The designer set out to make an ugly overweight a/c, he was successful.

You are aware that the Il-102 is a tonne lighter, empty? Two tonnes higher MTOW. And has two tonnes more thrust.

So… seems the designer did a good job all around. How did you do?

But speed was consider most important aspect in WW II even before the introduction of automic bomb ( hence the boom – zoom.tactic ) why the same tactic not used by 4 gen fighter

The advantage of speed permitted the faster opponent to control the engagement, and to disengage when necessary or opportune. Or to avoid engagement altogether.

With the advent of reliable guided missiles disengagement became much more dangerous, regardless of speed. Hence we’re back to fixed-lip intakes but high agility; one now has to win the engagement, it’s not possible to light the ‘burner and escape when R-73s and AIM-9Xs are in the picture.

In the end there was no particular need for the M4000 with the French air force. Avionics wise it offered no particular advantage over the M2000 and they didn’t need the unrefueled range. Performance of the M2000 with tanker support was more [than] adequate.

Range of the Mirage 2000 was adequate? Not in the slighest, hence the adoption of 2000-litre external tanks that restrict speed to 500 kts, and those draggy AAR probes. Not to mention inadequate cockpit environment which affects pilot endurance.

The 2000 was a short-range interceptor which was abused to create attack and strike platforms. It was a economy measure, pure and simple, just like the RAF adopting the Tornado as its common platform. Short-sighted but better than nothing, which was the other option the AdLA faced.

Su-25 seem eminently sensible.

For this sort of scenario ( competent enemy but who lack air control ) there seems to be a lack of mid-tier loitering platform. Back in the 1980s Gulfstream were pushing the SRA-4 which had high-altitude, long-endurance loiter with considerable disposable armament and oboard acquisition / designation. Sort of a precursor and miniature version of how B-52s deploy these days.

A splendid painting!

But I’m puzzled as to why the Polish participated in this venture. They’re not going to encounter an F-15 in combat, so essentially the useful information flow was one-way to the IDF.

Why would an air force willingly disclose the dynamic capabilities of their front-line fighter, for no apparent gain?

A long time ago, when Sintra was a young chap there were plans to stick ADEN 25´s on the future Hawk 200. When the demonstrator was flown, it did have a pair of them, then the demonstrator crashed, the ADEN 25 also crashed and the production aircrafts ended up with one single ADEN 30 in an external pod under the centerline.
Cheers

Even that was a bit of a fib by BAe; they had reserved some space in the structure for a single ADEN 25 but it was never fitted.

Not sure why people are hung-up on the Hawk 200 as a point-defence interceptor; it’s a capable little bomb-truck within its restrictions. Edit: and I say that as someone who always felt the Alpha Jet superior. Over the battlefield it can perform CAS and anti-helicopter better than the Luftwaffe Alpha Jets over Central Europe in the 1980s.

Once you hang tanks and ugly A-G ordnance on a Typhoon it doesn’t transit much faster than a Hawk or Harrier but it burns fuel much faster.

Edit: as for using existing Hawk T.2s for CAS; they don’t even have a proper ADEN 30 on the centreline, just a bang box that makes the noise slaved to the delivery computer. They’re not cleared for ordnance in RAF service. The Arrow’s T.1As are better equipped…