he’s speaking about ejection seats of older types that flew when the K-36 class seats were science fiction, methinks 😉

one can guess that they want to make sure that nobody can make an embargo on their supplies.. if one source goes down, there are others.. what is even more curious is that Qatar has a 15 fighter jets strong air force,a nd they just ordered 78 jets overall… talk about boost in power…

er, it is what you call “point defense fighter”… it is only in the NATO sphere (mostly to provide reason to keep increasing its might) that USSR military is considered as an agressor (offensive) army. when you look at its structure, it is first and foremost, a defensive military system. No force projection capability, no aircraft carriers, the aircraft are ground controlled, except the strategic assets which is all about deterrence (the idea being, show that you can hurt the other guy so he doesn’t force you to do it). When they speak about front line aviation, the idea is to be as close as possible to the front line, yes, but in their doctrine, they aren’t attacking other countries, they defend their country.

If you look at an “offensive fighter” of, more or less, similar size, you have to look at the F-18 or F-16, for example, who both have much more range (of one looks at the ferry range, as it is more or less with the same flight profile, according to wiki you go from 2100km for the Mig-29A, up to 3300km for the F-18 and 4200km for the F-16)

Fact is that the Rafale is for the french what the F-22, F-35, B2, B1, B52, F-16, F-15, F-18 are for the US all put together… and even if you exclude heavy bombers (which would mean you exclude strategic bombers which the Rafale is for the french), the cost comparison would be more exact that way… The Rafale is an air force aircraft and navy aircraft, interceptor, bomber, reconnaissance aircraft, air superiority fighter, and so on.. it fulfills all these roles, and comparing it to only two of the american assets is, by definition, flawed

You’re assuming that only the target is defended i.e. the defences are static.

no, I say simply that most defenses are concentrated around important sites, like airfields. One can not cover a nation with a SAM on every second house (unless you’re Monaco, that is), so you obviously have to set your defenses with a certain path in mind, in order to have the best possible coverage, but it still can’t be perfect

There is no way to account for unknown threats along the ingress/egress path. The horizon FoV limit in low-level flight means that they’ll be no advance warning and very limited reaction time. And then of course there’s the threat from enemy fighters.

no, but again, I invite you to look at statistics that were put forward: Tornado combat losses occurred all around (“over” would be more exact) the target. The only one that wasn’t downed over a target was a crash that nobody can give the reason for (other pilots in that mission noticed a flash as it hit the ground in a low level turn, so: was the aircraft shot? or was it a pilot error? we’ll never know), and that was while operating over desert of Iraq, mostly flat terrain (meaning, they, normally, could be detected from relatively far away).

Once more, is it the only way to do things? no. It’s definitely more comfortable by all means to fly high, see the whole battlefield below far away and drop your ordnance from safe distance and altitude, but it is one of the ways that can be used when it appears necessary, given the conditions encountered

Rafale demonstrator flew back in 1986. about 1988 or 89 (not sure) they received new requirements, to incorporate stealth as much as possible into the design.. the whole fighter has been redesigned with low RCS in mind then. It looks similar, but there isn’t a single part in common.

They’ve been working on lots of things since then, and low RCS research is also part of it. About the next franco-german fighter, for now there’s only teh intent to make something together between political leaders of today… it is still along way before a common set of requirements is decided, and even further away, the decision about who will make what

When you say “I am criticizing the fact that some have made out of a deficiency a doctrine for tomorrow” you remind me of those who, in late 1930’s and early 1940’s said that making fighters was a waste of time as the Flying Fortress B-17 would be able to go unharmed to deliver its bomb load over enemy territory.. it was unstoppable, did they say.. strangely, if it wasn’t for those who “wasted their time” making P-47’s and P-51’s, they’d never be able to fight a full campaign all over Germany

what you don’t seem to (want to) understand, is that there’s no such thing as an “absolute weapon”… in history, there was always guys to claim “here’s what will bring us victoryyyyy!” just to find out that technology alone, regardless of what it is, doesn’t win wars, there’s a never ending race between attack and defense.. your aircraft is better at avoiding being detected? radars evolve to counter that… you make something even better? radars as well.. and so on… and when it has to be done on short notice, radars use tactics… something that costed the USAF an F-117…. how? they’ve bet on technology alone…

That last example shows one thing, that tactics play a role that you can’t deny… and flying high, in the middle of empty sky betting on your technology alone to keep you safe is just that.. a huge bet that your “Wunderwaffe” will win the war for you.