And what about a RB-422 with no less than 19500kgp of thrust ? this was to be engine fitted in the P.1216…

I thought too that the Victor was superior. I remenber seeing 7500km range for the Vulcan against 10 000km for the Victor (I’m not sure the source is reliable). Apparently the last 25 victor went to the grave after the Sandys storm (and South Africa was interested by these remains).

I agree with that, SteveO.
But in France we don’t know how preserving our aviation, including historic planes. As you know, Great Britain and USA perfectly manage to preserve their warbirds, including flying old supersonic jets such as Sea Vixens or even F-100.

In France, a law was passed recently about “homeland security” by Sarkozy (our hatred minister). This law considered old warbirds as weapons, and they were prohibited flying!
Collectioners (people who have warbirds… I don’t now the english word) have to fought against the ministry to earn the right to fly their machines…
That’s why you will never saw an old Mirage III or Crusader flying in a French meeting…and also that’s why so many Mirage III or Caravelle were found in scrapyard and just avoid scrapping.

Yes Deino ! Not very difficult.. the French test center for the Rafale is the CEAM (Centre d’Essai Aerien des Materiels). so browse Rafale+CEAM in google
(I found this link http://perso.wanadoo.fr/aeromil-yf/rafale.htm )

Yep! Add a long fuselage section (3meters ?) behind the cockpit to house more fuel, more span (its a delta wing so there much room for fuel in it) at 12 meters and this would probably boost range a bit…
Of course, conformal fuel tanks but why not a dorsal spine (in Skyahwk or Isreali F-16 style) but not for avionics, just for more fuel? Reward vision is less important for a bomber…

LOL !! Better than sleeping pills or counting sheeps, “India to retires its MiG-25”. Guaranted effect : you will be asleep within two minutes!!
“but there’s no pills in the box”
“Normal : you just have to read the manual”.
LOOOOOOOOL !!!!!!!!! :p
Yes 37 pages is very, very long so I just red the first three or the last three otherwise my eyes would try to jump out of my poor head :p

Merci… You mean a stretched Typhoon (exactly like the FB-22). Good idea…
For the bombcord I think Key Publishing is not the good place because it deal with the REAL world.
that’s why I liked the “whatif modelers forum”. Alas, a stupid ******* bull**** ******* hacker had put a virus and this forum is (temporarily i hope) closed.
I made my own website with “Whatifs” stories here (you can find the backstory for Bombord here). It is only backstories with pictures I made, but I think I will put photos of my models quickly (I made a Hawker P.1121 model yesterday)
http://myparalelworld.populus.ch/

If we take the Falkland war example : and SeaHarrier Vs Mirage III.
First, who cared comparing these two fighters before the war, say in 1981? the mach2 antiquated Mirage III Vs the modern but subsonic SeaHarrier? Noone thought about a comparison (but everybody thought about MiG-25 Vs F-15 at the time…)

Second, some facts that deeply influenced this air campaign were difficult to predict (range penalty for the Mirage III Vs AIM-9P superiority for the Sea Harrier?).

I mean war never happened in the way you thought. There’s always surprises wich can deeply influence the battles. Sometimes little elements can change everything (just remenber during Iran Irak war Iranian F-5 pilots manage to shoot down Iraqi
MiG-25! Why developing the F-15 in this case ???!!!!)
So this kind of debate is totally stupid (SeaHarrier Vs MiG-25, Spitfire Vs F-15 etc)