Maybe I’d better repeat the bit about ‘series production’, as some people have been suggesting one-off prototypes and fantasy models.

As a Lightning fan, Sferrin, I’m ashamed to have missed that one – although whether it comes into the realm of ‘modern’ aircraft I rather doubt.

Incidentally, has anyone ever defined ‘modern’ for the purposes of this forum?

I just wants to prove a previous declaration “When in reality 9 out of 10 of the world’s airforces currently sport nothing better than an F-5 or even worse.” is not right.

It is true that no matter what kind of fighters do the small country buy won’t change the result of fighting with the super power by itself. However, buying the better fighters is still very useful for acquiring the victory of local war between the small countries.

That is why many very poor countries like Ethiopia and Eritrea still willing to buy the relatively expensive fighters for them like Su-27.

1. Even if it is only 5 out of ten, that still leaves a huge market uncovered.

2. The ‘poor countries’ which buy expensive warbirds do this out of no greater reason than the political posturing and self-importance of their leaders, all while their populations starve. You have given a couple of truly excellent examples.

The concept of an F-5A, MiG-21MF or Mirage III is not suitable today any more.
These aircraft would have horrendous losses against even limited air defences, and be very uneffective strikers. Only if you specifically procure aircraft not to fight a war, then those aircraft still do the job (see: South America).

Times have changed, a 4ship formation Eurofighters can clear the sky from such limited aircraft with impunity. Today you’ll need radar, BVR, ECM and datalink. that all needs to be integrated. That adds the cost.

You can skip the Mach 2 performance though.

There is a serious gap in your logic.

I agree that first rank powers need the Typhoon or similar.

That will still leave vast swathes of the globe, mainly southern hemisphere, where there is no such opposition within 4000 miles…

I surely can’t be the only observer thinking that the world’s aircraft manufacturers have become so hi-tech obsessed that they are missing a very profitable trick indeed…

Can’t remember where this came from.

France is considering joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building a second like the troubled “Charles de Gaulle”. Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. Under the proposed plan, France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. This project might not come off, because France wants a lot of the work to be done in French shipyards.

The new French nuclear carrier “Charles de Gaulle” has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the “de Gaulle” have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the “Foch,” because the ones built for “de Gaulle” never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The “de Gaulle” took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It’s been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.

The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.

So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the “de Gaulle” in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British.

Classic case of a person suffering from terminal unable-to-stay-on-topic-itis!

To return thereto: when I posted the thread I think I was actually considering the possibility of something smaller still than the Invincible class.

Would people consider this a practical possibility?