (one month).

The Cold war has never been fired to be a Hot war, so any experiences taken from cold war are not appropriate to judge weather a design of a/c survivable or not.

The USA and allies have fought against the opposing systems being trained by opposing doctrine several times, basically in all proxy wars. The “hot” versions (as long as it was non nuclear) would be something like that, just more bloodshed.
By the way, most US aircraft were not designed by Cold War. USA relied on nuclear deterrence and didn’t consider a war versus Soviet Union in Europe really likely, you can clearly see that on the specs of the aircrafts after 1970.

Remember, the F-22 is a Raptor only being an area that controlled by US completely, being somewhere else, it will be a Rabbit.

Although I am not an F-22 fanboy, I call your statement absolute rubbish. If I go into a hostile area, I rather have supercruise and “some” stealth, than having neither of both (like any other aircraft before). Of highest matter is frontal aspect signature, as someone coming in from front can fire a missile at 50km distance (given I fly M0.9@30kft and he goes M1.5@45kft).

We have already seen when USAF beet a country small like Iraq, the a/c sent by USAF resemble a cat which is catching rats. BUT, when Taiwan ask him for protect from Beijing, it looks like a rat which peeping at a cat.

Political considerations aside, the F-22 would always be the prime aircraft to achieve air dominance in a hostile environment.

Don’t forget a country like Russ or Chine, are large country not only for population but also for their domain. The enemy won’t just come from frontal forward more likely comes from every where.

Aha. Very interesting. Doesn’t make sense, but never mind.

Have you ever considered the effective engagement range of a “medium” range missile when catching a fleeing aircraft? When the F-22 flies at Mach 0.9, no opponent really has an fire opportunity from rear aspect area except he gets really close (>10km).

I don’t know what all the excitment is about..it’s just a tarted up 767

By its basic concept and specification, but not by the applied technology, and especially not by the applied production system. And look, it is not the specification that hurts the B787 (sold close to 1000).