ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...

Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
Typhoon is an interceptor.
I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
good
multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.


This is nonsense.

Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

Brooks