My point is:
_ Most fighters are put in spin recovery / departure test, but able to recover from a spin, highly spin resistant doesn’t mean they have control authority to ultilize post stall maneuver in combat. Because PSM for combat also require high level of accuracy for the pitch/ yaw rate, as well as the ability to start / stop quickly
_ thincankiller claimed the pedal/helicopter turn is not a post stall maneuver, and Rafale had done the same thing, so the homework is simple: where is the video?

well, not “most fighters” but “all fighters” have to pass those tests, as in combat, you never know what the pilot will have to do and if he won’t find himself in a spin at a moment.. so these tests are mandatory to validate the behavior of the new aircraft under such circumstances… as I pointed out above, the chief test pilot explained that they were unable to get the Rafale into a spin no matter what they did to it, and to be able to perform the spin test, they had to deactivate most if not all protections of the FCS. Once they’ve done it, they validated it had positive behavior and was safe.. and then went on… as they’ve concluded that they don’t need PSM, the FCS was programmed that way.. so you won’t ever see a Rafale perform such manoeuvers, simply because the FCS will keep it under a flight rules it was programmed to maintain

and you won’t find a video of Rafale spin tests, if anything, because the french didn’t film all the flight tests and those they have are most certainly kept confidential.. which is the french policy dating from decades (an example of that policy was seen about 15 years ago when some developers were working on Falklands air war.. they could get all the information needed for the Harrier modelling, but when it came to the MIrage III (we were in the early 2000’s, remember), they asked to french sources but couldn’t get any useful information because it was still classified (in France, the Mirage III had been retired some 20 years ago at the time).. they had to work with Argentina

@ garryA, about your last pic.. all the opposing aircraft has to do is extend in a high yoyo manoeuver and close in for a gun kill from above… the X-31A falling like a leaf would just be a nice target in such a scenario.. looks nice on paper, but you need an opponent that coooperates with you to get such a kill 😉

What do you mean by “rough field capability” landing a MiG-21 on a farmer’s field? Good look to that. As it happen much of NATO air power could disperse too if they wanted too – I just don’t think they were really bothered about it at the time – dispersal airfields can be nuked too, you know.

who speaks about dispersal fields? If serbs managed to put their migs in safety and loose some almost exclusively in the air (as they kept operating them, whenever possible despite something like 300 combat aircraft massed by NATO in the area), chances are russians would be able to do it as well, espacially when not being outnumbered nearly as bad… I seriously doubt that serbs have some kind of magic specific to their air force. Again, I’m not saying “look what serbs would do in such case”.. I say “look at what they did”…

like anybody else, no fighter in the 1980’s (and even today) will sustain 9G when fully laden with ground ordnance.. you may get 9G in instant turn when you have depleted a good amount of your fuel and carry only air to air armament, but that’s about it

well, “poorly written” as he may have misheard 36 for 3 to 6, what did he hear to get 24 and then 20? 2 to 4 and 2 to 0? You speak about “biases”, but don’t question your own bias, obviously.

I came across that article and that sounded crazy, but explanations that the author didn’t know what happened sound a little funny to me.. or do you imply that defense aerospace is a site dedicated to bashing the F-35 (among probably others?

[USER=”20936″]SpudmanWP[/USER] simultaneous missile kills have been demonstrated some 40 years ago, as with the F-14 Tomcat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fNcGFNLPHE

Happy New Year everybody, btw 😀

the past is the past, I reminded what the french have stated just weeks ago… if they want to be taken seriously, they need also to be consistant with what they say, and if they do, Belgium will only watch the project from the outside (eventually, they’ll be in position to buy it off the shelf if they want, but won’t benefit from workshare or tech transfers).. of course, the french can also say they didn’t really mean it, but then, what eventually remained of their credibility goes down the toilet as well 😉

Qatar is having some issues financing a Typhoon purchase, so I wonder what the means for the Eagle and Rafale orders?

https://www.thenational.ae/world/fig…-trip-1.753294

not necessarily much… with loan costs so low as today, they may simply find more interesting to borrow some cash for almost nothing and let their own cash generate profit (higher than what the loan cost them)