Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

Just for information: Which aspects are these?

For one, the Rafale displays a layout which will provide a measurably reduced RCS over the other two aircraft. I won’t blow the thread apart by sidetracking us with the rest at this time, I’ll throw that somewhere else in here a bit later.

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

Sean,

What’s with the :

For some unknown reason I am the only moderator that some people think should not be allowed to post here as a regular contributor, so I am putting that there from now on to ensure that those people are aware of when I am posting as a member and not a moderator.

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

If, the threat is Iraq, Afganistan, or possibly North Korea you may have a point. Yet, the next war is never like the last war! Let’s not forget than even during the First Gulf War the Allies (US, UK, France, Australia, Italy, Saudi’s, etc.) lost a fair amount of aircraft. Remember, in war you don’t want to be good enough………you want to cream your opponent! You don’t want to fight fair. Let the poor bas*^#@ die for there country not yours!:diablo:

Precisely my point: find me a logical and realistic opponent that would require something more advanced than what you’d need to deal with Iran or the DPRK. The F-35 as I envisioned it above and Raptor would be more than enough if you need something else beyond a new CAS platform to replace the A-10.

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

I think the US Army already does……………its called the Apache! Which, begs the question. Is a attack helocopter the only viable replacement for the A-10 in the future?:rolleyes:

Let’s see an Apache get half of its airframe blown off and make it back to base, then it can be mentioned in the same sentence as the A-10 :diablo:

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

Well, first nothing is going to replace the A-10A/C anytime soon as I stated. Second, the F-35 will be able to attack targets with far less risk than current types like the F-16, AV-8, and F/A-18.

That’s what I’m getting at. Far less risk from what, exactly? Terrorists with SA-18s? A redesigned F-35 will still be able to take out a limited air defense network like Iran’s or North Korea’s, and that’s implying that current systems cannot deal with S-200s or S-75/HQ-2s, which is unlikely.

Surely, you don’t think the US Military should replace its current fleet of strike aircraft with A-10’s? Different aircraft with different missions. Really, to be honest the F-35 isn’t replacing A-10’s but, F-16’s, AV-8’s, and F/A-18’s regardless of the politics. The true is they have no replacement and may never have one……………..:eek:

No, but the problem is that the F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18 aren’t the best aircraft suited for what we are realistically likely to get into. We’re making them work, but they are severe overkill. The F-35 is overdesigned, period.

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

As I recall it couldn’t even drop free fall conventional bombs because racks didn’t exist. Maybe they could have hung Mk84s off the rotary launchers but I don’t think the capability had been tested.

Nice idea, but no dice. The CSRL was the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher 😀 Mk.84s weren’t a viable option, if I remember right, because the CSRL was a nuclear only rotary launcher.

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

Which is why it sat out Desert Storm. I’ll be interesting to see if strategic nuclear treaties also go to the dustbin and what that might mean for the B-1.

It sat out Desert Storm because it had nothing to bring to the fight. If it had some significant conventional capability to offer back then, it probably would’ve been there. The BUFFs sat alert, but they went over there.

The USSR certainly did NOT copy Concorde!

Hear hear. If you ask me, the definitive SST to fly was the Tu-144D, even. But you are correct, looking at the design history of the Tu-144, it is no wonder it ended up looking the way it did, and it got there from a starting point quite different from Concorde. The same is true with the Tu-160, it resembles the B-1, but it got there by following a logical design progression at Myasischev before being sent to Tupolev for refinement.

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

The Su-35 should be an absolutely sick combat aircraft more than capable of matching up with the Eurofighter, if it lives up to the performance specifications laid out by Sukhoi. Where one will have a significant advantage over the other will be in terms of maintenance and logistical support, pilot training and capability, and off-board support, which as Scooter mentioned typically have favored a Western air arm in the past.

But why the EF-2000? Have we forgotten about the Rafale already?