Again since you seem to be struggling with the concept…

Different planes will be assigned to different missions, and different planes will go about similar missions in different ways.

Imagine two aircraft, one an F-16A and one an F-16E. They are both assigned to drop bombs on two similar targets.

The F-16A is going to go in daylight because it has to, and it is going to dive bomb the target with dumb bombs because that is pretty much the only option it has.

The F-16E might choose to go at night, and to stay at high altitude and employ a LGB… it has this choice because it can operate at night and can employ smart weapons from high altitude, options that just aren’t available to the other F-16.

Now, who’s mission is riskier?

Certainly the F-16A will be exposed to greater risk, but if you swapped the targets the F-16E would still fly the same way and would still be exposed to less risk. The issue here isn’t really one of whether the missions were riskier but one of whether one platform is more capable than another.

Following from this… if you were a higher level planner looking at a list of targets, you would likely assign the targets you believed were the toughest to the most capable aircraft you had available. Despite doing so, the less capable aircraft might still take greater losses. (leading certain types to conclude that it was the less capable aircraft that were flying the “riskiest missions” and the more capable aircraft that were somehow flying the “safe” missions. )

You can’t just take data and leap to conclusions. You have to think.

your only problem here is that in Desert Storm, the F-16s and others had attacked the same types of targets in the same environments (and also in more dangerous ones) as the F-117 did… with similar results. it’s not speculation, it’s simply the facts. Now, if on does think (something you seem to be asking for), same targets for same results obviously show no particular advantage for this or that aircraft… except eventually the cost of attacking them, the legacy fighter is much cheaper to operate, thus in the bang for the buck department, it wins hands down

the inlet was on the table already for the EAU if they were willing to pay for it (as they asked for a more powerful engine in the first place), so, it seems that it’s not so impossible to redo. what’s more, there were talks about a “silent rafale”, and, unless they redesign a completely new aircraft (in which case it would probably have another name) it would be modifications on the existing core.

active stealth, they already gave a few hints that they are working that way, and, in any case, aknowledged that SPECTRA’s job was, among other things, to make the aircraft difficult to lock for a radar or make it completely disappear from the scope… how far they managed to develop it would be a secret, obviously… and necessarily something they’d keep for real war use only (not in exercises, as one may understand, since everybody, as a good friend, is “listening” to whatever they can gather from the others)

In any case, the simple fact that the French plan to keep the Rafale as a first line fighter for such a long period is the obvious indication that they plan to keep upgrading it in order to remain current.

well, of course, we don’t speak about the Rafale as it is today. The basic airframe is supposed to remain the same (more or less) and the currency of the system to be maintained by the regular updates. Look at the Mirage 2000, the basic airframe design dates from the late seventies (service entry in 1984, which will be about 30 years by now), and considering that fighters are to remain in service more and more as the time passes by (too costly to change them so often as before, and they are also made with upgrades in mind)

As is, aerodynamically, the Rafale reaches pretty much the limits of what its pilot can sustain anyway, so, unless you find a way to suppress accelerations from the cockpit, you won’t get much more except by modules (new engines, new versions of SPECTRA, new versions of radar, some frame mods as needed, like larger intakes for a more poweful engine, etc…) which would allow the aircraft to remain quite potent for a long time.

The only significant difference with some aircraft pretending to be a generation ahead would be the passive stealth, something the French have pretty much pushed aside considering that it will be more efficient to aim the active (evolutive) ways to achieve it rather than just shaping. Therefore, if the fundings follow (plausible solution as they have had quite a good budget management until now in the Rafale development), there’s no reason they don’t keep up with new developments as expected.

What one may also remember is the example of the F-15… first flight in 1972, today it is still the backbone of the USAF and will remain so for some time, as the F-22 is pretty much there for show only, being bought in too small numbers to take over. It’s more than 40 years since it flew and it is supposed to remain in service within the USAF way after 2025 (especially the F-15E, the version totalling less flying time than the others) Not to speak of the Silent Eagle which is still proposed and, if sold, will be in active service for even longer time

In the end, expecting it to remain there for so long may be quite a realistic idea… with eventually some new airframes acquired if necessary after 2020

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The F-35 can ingress highly defended airspace far better than any conventional aircraft and at SEAD it can close in for a higher pk shot, particularly important if there are long range SAMs and hostile aircraft in the vicinity. Those are fairly obvious facts and yes older generation aircraft are equally good when operating in sanitized air space.

er, the correct version would be:

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The F-35 SHOULD BE ABLE TO ingress highly defended airspace far better than any conventional aircraft and at SEAD it SHOULD BE ABLE TO close in for a higher pk shot, particularly important if there are long range SAMs and hostile aircraft in the vicinity. Those are fairly obvious expectations and yes older generation aircraft SHOULD BE equally good when operating in sanitized air space.

the reality is that today the F-35 can’t do it, while eurocanards have already a pretty good ability for that (Rafale for example) and keep developing it, and it will require a whole bunch software developments, tests etc, for several years to come to reach operational capability that you and LM EXPECT to reach… and by that time, others will have moved forward as well, so the difference there may eventually be will have to be measured (or at least estimated) when all of them are operational.. for now, it’s only just hopes and goals, nothing more

considering that the French offered Brazil the latin american market, such markings may eventually become reality one day… sooner or later, chances are that Argentina gets some new fighters, and if there are Rafales made in Brazil, they may be an interesting solution for them. They have a good chance to be cheaper to build than in France, and, what’s more, they won’t suffer from high Euro currency, allowing for an even more interesting price (if calculated in dollars)…

With regard to the one-to-one replacement, lets assume it was indeed a requirement, one that will clearly not be met. No issues. The trouble starts when this is presented as evidence of a failed program.

The Rafale was expected to replace the Mirage 2000C, Mirage F1 & Super Etendard on a near 1-1 basis (225/320), the Eurofighter was supposed to replace the Tornado and Jaguar (160/232) and the F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15 1-1 (187/750). Given the reduction in the size of the SwAF over the last two decades, I’d imagine the same applies to the Gripen as well. In fact the only fighter aircraft that has met or exceeded production expectations is the Super Hornet and that too only because of the delays in the F-35.

Point is, the production numbers itself are a less than damning indictment of the F-35. It will be the most widely produced aircraft since the F-16, and is therefore bound to be good value for money (as is reflected in the most recent contracts). [That said, if they’d cancelled it and built 2000 units of an evolved F-22, that would have become the most cost-effective fighter in the world, at least from an acquisition perspective.] For an export customer that faces the possibility of fighting even a moderately advanced adversary, the F-35 is an obvious choice.

there’s one slight difference there:

the fighters you cited as examples were required to replace types on a 1:1 basis when they were developed, which is when teh Cold War was still a reality. When the Cold War ended, budgets and fighter fleets shrinked for everybody, which brings quite understandable reductions in numbers… add to that the current economical situation and it only makes things worse.

The F-35 was marketed as an affordable fighter required to replace on a 1:1 basis the already reduced fleets. Its development started in the 1990’s and everybody had already reduced their defense budgets. When you look at the projected prices, you can notice that most fighters you talk about went somewhat above, but not much, except the F-35 whose price went through the ceiling, forcing a reduction in numbers with pretty much every nation that preordered it

Well we certainly agree here, not that it stopped them from trying anyway. With better planning Europe might have built two designs, one twin engined and similar to the Eurofighter and one single engined and similar to the Gripen. An opportunity lost.

one thing you seem to forget is that Europe is not a single country. it’s multiple sovereign nations that have own political interests and cultural and historical backgrounds… leading to different requirements from the operational and economical (production) point of view; not to speak about rivalries that existed among them for centuries (and still do)

therefore, there’s nothing like “better planning” that could have existed, by the end of the last century… neither then, nor even now as there’s no real common government, military or budget to speak of

So the opposition are constantly looking for hot objects in the sky? That may be a way of future detection, but hypothetically surely radar is the primary long range detection tool.

If we work on the assumption that these mach 6+ aircraft have a significantly reduced radar signature, they aren’t detected from long range but can be tracked by their large thermal signature once detected. How much warning does the s400 battery have and what sort of maths can we (well mostly you guys) throw at the the question – can an S400 intercept a Mach 6 SR72 type aircraft at 100,000 ft?

Is it a similar question to whether the 1960s/70s Soviet air defences (with lower top speeds) could intercept an SR71 at Mach 3+ and 90,000 odd feet?

As I said, I have not the engineering skills to address this in a sensible manner but I still think its going to be a push.

And here is Kingfish design of late 1950s vintage:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222690[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222691[/ATTACH]

well, if you read my previous post, the S-400 is given to be able to intercept targets up to 30km+ altitude (around 100000ft and up to 4.8km/s (that would be about Mach 17), so probably it would be able to reach its target, providing it passes in firing range.

besides, about the detection: if you get a strategic asset like the SR-72 in service, you can be sure pretty much any designer of advanced detection systems will put a wide angle lens in front of a big IR sensor and mount it on a system, so to be able to watch the sky… the principle is relatively simple (for once), and it’s mostly the treatment of the signal that will be the key, but not something beyond the abilities of most optronic systems makers… and anything coming at it at such speeds and altitudes will be seen from a very long range… in the end, the only way for such a vehicle to avoid interception by advanced SAMs will be to avoid the areas they’re positioned in… the main problem for it will be that such detection system is totally passive and, therefore can hardly be detected and destroyed