Nothing impossible. Usually if you follow technological life cycles. those who enter later achieved it much faster as they see the mistakes of first to enter. there plenty of examples there.

With all due respect first Western EU should create Flanker size TVC capable fighter. It will cost them fortune. It is not the subsystems but aerodynamic design experiance with flight testing time which directly translates into costs thats the difference.

Yes coming later to the dance from an engineering perspective can allow Russia to avoid some of the pitfalls the pioneers in the field faced, but I stand by my point that I strongly believe that PAK/FA (based on what I have seen to this point) will not have the all aspect stealth qualities of the F-22/F-35. It will not be a “knock down the door” type aircraft that can stealthily penetrate hostile airspace the way the B-2 or F-22 can. It will indeed be stealthy from most aspects and that will help it in air to air engagements with 4th generation adversaries and also improve its survivability from air defenses, but it will not be of the same level of the Raptor.

Furthermore the original post I was responding to unequovically stated that only Russia and the USA had the ability to build F-22 class airplanes. It would be hugely expensive, but yes Western European countries working together could indeed build a fighter in the same class if they had the political will to do so.

Good to see that the IMF loan is being spent well.

Indeed.

I guess they will be integrated onto the Mirages. Not a lot of stuff online about this weapon.

…You keep bashing up the Rafale without ANY ervidence that AMRAAM would be a problem to integrate for a starter, at least it will not be more of a problem than with the RAF Tornados.. (LOL!!!)…

On it’s face I do not think that anybody can reasonably disagree with this statement. However, with due respect, you do not mention the associated costs and delays that could come into play when integrating AMRAAM or for that matter any new weapon onto a complex aircraft like Rafale. Furthermore who will pick up the tab for integration? Would Dassault for example have to go to the expense of integrating a weapon like AMRAAM itself before delivery? Or would they even allow release of the requisite software codes to allow a foreign country to do this themselves? Remember how much of a furor there was between the US and UK over this same issue on the F-35?

End users will want the flexibility and ability to be able to tailor their individual platform to the specific defense needs they may have. Weapons integration is a large part of that and I think that any reasonable person can see that not having as full a list of weapons already integrated onto a specific platform only adds to the uncertainty of making a choice like Rafale.

It may not be the huge factor some are making it out to be in this thread, but I do think it is indeed a factor that some countries like the Swiss are taking into account.

Are the USMC/RAF/RN going to use the F-35B so the aircraft can land (and take off vertically) – in the battlespace – on unprepared/rough airstrips?

My understanding is the American and British F-35’s will be deployed this way from time to time.

And why aren’t the USN using the F-35B? Is it simply range?

I think range is part of it. I would also submit that the USN, investing so much treasure into their carrier force, does not want anything but conventional catapult launched aircraft flying off big carier decks. The C model has a larger ordnance load and the ability to bring back aboard the boat unused ordnance instead of dumping it into the drink to get the landing weight down for a STOVL recovery.

And if so, don’t CATOBAR aircraft have to carry massive fuel reserves anyway – in case of ‘go rounds’ and aborted landings?

Depends what you mean by massive. The legacy F-18’s can not be stated to carry huge fuel reserves and they operate fine from carrier decks. And the operators of conventional carriers (USN and French Navy) both use tankers to deal with this eventuality.

And also why not just use the F-35C instead of the F-35A in the USAF, for example does it matter if a carrier based aircraft operates from land (like the European/Aussie/Canadian etc etc Hornets, for example – Why was the F-18L not used?)

I think this is a good point. To me the C looks like the better option overall and in these tough economic times building two versions rather than three makes a lot of sense.

Moderators.

This is getting out of hand. The personal back and forth in this thread in particular is ensuring that any good information that we all can benefit from looking over is lost in a sea of noise.

Perhaps we can have you launch a no holds barred “fanboy“/”my plane/country is better than yours” thread so that those inclined to have a pi$$ing contest can pi$$ away in peace.

U cannot upgrade 20 years old aircraft?

Wow…Out of touch a little??? I can think of a Canadian example. The Canadian Armed Forces are upgrading the CF-18 Hornet for another 15 years of service. They have been around for 20. The Romanians upgraded the MiG-21 to LanceR configuration, those old MiG’s are old enough to vote….Speak about what you know.

Show me where USAF is upgrading 20 years old aircraft?

US has upgraded F-15C in Alaska with AESA. US/Europe developed MLU upgrade for for F-16A’s, all over 20+ years old. And don’t even mention the B-52, KC-135, A-10 and many others.

And PAK-FA is superduper aircraft combining capabilities of F-22/F-35.

Superduper???? Is????? Until flying and not existing only as a paper airplane it is neither.

Come back when you have something relevant to add to the conversation.

A population of 9 mio. versus a population of 60 mio. The Swedes did modify engines, when France did start with the ATAR. Despite their huge difference in population, both countries did generate excellent fighters for their armed forces. We have no idea, what limitations are imposed on the Volvo R12 by the USA or foreign made US-weapons with the Typhoon. :confused:

There is something about weapons autonomy and the ability to export a “full spec” version of a Rafale versus a Gripen or Typhoon that for example may have some US congressional strings attached when it comes to weapons load. However to date this has not been enough of a clincher to seal the deal on any export contracts.

I would submit that the benefit of having weapons autonomy is not as big a plus as the cost of integrating for example AMRAAM is a huge minus.

Agree fully with the innovation and balance of designs coming out of European yards over the past decade.

Russia and America could learn much from the innovative designs (Absalon is an excellent example) and build quality of the ships being produced. I would think that the USS San Antonio and the INS Vikhramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) sagas would not be possible in Europe.

excellent post.