No, the details are important.
If you don’t know the basics don’t begin to think you can arrive and attempt to lecture people and present your opinion and beliefs as worthwhile.
That in itself is insulting.

Seriously? He didn’t even specify ‘Mirages’ or ‘2000s’, he just said -9s? That’s a little too cryptic for non-Dassault enthusiasts. Just because I didn’t know that it doesn’t mean I don’t know far more than you about some other things, okay?

Cruise missiles like storm shadow will help F-35 strike from much longer distance than it’s combat radius

For example , F-35 have combat radius of about 1200 km, so with weapons like Gbu-12, SDB, SDB II, Spear it can only at ttack targets that located maximum of 1300 km from the airbase or aircraft carrier

By contrast weapon like JASSM-ER, Storm shadow allow it to strike target located 1700 – 2200 km from the airbase

Another valid reason, agreed. I don’t think I’m actually disagreeing with anything you’re saying so far.

You’ve been given the answer to that. Choosing to ignore it to continue with your own agenda does you no favours.

What answer was that? Mission risk and planning I accept, penetration vs GBU-24, uncertain. Either way EW capabilities played no part because the Libyan ADS wasn’t particularly useful to put it mildly.

Actually, it is the words “replace the Captor system” that make me think it includes Captor-M and -E.

No such plan exists or has ever been mentioned anywhere. Captor-X will remain the name of the Typhoon radar. The Captor-E is the new AESA radar, there is no other Typhoon AESA radar, hence why there’s only one possible interpretation of this text.

Considering they share the same back end

They don’t. Captor-E is getting a new back-end hence the vastly expanded capabilities and the length of development time.

It might be they could if they had bought a light single-engined fighter in the first place.

Projected operating costs are always lower than real operating costs. According to this they have T2s not T1s. 15 fighters hardly constitutes an airforce though, in fact anything less than 60-80 will cause you operational problems. Training still costs the same to develop whether you’re training 15 people or 150 people, then you have the relatively higher costs of purchasing smaller quantities of spares, effect of downtime etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Air_Force#Current_inventory

Hellfire missiles have millimeter wave radar seekers. The firing procedure is literally pop up from cover, lock on target, fire, pop down under cover and these days they can fire from a defilade. SAMs would have a difficult engagement problem against a target that behaves that way. If you have better missiles than the Hellfire i.e. greater range electro optical seeker with fire and forget capability the engagement problem for a SAM only gets worse and the target is harder to defend since you can’t jam a camera very easily. Fighters are another story but as I said before attack helicopters depend on air cover and the ability of your fighters to engage them in a really effective way depends on you getting air superiority or better yet air supremacy and I don’t see either the NATO air forces nor the RUAF being a pushover when it comes to gaining air supremacy. Another thing is that against fighters, attack helicopters aren’t as defenceless as people think. I remember reading about the USAF trying their hand at simulated combat where they sent fighters down into the lower airspace layers to hunt down gun ships simulating Russian Mil-24/35s and being rather surprised at the exchange rates they got. It’s not only that the helicopters are actually quite able to defend themselves if they have enough of situational awareness, but also that that part of the battlefield airspace is crawling with SAMs and AAA and fighters, unlike AH-64s and Ka-52s, can’t just pop into a depressions in the terrain to hide. I’m not saying that attack helicopters are invulnerable but they aren’t the sitting ducks they sometimes look like when you use them in nests of insurgency like Iraq where the Americans were lucky that the insurgents do not seem to have had access to large quantities of state-of-the-art MANPADS never mind mobile tactical SAM systems or a BUK launcher like the Russian paratroopers and irregulars in the East-Ukraine have. I expect the Iraqis would have given their eye teeth and a few other things as well for a few hundred SA-24s.

Depends how high their radar mast is. MMW radar is prone to good jamming though. A rearward-looking laser riding missile like Vikhr-M, less so, but it does have the disadvantage of not being FAF, range 12km. Depends how fighter attack the gunships, if done correctly the only worry is other fighters and SAMs. The idea is not to go into lower airspace and use missiles from range. Expensive AAMs are probably the wrong too for the job as well, when an AGM like a Maverick or Brimstone will do the job hansomely from 30,000ft, even a Vihkr-M from an Su-25 will, or Kh-25 for that matter. In fact helicopters are for the main best treated as ground targets from a fighter’s perspective. Direct top attacks with cannon fire are generally non-counterable from the helicopter’s perspective too, since point upwards for a long time is pretty impossible. Russian paras? I know someone speaking English was caught by a journo in Ukraine.

Iraqis had plenty of SAMs in 1991 but nothing really modern and by 2003 that was mostly gone. They had a good few ATGMs though, a few M1s destroyed but the best they managed on Challenger IIs was damaging the optics.

Hilarious. You say the ASRAAM ha s superior kinematic performance than MICA (which is ********) yet you consider the lack of datalink on ASRAAM, rendering longer distance shots against maneuvring targets impossible, as an advantage. Where’s the coherence in this ?

Why do you consider the kinematic performance claim BS? It has less wing area than MICA, marginally greater internal volume, a dual burn motor and 25kg less weight to hall. The range of the MICA VL is 20km, the range of CAMM (L/M) is 25km and that’s only 10% longer than the ASRAAM an is weighed down by a datalink. I could also mention CAMM-ER at this point but I’ll leave that topic. It’s kinematically the best short range AAM on the market. What’s the realistic engagement range at medium altitudes, i.e typical intercept altitudes, 25,000-36,000ft. I’m willing to bet it’s <40km for either missile, and probably <30km, making the target almost within seeker range from the get-go. Then you have LOAL target acquisition capability and a 90deg OBS. The R-27ET can also be fired in PPS mode without even having the benefit of the ASRAAM’s advanced seeker and INS strapdown.

On the seeker – where is’ it said that 7,8 NMI is the max range for the MICA IR seeker ? For your information, MICA IR is employed as IRST on Mirage 2000-5F and will be on Rafale after the removal of the FSO IR channel. I think it says enough on the MICA IR seeker capability.

7.8nm was the reported range of this OTS shot, I imagine that’s well within seeker range and that was my point, it’s nothing to do with Spectra accuracy.

Super 530D already had dual burn motor – so does the MICA.
MICA also retains the aerodynamic configuration of the Super 530 with long fuselage fins, providing lift and allowing the missile to maneuver well after the burn phase ends.

The peak manoeuvrability is 50g and it’s most manoevrable during burn phase due to TVC, therefore manoevrability afterwards is lower than 50g, single burn motor.

Now Lukos, get your facts right. You’re the only fisherman here.

I’m not the one who keeps trying to make the fish I caught bigger with every new telling of its story.