http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/110340/uk-unfazed-by-jsf-source-code-restrictions.html

According to that news release the british got all the data required up to date.

That’s bad news, it’s the second crash in a relative short time.

Indeed great pics.:)

Those tests were conducted with Super Hornets.

No, single only.

Thanks, that’s what I thought based on the loadouts of Janes F/A-18 sim.

No, India has not bought ASRAAM.

ASRAAM is not a substitute for AMRAAM. It’s much shorter range. It is long range when compared to other IR-guided weapons such as AIM-9, IRIS-T, & Python, not when compared to radar-guided AAMs such as MICA, AMRAAM, or even Derby.

You do not need to buy Sidewinder if you have F-16. You can use IRIS-T or Python, & Derby. If you paid for integration, you could probably use MICA & ASRAAM.

No idea what the real range of the ASRAAM is, most sources state some ~20 km. IRIS-T has been designed to attack targets up to 25 km. Might well be that the ASRAAM exceeds that in reality.

The most common figure is 3750 km because :
– That’s the figure stated on Dassault’s website, but not for ferry range (3750 km = ~1000 nm, given for the combat radius on a penetration mission).
– That’s the figure agreed by the Typhoon fanboys (so that the Typhoon doesn’t look bad), amongst others.

The 1000 nm combat radius figure speaks volume in this regard, because the ferry range is very likely to be much longer due to a less demanding mission profile, and either a lighter weapons load or a larger external fuel load. You don’t fly a ferry profile like a real penetration combat mission, don’t you ?
So you can stick to the 3750 km figure if you wish, but that’s obviously wrong.

What has that to do with the Typhoon “fanboys”? And you complain about trolling:rolleyes:

it’s funny how we can both predict what will happen albeit from different people. lol

anyway, I don’t plan to argue there, I was just showing how easy it was to destroy/discredit someone assertion and then to conclude just from this discredit.

regarding peter collins, as you keep putting him back, a lot could be said, either fitting with your views (his conclusion is clearly over the top) or not (you if Peter Collins considers the full range of missions, then the F22 doesn’t appear so good, and if he considers the kind of mission any modern aircraft is likely to encounter, it’s even worse for the F22 and better for the rafale).

The point is that it’s easy to pick some weak point of someone CV to try to take down all of what he says. It’s so easy it’s pointless I would say, better try to say clever stuff about such reviews.

Now, if you still want my own interpretation of Peter Collins article, knowing that I don’t know any real crap about the topic, I would just say that the main body of the article, regarding the Rafale’s abilities, looks quite sound. But the start and conclusion look, respectively, quite political and over enthusiastic.

So, what do I take from that ? Well, that’s saying my plane is bigger than yours never convinced anyone, esp without a bit more context. Still it looks like the rafale has quite some good points (which, from the article, I don’t even remember explicitly). Furthermore, there’s nothing about the weak points which are often put first and for all to see about this plane, which is significant in itself.

Well I see we have a quiet common view on that, with the sole exception being the understanding and rating of Jacko’s comments. I see it less critical than you and some others here.

Anyway I found that article informative and was able to learn a few new bits (many which I had expected, but not seen confirmed) such as the autopilot modes which were described with some detail and a few other bits. I personally have no problem with his conclusions, I just don’t see it as the only hard factual truth, but as his (P. Collins) opinion.