Boeing should offer the CF-15CA.
What was the best choice in 1980 can’t be wrong today. Back to the Future!

Yes but surely they considered that when calculating the final scores. The others sent twinseaters too.
And it’s not like the Swiss AF is not flying C and D Hornets, or E and F Tigers for that matter.

Thanks for the info.
Just came across this official source, which confirms the 12 H-1 will replace the Mi-24/35.
(well I read the google translation… 😉 )

Nice Rafale Demo this year in switzerland. Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/PY3dEeDRGgo

Yeah that was good. Gripen too, excellent, and both well received by the crowd.
EF not so much. But that was to be expected with the German AF flying the demo rather than a company pilot.

Dassault also had the best sales department on the ground. And by best I mean the prettiest 😀
Boeing didn’t seem to have a stand accessible to the general visitor, that or I have not seen it. No demo or mock-up aswell. But sponsoring the VIP-tent – might actually be the smarter move.
F-35 mock-up was present. Surprisingly compact jet also in real life. But also as fat as expected.

Got some nice pamphlets from LM/P&W, Dassault and Saab.
The LM ones seem to be put together in haste, contain some errors.
Saab quotes the well known cost per flight hour study from Janes. Well, it doesn’t matter now anyway.

The star of the show was not one of the three current eurocanards, but the Sk 37. :eagerness:

No its subsonic.
But it would be a replacement for the subsonic Saab 105, not the EF which stays.

Training jet. LO not required.

Well it is 08-4156, a Block 40 jet from the 94th fighter squadron i.e. a frontline squadron.

We are using F-35 A-A stealth configuration to estimate ferry range, that would be at best four AIM-120 so it is 0.6tons weight which less then 3% of total plane weight (plane+fuel+weapons). Drag impact of four AIM-120 (with pylons) would be lot bigger then 3% of additional weight.

Well obviously A/A load has less impact. That’s why A/A radius is bigger than A/G radius.
Drag of 4 missiles is negligible on most fighters.

F-35 using of afterburner/supersonic flight is quite problematic if you look what we read about B and C version so I really doubt LM presentation at all using them in that presentation. I think what they presented is relaxed combat radius which can be used for ferry range estimate.

No problems reported about the A model, and B/C performing according to specs.
We don’t know of course what LM does or does not include in their 760 nm A/A radius. But it surely includes some things that result in a range penalty compared to a ferry profile.
Either way, we know for certain ferry range is more than 1520 nm / 2815 km.

I can think of many instances, F-16 was generally believed to have a better endurance than the heavier twin-engined MiG-29. I’m not sure there was much difference in range between the F-16 and F-15, was there?

F-16 has much better range than the early MiG-29. No surprise if you look at the numbers – both carry about the same amount of fuel, but the F-16A is only about 7200 kg, the MiG-29A about 11 tons.
F-16A also easily outranged the F-15.
Over time, the F-16 gained weight. The MiG-29 on the other hand got increased fuel capacity, closing the gap.