during cold war the readiness in western europe air forces could be traced to the types involved. Since the early 1990’s the budgets shrunk so much that it is mostly matter of not financing spares buys. In France you have the contrast between Rafales in operations (real war) where it’s nearing 100% availability and at home where it’s more around 50%… the spares go to real operations and the government doesn’t allow sufficient budget to have enough for both. In Germany, the situation is even worse for the military where the allowances are even lower

it’s even simpler than that:

in the west, during the cold war, there was a real fear, fear nourished by continuous propaganda as well, that the soviets were about to attack (the same was true on the other side). What’s more, there were historical precedents of “nasty surprises” like the Mig15 in Korea, which proved that the soviets were nowhere near that far behind as it was previously believed. Technology wise, it was the russians who sent the first satellite into space, first man in space as well. As far as aircraft go, in the mid-1950’s, the Russians were working on the likes of the M50 bomber which, even by todays standards, would be a beast:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-50

Not surprising that such arguments about the Mig25 could be heard.

I could add that I saw a Mig31 make its demonstration flight in Le Bourget Airshow back in 1991.. while it wasn’t as agile as an F-16, in energy maneuvering it was something to see, hear… and feel (when it pulled straight up above the crowd, one could feel the rumble from the ground and every part of one’s body.. a beast demo like I’ve never seen before or after that). Now, if one compares the Mig31 to the Mig25 contemporaries (the F-4 for example), it is not at all certain it would have any trouble playing around the Phantom, using energy tactics which are supposed to be the Phantom’s strong points

chances are they consider that less moving parts and less edges you have, the better…

it’s a concept drawing anyway… there’s definitely nothing to considered as definitive for the final product on that picture

don’t really follow the idea that Rafale and Typhoon are reaching the end of development. I thought the French government were committed to Rafale long term and if Germany opts to replace Tornados with Typhoons further development would take place.

they try to find the argument they can.. juste as their statement about potential customers, between slovakia who already announced they took something else, India who has their own Tejas as the “light” part of their air force, Rafale as medium and Su-30 as Heavy, all three being produced (or planned to be) in India, has little logical reason to look after another platform which would be redundant, especially as it would be on the part of the market of Tejas, which a really Indian project

basically, like any commercial, they explain to you that they are the best, nicest and that you want and need them… up to you to see if you want to believe a commercial 😉 (“you” meaning “the potential customer” of course 😉 )

thing is, you don’t seem to realize that there are limits to what an aircraft can do, and these limits are to be respected… you talk about exceeding the VNE in a dive, close to the ground and outmanoeuvering a SAM coming your way with a 100t bomber… there isn’t a single aircraft of that size on this planet that is able to do so, not even a specifically designed bomber. So all that crap is simply a non issue as it is not and won’t ever be part of requirements… that is the first point.

2nd, you take a bank angle limit as something terribly bad.. once more, misunderstanding what you give as an example.. the limits you see a re to provide a certain amount of G’s in a coordinated level turn.. anything else (climbing or diving) and your limits to through the window, as the aircraft will easily and rapidly reach its max AoA (which is the real stall limit) regardless of its bank angle if trying to manoeuver in 3D… it was not designed for that purpose and would require to either change wings or keep flying stable and “easy” patterns.. those are airliners, made for efficient fast subsonic high altitude flight, meaning they generate as little drag as possible (and that means also little lift). If any is transformed into a bomber, it will be reworked a lot, and what you can read about civiliant aircraft limitations, regardless if you understand it or not) will be irrelevant anyway

stay low, using terrain to give as little opportunities as possible to teh jets, and, if engaged, if they have something like sidewinders at their disposal, they can, eventually, shoot back, but the window of opportunity is extremely small (the jet eventually passes at an acceptable distance in a matter of seconds)

er, the CG in an A320 moves within its envelope with fuel movement between tanks, passengers disposition and so on, but in any case it remains forward (stable). You can always get back to basic (direct) flight mode if onboard computer is really messed up, something that would be impossible with an instable aircraft (instable that would not be accepted for certification for civilian transport)