STOVL, not VTOL. They’re not the same thing. That is exactly my point. I went on about it at some length, & you’ve just ignored it completely.
I did understood. But you failed to notice past my wording mistake that a Swiss F35B won’t operate at maximum permissible weight in a typical mission. Either load-out will be restricted to A2A and few A2G at first day of war (yes, the buy is all about planing a war on their own ground at first), either the fuel will be restricted to gain that margin in Operation readiness that I am talking about.
For sure, if the SAF want to intercept airliners faster than its neighbors, a Typhoon or a Mig29 will do the trick better than anything else (Don’t forget the SH that was designed for this also). If they want to bomb Paris or Berlin or the Gulf os Sirte, a Rafale will do the trick better. If they plan to join NATO without fully stepping in it, a Gripen will be the thing… [CaricaturingMode=OFF]
But then, if they want to have a resilient airforce able to support the attrition war on their own ground, then a stealth thing, able to operate hiddenly from a tinny inhabited plateau is the real deal.
Don’t forget that it’s all about answering a need. It’s not because some have made a job of dragging their compagnies all over the world after any expensive competition open to choose an aircraft* that we have to stick here to that motto.
A two bases country that intend to defend itself valley after valley (if this is still the doctrine) does not need a Typhoon that will be pluck on the ground the first day of war. It needs resilience at first.
And then, I doubt that any of the modern design that are envisaged here won’t be able to fulfill the airliner intercepting mission.
Sign In
