Really? Do tell, when the CdG was deployed to Afganistan (1st time, actually first several deployments) which aircraft launched most of the strike missions?
What are these 50% more types of mission sets. Please use specific examples of where the Rafale was used that the Super Extendard would have been unable to complete mission.

Don’t you hate it when you be called on the flawed arguements you post? (just as on the Rafale program costs- another lesson for you in making claims you can’t substantiate)

The specialized attack plane obviously i.e. the one that is designed for it and can guarantee a far greater sortie generation rate.
Because you know, this is still the fundamental parameter to be considered when we talk about the A2G mission.

Also because if you have two planes of which one that can only perform ground attack mission and the other one that can also do escort you would use the first more than the other in the role anyway…

The numbers are insignificant. You are talking about less than 7.5% more aircraft to the total.

I’m taking about an operational wings on a Carrier actually at sea.
Insignificance means having zero planes and carriers at the yunkiard.
So, let allow me to call pot/keetle there.

By the way how is in % the percentage of F-22 in the sum of USAF+USN+USMC fighter?

You know, when I quote something in response to a question from you I expect you to read it, that way you might actually understand what was being stated. If you like you can read it again or simply take my word that a member of the British Air Staff stated they will consider the CTOL variant as they move towards the next SDSR. It is really simple.

For some unknown reason you seem to think they need to make a decision now, but they don’t. They have plenty of time to decide on the ratio, if any, of the F-35 buy given they expect to be receiving F-35Bs until 2028.

Are you referring to that under-vice -assistent of not know what saying in an interview during an airshow that someone would eventually, maybe gave a look to the A version of the F-35 in a potential, eventual, perspective, maybe yes but more probably not, future bid aimed to find a substitute to the Tornado?

Now, probably is a problem of language because on my place these things are called Idle talkings or also Bull**** for short.
So I repeat my request: it’s possible to have something just more concrete?
A bid, a letter of intent, a prospect, a slide, a shopping note for the butler?

P.s. I’m obviously joking.
There were not on my part any intention to play the male reproductive organ comparison contest between our countries.
Just a puntualization, that would even been at your’s country advantage in the end if you would had look better and above all with a cooler head.

You do realize that between the F-16 & 18, the vast majority of the fighters being replaced are multirole right now, right?

So, are you calling something labelled F/A a multirole, right?

Let’me rephrase it, so to be more clear : in that page there are a lot of airplane that specialize themselves in one peculiar A2G mission + just one i.e. the F-16 that was started as a light A2A fighter but from almost the same beginning was shifted more and more toward A2G missions.
Now, seems me that everyone is focusing in the confrontation between this actually now more than 35yo plane and the F-35 only for what matter a peculiar type of A2A engagement i.e. dogfighting.
Actually almost all the armed services acquiring them is just looking for an A2G plane and the F-35 has almost potentially the capacity to fulfill almost all the different niches of that role, previously covered by a dedicated aircraft.
This would be a great feat in itself IMHO when instead all the discussion in going on evaluating it in something it was not designed for from the very beginning.

They chose the B to replace the Harriers but have not picked a Tornado replacement yet.

While Italy planned on the F-35 replacing it’s Tornadoes, the UK has not said as much yet.

Italian F-16???????:stupid:
We just leased some of them as a stopgap measure and send them back immediately after the first squadron of Eurofighter went operative.

For the rest the page you posted seems me to show a whole array of CAS, Assault, light bombe, deep striker and strike fighters + just one model of multirole fighter, so where the outrage for the fact that I, together with a whole lot of armed services around the world, consider it a A2G oriented plane comes from?

P.s. And why only Britons have the privilege to be nominated by armed forces together with Americans and not also the others?:mad:

The C has always had the least export potential and was always the variant that was most under a cloud given the USN has a current tactical fighter in production.

As for handling characteristics, the C is similar to the SH in being 7.5G high AoA aircraft but does so with a longer range, stealth, better sensors and is easier to recover to the carrier.

The F-14 had one sole advantage over the Hornets which was the AIM-54 for long range interception but that threat left in the middle 90s and still hasn’t re-emerged. In that time USN surface based defences have improved. The F-14 was in no way a better WVR aircraft than either Hornet and is debatable for long range interception over the SH. It was a difficult aircraft to maintain and had a high accident rate for a carrier aircraft.

The UK Tornado mission roles will transfer to a combination of F-35B and Eurofighter with Storm Shadow. This is where an F-35A may be appealing to the UK but it would take significant political movement to either add the F-35A model or reduce F-35B orders for F-35A, especially now T1 Eurofighter will stay around in RAF service for longer than expected.

Fact is that we’ll also acquire Storm Shadow for our own Eurofighter and acquire instead both F-35A and F-35B for AMI and obvioulsy F-35B for MMI.
So there are surely two very different visions there.

I think you have that the wrong way round. The latter (i.e. the F-16) was built as an A2A aircraft, & the former (F-35) as a strike fighter. Former & latter indicate the order in which they’ve just been referred to, not the order in which they came into existence.

I’m only mentioning this because I’ve recently seen several occurrences of this mistake, & it gets on my nerves. I’m not singling you out.

Opps, my lousy english! I used former and latter in the contest of the initial phrase in which F-35 was written prior than F-16.
In case of a comparison of their respective age I would have used newest and older/ previous instead.
So what is the grammarl rule in English really?

Based on what? You opinion? That opinion is not shared by the services that plan to use it as such.
Did Norway operate the F/A-18? BTW, the Swiss use the F/A-18 as their fighter for OCA/DCA missions. Guess what? It was rated better than the Gripen and just below the Typhoon.

Given that my own service would use it as a substitute for Tornado and AMX and UK would just acquire it as a substitute for the Harriers , according to your own logic, would I have to consider it a deep strike or a Cas attack plane?

F-35 is going to replace a whole array planes ranging from the subsonic Harrier and AMX to the heavyweight mach2+ capable planes like Tornado or F-15E and everything in between.
Now, can one consider that given it weight like an F-4, has a velocity inferior to the F/A-18 while sharing with it an excellent AoA, it resemble anything than the F-16 in between the whole array of planes it going to substitute?