I never cease to be amazed by the energy people expend in those flamewars.

And the in-depth knowledge by so many people of classified information is truly impressive.

 

Why, every time I've talked to people involved in serious defense projects and started asking even remotely interesting  questions, they've shut down like clams. Even after three double straight whiskeys, it's amazing how these people sober up when you ask about, for instance, the maximum spread of a single missile's mirvs.

 

I don't know anybody involved in EW, but I note that every time I read about air exercises, critical systems are never turned on when another country is present and might listen.

 

I have no doubt that the US is very good at EW and that France is pretty good at it. But I also note that the Soviet/Czech passive tracking system was a shocking discovery for NATO when details about it surfaced in the 1990's.

 

And I also note that the next really innovative and/or complex weapons system which performs as advertised on its first actual battlefield use will be the first.

 

 

 

 

French aircrafts tend to be better and stronger built than their Russians and Americans counterparts . Migs , SUs , Eagles , Hornets , F-117s (to cite just a few) are known to decay rapidly with time , we never had to ground any Mirage because of 'cracks' , wing loss during a flight , weak undercarriage , etc . That has a cost because you employ better materials to start with and you design the aircraft with a better safety margin . In France , we don 't cut corners during design and fabrication . We use the best alloys and the best synthetics and it is expensive . Did you know that the Rafale 's airframe and mechanical components were tested at 185% (!) which is nearly twice stronger than the aircraft will ever need to be ? Check the FoxThree publications , it is clearly said and explained . That has a cost but you 'll never had to ground the fighter to repare , fix or change anything which is a very expensive (and annoying) thing to do . Our fighters don 't rust away easily .

Congratulations. I am glad that the French aerospace industry has come along way since the utter rubbish designed and sold during the 1960s-1970s. Unfortunately, not all your Miracles survived without cracks, faults, fatigue etc. Curiously though, the over-engineered Bug (to cite but one), which was designed for demanding maritime environs has outlasted and outperformed many a Miracle and its ilk.

 

I'm glad you didn't mention the Atar. Surely one of the worst turbojet engines this side of 1945.

 

Warpig , I like your last post very much . I wish the other known and usual posters would do the same , I mean thinking before typing , taking the time to do research and understand what is at hand . We must thank Herald (I already did) to give us such usefull material with that study . I did not know of Prof. Fleeman but he is obviously an expert . His maths are well beyond mines , light years away I must say . But I understand the study good enough to be able to talk and argue about it .

Back to the topic .You said :

 

 

 The unit embarked on the Charles de Gaulle in 2002, becoming fully operational on 25 June 2004, following an extended opeval (operational evaluation) which included flying limited escort and tanker missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom over Afghanistan.

The Armee de l'Air received its first three Rafale Bs (to F2 standards) in late December 2004.

Important dates from Rafale programe include:

• 1983 April: Dassault awarded contract for ACX (Rafale A) technology demonstrator
• 1985 France formally withdraws from Eurofighter programme, committing to Rafale project.
• 1986 July 4: First flight of Rafale A; December: Development of SNECMA M88 engines commences
• 1988 April: First order signed (for Rafale C prototype).
• 1990 February: Flight tests of M-88 begin
• 1991 May 19: First flight of Armée de l'Air single seat prototype (Rafale C); December 12: First flight of Aéronavale prototype (Rafale M)
• 1992 Rafale M carrier trials programme begins
• 1993 March: First contract for production aircraft signed. April: Start of carrier compatibility trials with Foch. April 30: First flight of Armée de l'Air twin seat prototype (Rafale B)
• 1995 June: First MICA fired from Rafale in self guided mode. July: OSF system and helmet-mounted sight/display installed and tested. September: Rafale M tested on board carrier (4th series). November: First non-stop long-range flight by Rafale B01 (3,020 nm in under 6 hours 30 minutes). October: Final land-based carrier test series of Rafale M in the USA. December: First production model fuselage assembly.
• 1996 March: M88 engine "flightworthiness" qualified. April: Production suspended, restarted in January 1997 following cost reductions. May: Low level tests with digital terrain database. July: Spectra electronic warfare system integration tests in anechoic chamber. November: Spectra flight tested. December: First deliveries of production standard engines.
• 1997 February: Rafale B01 flight tested in heavyweight configuration (2 Apache ASMs, three 2,000l drop tanks, two Magic and two MICA AAMs). May: First inertially-guided MICA firing. June: Flight testing of Spectra countermeasures system. October: First production RBE2 radar flown for the first time. November: Inertially-guided firing of missiles against two targets, with aircraft-to-missile link, with countermeasures.
• 1998 June: Qualification of MICA fire control system. Proposed initial operational capability evaluated by Navy and Air Force pilots flying Rafale B01 and M02 development aircraft. November 24: First flight of production Rafale (a Rafale B)
• 1999 May: First test launch of SCALP EG cruise missile. July 6: First deck landing of Charles de Gaulle afgan. July 7: First flight of production Rafale M
• 2000 July 20: First Rafale M delivered to Flotille 12F
• 2002 Rafale M entered service with 12F (Aeronavale, evaluation)
• 2004 Full service entry with 12F (Navy); September 9: First Meteor GHTM (General Handling Training Missiles) carriage trials by Rafale M from CEV Istres; June:December: Three Rafale Bs delivered to CEAM, Mont de Marsan
• 2005 September 11: First Meteor GHTM carriage trials by Rafale M from the carrier Charles de Gaulle.
• 2006 Summer: Formation of EC 1/7 with 8?10 aircraft
• 2007 Full service entry (Air Force) expected with EC7; First landing of Rafale M on US Navy carrier USS Enterprise
• 2008 Rafale qualified to full F3 standard^[14]

 

OK BW,                                                                                                                            Seems the very first flight of the M version was 1999. I'm just a reader on here, but I don't think that constitutes *operational* with a flight of 1 does it? It does appear Leroy is correct and the Rafale was operational in 2004 for the Navy. What is more shocking to me is the airplane started design phase back in 1983 and the first test a/c flew in 1986. That's almost 23 years ago BW. How can you keep saying an a/c that first flew 23 years ago is NOT a 4th gen a/c? I'm no Herald or Leroy or some of the others with their knowledge about a/c. But it seems even to someone such as me that the Rafale in not only a 4th gen a/c, but an early version 4th gen a/c at that. This a/c started in 1983 and as of July 2008 had a total of 294 ordered, 59 delivered. Maybe it's just me, but that just does not seem very impressive.                                                                                                                              Beazz

I know that I deal with a fanboy, and someone who has trouble with something called the truth, but what the hey, I'm bored.....  

 

Bluewings12       12/29/2008 8:02:29 PM

That 's the best , lol ! Leroy , the Rafale was operational with the RBE2 on the carrier CdG in 1999 . No need to say more , check your facts first ...

 

That aircraft was undergoing test and eval in 1999 from the Chuckles de Gaulle. That is like saying the X-47C UCAS is in service because it is undergoing test and eval. dummy.  TWO were available for show the flag flights in 2002 from the Chuckles when they showed up in Afghanistan. That was an effort to drum up sales for the bird and to prove to the puzzled Franch tax payer that there were actual SQUALLS flying when Dassault claimed there were (There were TWO). Five years later and that plane is just NOW IOC with the AdA

Then , when I am talking about visually ID a far awar fighter , I don 't mean using a pod like most US planes . We have the OSF thank you , that 's one more free hardpoint . Anyway , you dodge what you can 't win . Exemple :

 

 

DAMOCLES, dummy.

"Proof ! We want proof ! But you don 't have any I am afraid ... At the contrary , every test did validate the MICA 's design . We 've been trough this before and you were all unable to prove anything . Me , I say that MICA is better than both Aim-9x and AMRAAM . Prove me wrong ..."

 

Just did. AIM9X outturns because its a smaller less massivw rocket with better fins and thrust vectoring and AIM 120 outreaches it by better than 50%.

 

That last part was for you, JIB. Nothing I discuss is classified or beyond public data access.

 

 

Herald

 

 

This is of course correct, as you said it is more or less common sense.   When dealing with a short range missile a shorter burn profile is preferable.  It allows the missile to reach its target more quickly and with more energy.  An AMRAAM would still be accelerating in some short range shots, but that isn't really what it was designed to do.  This is just one example of a case where a trait that is desirable in a short range missile is not in a longer ranged missile.  The whole point is that  in order to save money and effort France decided to design a missile capable of performing as both a WVR and BVR weapon.  Such an approach is not without trade-offs.  Anyone with even a little actual knowledge recognizes this.

 

For a look at a similar but somewhat better executed approach to the same problem, look up the Israeli Python and Derby missiles.  The Derby was produced by adding a larger motor and an active radar seeker to what is otherwise more or less a Python-4/5.  The end result in this case was two different missiles rather than a single missile that tries to act in both roles, but it still allowed the Israelis to save a great deal of time and money.  The Derby is limited by its relatively small size for a BVR weapon, but it is better optimized for its mission than the Mica.

 

 

"I just explained why I disagree on some points . The fact is that France did not try to beat the US missiles (others already did) but tried to build a missile good at everything . Don 't give me the "jack of all trade" BS , MICA is as good at WVR than at BVR . Very few missiles are better than the AIM-9x and AMRAAM , MICA being one of them ."

 

lol, that must be why the Mica is in such great demand right?  Think about it, a single missile that beats the US's best short range missiles and long range missiles at the same time. 

 

...and yet there isn't exactly a line at the door to buy it.

 

According to Janes, Mica was exported to Taiwan in 1996, Qatar in 1998, UAE in 1998, and Greece in 2000. (and that is it so far, with Pakistan a possible future buyer)

 

You know what I notice about those countries? Three of the four went on to buy AMRAAMs later.  

 

Taiwan in 2000 and 2007, UAE in 2000 and 2008, and Greece in 1998 and 2003.

 

You know what else is interesting?  The AMRAAM has been purchased by ~35 different countries... that is quite a few countries spending quite a few billions of dollars on missiles, and that doesn't count the AIM-9x, just the AMRAAM.

 

Why don't you go ahead and ponder on the implications of that a little bit kid. 

 

 

Warpig , I like your last post very much . I wish the other known
and usual posters would do the same , I mean thinking
before typing , taking the time to do research and understand what is
at hand . We must thank Herald (I already did) to give us such
useful material with that study . I did not know of Prof. Fleeman
but he is obviously an expert . His maths are well beyond mines ,
light years away I must say . But I understand the study good enough
to be able to talk and argue about it .

Back to the topic .You said :

CREF bolded:Take your own

advice, fan boy

boost, and only has the first vertical rectangle.  Now look on
Slide 46, that's the shape of the typical velocity curve of a boost +
sustain missile like AMRAAM.  MICA's would be just the boost
portion immediately followed by the coast portion.  Then Slide
47 is one way to show how that velocity over time translates into
distance flown.""

Your analysis wouldn't be complete
without looking at the slide 51 and 52 which show the gliding . Then
, you have to add the slide 34 and 35 about initial velocity . It is
the reason why I (and the numbers) can 't entirely agree with you . I
explain by using your words :

""MICA will boost for a few seconds and peak at M4+, maybe
about M4.5.  After that it is coasting toward its target.""

Specifically 6-7 seconds, then
flame out. After that it is lift drag, gravity and that is all. The
rocket begins falling immediately and loses energy once thrust
ceases.

What people should take into account is
HOW a missile is coasting to its target . In
this regard , all missiles are different . Different diameters ,
different weight , different size to length ratio , different
surfaces , different canards (if any) , different wings (if any) ,
etc . It is very complicated . MICA has its advantages and they are
not just only few . More on this in a moment .

A missile falls using the same
physics (ballistics) that every falling object uses.

I will discuss why BW is full of
horse manure at that time-since it is obvious from reading this CRAP
that he got someone to explain to him these charts and generic
graphs, that he doesn't understand at all. What he's apparently done
is talk to someone with just a bit more knowledge than he has, and he
has latched onto a few concepts and buzz words without realizing
exactly what the other person tried to explain to him. .

""AMRAAM will boost for a few seconds up to M3.5+, and then
sustain for another ten seconds or so, and get up to maybe at most
M4.  After that it is coasting toward its target.  If the
AMRAAM curves look like the ones in the briefing, then the MICA
curves will peak higher during the boost phase, then proceed to taper
off during the coast phase.  What will happen if overlayed on
Slides 42 and 47 is that the MICA curve initially peak higher than
the AMRAAM curve, but then because the AMRAAM is still boosting while
MICA is already coasting, MICA will at some point cross over the
AMRAAM curve.""

10 seconds+ The AMRAAM has a tandem
burn rocket motor like many extended range A2A missiles. The Super
530D in its latest longer  candle iteration (German technical help) also uses
a tandem burn motor. What that means is that the first burn part of
the fuel candle burns sharply with as great as a specific impulse as
you can manage out of it for acceleration to its best cruise Mach number for
the rocket aeroshell. This typically is around Mach 4-5 for a missile
like AMRAAM. That will be around 2-4 seconds depending on the rocket.
Then the long burn part of the candle is consumed at a reduced
specific impulse to sustain the that velocity over the rest of the
flypout. This means that rockets whose size would normally dictate a
sharp burn of less than 10 seconds and a maximum velocity of around
Mach 6.5 can trade a little velocity for endurance and range as the
rocket uses the extra burn time to exploit LIFT.

This is exactly the REVERSE of what
happens that the fan boy claimed above. You will notice in a previous
post that I pointed this out and that he missed this? It is why I
used the 530D (long) as the example to illustrate that even the
French recognize this simple fact. Using a tandem burn candle in the
530 D literally doubled the flyout and engagement MER of that rocket
from something a little shy of 30 kilometers separation at a
head-on pass same altitude launch aircraft to target to something
just over 60 kilometers MER same conditions.

Nope because MICA glides twice better
than AMRAAM . It also offers better end game maneuvering .

L/W calls you a liar BW.

Numbers

MICA 3100/160=19.375 +
[4.844 (25% for strakes lift)- 2.906 (15% for strakes drag)]=21.259

AMRAAM 3660/178= 20.562 and with
no strakes to add drag those numbers are within 1% of lift.

AMRAAM has very roughly 0.96% the
overall lift efficiency of the MICA. 4% is still a significant edge,
but the BW LIE is still a LIE.

""Translation:  MICA can get to the target faster than
AMRAAM if the target is relatively close (say maybe out to 5 to 10
miles away at time of launch), but AMRAAM will actually get to the
target first if the target is relatively far away at time of launch""

This is correct at the AMRAAM
mid ranges. Tandem burn candle means longer sustained maximum
sustained velocity over flyout for the AMRAAM. Means that the thrust
,drag, and lift plus gravity COMBINED is doing more work on the
rocket body longer. PHYSICS. Four forces act versus two (gravity and
DRAG) on MICA to giuve extended RANGE.

No . MICA will get to the target before
the AMRAAM at up to 20 miles . After , AMRAAM will slowly come
shoulder to shoulder with MICA (at 30 miles) then both missile will
be gliding (AMRAAM having a slightly better speed at that time) 
. At that point AMRAAM sinking rate will be superior to MICA because
it has 't chord wings and because its rear fins do not provide as
much lift as MICA 's .

Another lie: MICA tops out at
roughly 7 seconds. Flame out comes after about &let;7500 meters and then
velocity dies RAPIDLY due to drag {strakes}. This velocity will decrease
rapidly over tau so that the break even with AMRAAM will be at 30 kilometers not
miles.

Assuming 4 second sharp burn and 6
second sustainer burn on the AMRAAM we have flame out at 11000
meters. THEN AMRAAM because of her cleaner and less draggy aeroshell
and 0.96 the lift of the MICA will outreach her competitor by a
significant margin with enough residual potential; energy left to
hit at TWICE the effective MER at most aspects. The fools who
designed MICA were aiming for a missile that could exploit the CRAP
RBE2 radar. Rough rule of thumb is that the radar has to see 3x the
MER of the rocket it supports. The idiots at THALES aimed for a
radar in the 160 kilometer detect fighter-0sized object range. The
MICA is designed specifically to that requirement-right down to the
single sharp burn candle rocket motor they chose. MER is less than 80
kilometers distance by separation-and with the design defects thrown in
that rocket; its actual MER is that of a direct look track lead
missile-not a BVR capabl;e weapon with an effective active radar seeker that looks for the target at the merge  as claimed .

The "old" French Matra Super
530D was already known for that very reason : (quote)

Liar. The Matra Magic is a WVR
missile The 530 D is a tandem burn missile these days; that
doesn't even work like a MICA-so who are you trying to kid? SARH
tandem burn rocket that works; versus an ATG sharp burn single thrust
rocket whose RH seeker is myopic and whose telemetry update doesn't
work at all?

"This
missile , with its unusual fin configuration , was able to outflying
any other air-to-air missile of its day with the sole exception of
the Phoenix"

The Phoenix (a better rocket with a
better Pk than MICA) was based on the Falcon Genie-a 1950s design.
Back then strakes were needed for pointing at a target as the thrust
vectoring nozzles of the day were primitive. Rockets have improved
McGee. France is stuck in the 1950s?

It could also reach Mach 4.5 and that
was in 1988 .

Look at the top-out for SPARROW,
dummy, 1961.

You also said about the AMRAAM :

""and also actually have a longer range overall than MICA""

Sorry , not proven
yet .

Just proved BY THE NUMBERS.

""I am certain Dwightlooi, Herald, Phaid, and Leroy would
all back me up on this, and if you had any rational common-sense,
that would be enough for you to accept it's true, regardless of
whether you think it should be true or not.""

I just explained why I disagree on some
points . The fact is that France did not try to beat the US missiles
(others already did) but tried to build a missile good at everything
. Don 't give me the "jack of all trade" BS , MICA is as
good at WVR than at BVR . Very few missiles are better than the
AIM-9x and AMRAAM , MICA being one of them . The others :- ASRAAM .
The ASRAAM is unique in current WVR missiles, using a very high
impulse motor to accelerate the missile to speeds faster than any WVR
missile, and providing range performance competitive with many BVR
missiles. While the missile does not use thrust vector control, its
high acceleration permits similar tight turns post launch, allowing
'over the-shoulder' shots from aircraft equipped with HMS .

And you make this BS up as you go
along.

The ASRAAM is unusual in that it uses a
very AMRAAM like architecture in its rocket motor. Sharp burn start
then a short timer sustainer. The rocket also uses a TVC scheme that
makes it competitive with Iris-T as a turner. It is a FAR more
advanced design than MICA and probably far more effective as a WVR
than many credit it. I will say that it is the BEST British rocket
for what its intended to do that I've ever seen.

While I doubt of
its end game , the ASRAAM is an excellent design . AIM-9X is probably
a better dogfighter .

A2A Missiles don't
dogfight, fool. They chase you. What you wanted to say was that you
think the AIM 9x was a better close pass to target high off boresight
launch and chase missile. You would be wrong as usual but that is
what you tried to say. The correct statement is that the AIM 9X is
like the IRIS-T, more agile in the turn than the ASRAAM and with an
IR seeker with a slightly. better designed sensitivity, better spoof
proofing, and wider FoV for the close turning fight. .

• 
  

  Rafael
  Python-5 . This one is as deadly as it gets . It works with a
  two-colour FPA detector, similar to the AIM-developed QWIP FPA , a
  generation beyond the single colour InSb FPAs in the ASRAAM and
  AIM-9X (yes
  , check it) . In fact , its IR seeker works in a similar manner to
  the one on the IR MICA , a dual band imagery with integrated cooling
  .

  
  

Read that one out of wiki, fan boy?

-AA-11 Archer . The R-73M variant
increased range and improved off boresight capability to 60 degrees.
The latest R-74 includes digital processing techniques, and is
claimed to have a 75-degree off boresight capability. It is likely
that future R-74 derivatives will include FPA seeker technology .
Another deadly dogfighter

Yep, either that, or you cut and
pasted it from some air combat game you have stashed away
somewhere, fan boy. PATHETIC.

My mistake. You pulled that crap off
Air Power Australia from a guy named GRISHA, ROTFLMAO!

.

**********

Now , Leroy ... As usual , very poor
talk but let 's start with something obvious :

""The seeker of a missile is not a substitute for a real
IRST""

Here , we agree but it is still a
useful IR imagery at up to 35km . Thanks to JP.Bergerac and his
brilliant post no long ago , we know now that a passive shot is
possible with IR MICA and the LRF only . AIM-9X and AMRAAM equipped
fighters can 't .

1. IR blob detectors are not imaging
cameras, dummy.

2, And I read that other dummy,
too. No range-no drop basket as you've been told for years. QUIT
trying to pass that LIE, or cite another fool to bolster your own
lying.

""The Rafale wasn't truly operational until what? 2004?
(and even then with only a handful of aircraft) Having a few radars
flying around during an R&D program is not "operational."
""

I say :

You answer with :

""lol, sorry kid, it isn't that easy.   Even a
basic understanding of the principals at play here would give you the
answer, but you don't want a real answer. You prefer your fantasy
that the Rafale is something it isn't. I am not going to waste time
proving the sky is blue to you.""

Lolol ! What a artful argument , I
am impressed ...

I 'll try to answer to the other
posters later , when I 'll have time again .

Cheers .

As you can see, fanboy, I not only
proved you wrong, and as usual a liar, with simple math and open
source knowledge, I didn't even have to reach for any esoteric
knowledge to do so.

I really need to proofread this stuff.

 

 Herald

 

It is both classic and ironic that a thread titled F-22 v. Eurofighter ends up with BW twisting the subject back to his favorite fantasy plane - Rafale.

 

BW - I thought you left for good?  Apparently I was either mistaken or you changed your mind.  However, for the gazzillioneth time - 3 items about Rafale that you simply cannot avoid:

 

1 - NO sales.

2 - NO AESA radar.

3 - NO laser targeting pod.

 

The first item on the list is the killer.  Face the facts - Rafale is rapidly becoming a footnote in aviation and has little prospect of exceeding a production run of 200 units.  Even Libya turned it down.

 

While the F-22 may very well be limited to near 200 in its production run - that is not without a load of potential foreign buyers trying everything short of bribery to get the USAF to change its mind about exporting the Raptor. 

 

I don't see Australia or Israel lining up to buy the Rafale - and both were Mirage users - one unhappy and one quite happy.  In fact, I don't see any Mirage owners kicking the tires except India and the UAE.  They don't appear to be thrilled either.

 

It's a 1980s Cold War - GEN 4 - design.  The kind of stuff you have hanging on it makes the plane a SA-10 crew's wet dream in terms of radar returns.  The only combat experience it has is acting as a bomb truck for the M2K - something that even a C-130 could do.

 

Don't bother to reply - make a new thread if you want to discuss Rafale.  Otherwise stick to the subject line.

"I don't see Australia or Israel lining up to buy the Rafale - and both were Mirage users - one unhappy and one quite happy.  In fact, I don't see any Mirage owners kicking the tires except India and the UAE.  They don't appear to be thrilled either."

 

According to bluewing's version of reality... the Rafale is just the most amazing aircraft ever designed, and it carries the most amazing missile ever designed, and the most amazing EW suite ever designed, and the most amazing IRST/TV system ever designed.

 

Sounds pretty cool huh?

 

...but there is a problem...

 

Nobody seems to agree with him.

 

Even France has cut its production rate back to roughly 1 aircraft per month, a trickle that suggests even France doesn't know what to do with its wonder plane.

 

Despite France's best efforts to sell the Rafale, it hasn't gotten even a single sale.  Not one single third rate force has chosen the Rafale.  According to bluewings that is because the big mean US cheats and pressures potential buyers not to buy his favorite airplane... and yet the EF has sales... the Gripen has sales... the Su-27 has sales... even Chinese jets have sales... Funny how that works isn't it?

 

While I am at it... his wonder missile that is better than both the AIM-9x and the AMRAAM... has only been exported to a handful of countries  Why is that?  Is it the big mean US pressuring buyers again?  What about all the forces still operating the Mirage?  Why aren't they rushing to buy this amazing new missile?  Why aren't the various European air forces begging to have the MICA integrated onto their jet of choice?

 

 

And I've even told you why.

 

Herald

 

Any chance of a full tranche 3 buy for the RAF after all the careful financial management of late?

The RAF* have been having a pop at carrier based, fixed wing, aviation again, so I am guessing no.

 

*rumours and back channels, all very deniable.

 

Some work on controlling manufacturing costs per unit and improve A2G weapons integration and the Typhoon beats everything out there in those markets' requirements except BEAGLE (end of the upgrade line for that bird) asnd Super Hornet (seriously compromised as a multi-mission bird with some aerosherll issues-Argentina would like her as would Brazil for naval roles, bit rememeber their anti-American bias.)

 

Tranche 3 domestic (backfits as well) is quite possible with some (two?) more good foreign sales orders. 1000 aircraft ordered or built would be the break even for it when it looks to replace Sparky as choice 2, globally.

 

Naval Typhoon from carriers is right out. The only way that happens is with a strengthened bird airframe; with a redesigned landing gear and catapult harness and arrestor hook.  

Bizarre remote outside possibility is that Typhoon will enter US service when we find we need to replace fatigued F-15Cs and we can't restart the Raptor line after that fool, Gates, shuts it down.

 

Even the USAF needs a good dedicated MANNED A2A bird for air defense with secondary A2G.

 

That isn't the SQUALL for us, and it isn't the real role for the Sparky for us, either.

 

Herald

 

 

 

I don't know.....but there is a fair chance that Typhoon will wind up as the air superiority fighter of choice for those who don't buy Sukhois and who won't buy American. In other words, South America and the PACRIM will be looking to replace many aircraft soon. Many of those air forces look to air defense and air interception missions as their first priority, and expect A2G to be secondary.