F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
But managing and winning the battle of the aircraft's energy states woudl certainly be critical in a knife fight.
The F/A-22's nominal thrust to weight ratio, and maximum thrust to weight ratio provide power to spare for both attack and defense maneuvers. This, combined with thrust vectoring and advanced, high off-boresight WVR AAM's like the AIM-9X, makes the Raptor a terrifying dogfighter.
There are already many stories about mock dogfights between a single Raptor against a group of the best front-line fighters it is meant to replace, and they usually end up being a one-sided smiting at the hands of the Raptor's pilot.
Honestly, I can not think of another case where there has been such a huge disparity in capapbility between one new fighter, versus all the other aircraft that it could possibly face in combat.
This new American plane seems to be an order of magnitude more effective than anything that has come before it.
The F/A-22's nominal thrust to weight ratio, and maximum thrust to weight ratio provide power to spare for both attack and defense maneuvers. This, combined with thrust vectoring and advanced, high off-boresight WVR AAM's like the AIM-9X, makes the Raptor a terrifying dogfighter.
There are already many stories about mock dogfights between a single Raptor against a group of the best front-line fighters it is meant to replace, and they usually end up being a one-sided smiting at the hands of the Raptor's pilot.
Honestly, I can not think of another case where there has been such a huge disparity in capapbility between one new fighter, versus all the other aircraft that it could possibly face in combat.
This new American plane seems to be an order of magnitude more effective than anything that has come before it.
Michael RVR
New Member
I don't think you can do a fair 1-1 comparison of the two. I don't think anyone would call the Rafale more advanced than the F-22, but there are numberous advantages.
A unit price of $34 million Euro's means that you might be able to buy 5 or 6 rafales for each F-22, and with reduced maintenance costs might be able to have more operational at any one time.
Would you bet that the F-22 could win in an 8-1 fight vs Rafales? I certainly wouldn't be so sure.
What I think this means is that while the F-22 is better, countries can look at the capabilities offered by the two aircraft and say, the Rafale provides better value for money.
I think this is one arena where the Rafale certainly has it on the F-22 hands down.
All that said though, if you have a bottomless pit of $$ to spend, then i'd go for the F-22.
A unit price of $34 million Euro's means that you might be able to buy 5 or 6 rafales for each F-22, and with reduced maintenance costs might be able to have more operational at any one time.
Would you bet that the F-22 could win in an 8-1 fight vs Rafales? I certainly wouldn't be so sure.
What I think this means is that while the F-22 is better, countries can look at the capabilities offered by the two aircraft and say, the Rafale provides better value for money.
I think this is one arena where the Rafale certainly has it on the F-22 hands down.
All that said though, if you have a bottomless pit of $$ to spend, then i'd go for the F-22.
If it takes 8 Rafales to match up to one F-22 those Rafales better be pretty cheap.Michael RVR said:Would you bet that the F-22 could win in an 8-1 fight vs Rafales? I certainly wouldn't be so sure.
All that said though, if you have a bottomless pit of $$ to spend, then i'd go for the F-22.
I can't believe this is serious!
8 Rafales versus 1 Raptor? As I recall, they've already had 8 F-15 versus 1 Raptor at Red Flag and (according to the Eagle Drivers interviewed) Raptor cleaned their clocks!:lol2
As for how we might get into a kicking contest with France, I would simply remind you of George Washington's Vision at Valley Forge. As published in 1859, the Vision showed Washington that there would be three great crises for America:
1) The American Revolution in which Washington was already taking part.
2) A War Between the States over Slavery - and this Vision was published approximately 2 years before the war started!
3) A war between the United States and the rest of the entire world - and I'd say that is becoming more possible every day! According to the Vision, Divine Intervention would be required to save the Republic in this third crisis.
Fox 3, Fox 3, you're dead! - 'Nough said!:sniper
8 Rafales versus 1 Raptor? As I recall, they've already had 8 F-15 versus 1 Raptor at Red Flag and (according to the Eagle Drivers interviewed) Raptor cleaned their clocks!:lol2
As for how we might get into a kicking contest with France, I would simply remind you of George Washington's Vision at Valley Forge. As published in 1859, the Vision showed Washington that there would be three great crises for America:
1) The American Revolution in which Washington was already taking part.
2) A War Between the States over Slavery - and this Vision was published approximately 2 years before the war started!
3) A war between the United States and the rest of the entire world - and I'd say that is becoming more possible every day! According to the Vision, Divine Intervention would be required to save the Republic in this third crisis.
Fox 3, Fox 3, you're dead! - 'Nough said!:sniper
Clarifications about Rafale avionics suit, on last news:
RBE2 is the "classic" radar of Rafale, with Passive antenna (same capabilities than active but less range and accuracy and not able to jam). But this is a multirole radar, able to do A2A and A2G mission.
OSF, IRST-TV-LASER suit, able to see at far range (order of 50NM) a fighter size target with the TV sensor, after the IR sensor can display a general view of all receivable air IR signals, and the laser used to help target designation.
SPECTRA, a lot of capabilities in this system, radar and laser jamming, RCS reduction, location of air threats and more...
The 3 sensors can be used to guide MICA missiles, claimed French Air Force officials when the first squadron declared operationnal.
Another thing, we don't have any good reasons to make the war agaisnt the United States because we have other matters which are called terrorism and peace maintaining.
RBE2 is the "classic" radar of Rafale, with Passive antenna (same capabilities than active but less range and accuracy and not able to jam). But this is a multirole radar, able to do A2A and A2G mission.
OSF, IRST-TV-LASER suit, able to see at far range (order of 50NM) a fighter size target with the TV sensor, after the IR sensor can display a general view of all receivable air IR signals, and the laser used to help target designation.
SPECTRA, a lot of capabilities in this system, radar and laser jamming, RCS reduction, location of air threats and more...
The 3 sensors can be used to guide MICA missiles, claimed French Air Force officials when the first squadron declared operationnal.
Another thing, we don't have any good reasons to make the war agaisnt the United States because we have other matters which are called terrorism and peace maintaining.
Apart from the fact that both France and the US are working closely together on a number of issues.Twix101 said:
I can't see rafales and f-22's going toe to toe unless france or the US have a monumental commercial brain fart.
contedicavour
New Member
Expect some Rafales eventually to be exported to the Middle East. Easy bet that one day a government change somewhere will put Rafales in the wrong hands...gf0012-aust said:
The possible clash of Rafale & Raptor
Yes, possible future sales of Rafale in the Middle East could bring Raptor and Rafale to butting heads. However, there is another possibility here:
Suppose the American disgust for the U.N. results in America pulling out of the U.N., taking its money, its military personnel, etc. with them? The "brain fart" does not even have to be between France and the U.S.A.: it could be a Secretary General's brain infarction, caused by the pique and hubris of losing his free ride on the international gravy train at the expense of the American taxpayer. If the Secretary General of the United Nations and/or the Security Council were to decide to engage in war against the United States, for any reason, the other U.N. member states, particularly those member states which are also members of the European Union, would be forced to participate on the U.N. side and against the United States. If that happens, Rafale and Raptor would be at each other's throats, and Rafale would probably not have the proverbial "snowball's chance" in the infernal regions.
Yes, possible future sales of Rafale in the Middle East could bring Raptor and Rafale to butting heads. However, there is another possibility here:
Suppose the American disgust for the U.N. results in America pulling out of the U.N., taking its money, its military personnel, etc. with them? The "brain fart" does not even have to be between France and the U.S.A.: it could be a Secretary General's brain infarction, caused by the pique and hubris of losing his free ride on the international gravy train at the expense of the American taxpayer. If the Secretary General of the United Nations and/or the Security Council were to decide to engage in war against the United States, for any reason, the other U.N. member states, particularly those member states which are also members of the European Union, would be forced to participate on the U.N. side and against the United States. If that happens, Rafale and Raptor would be at each other's throats, and Rafale would probably not have the proverbial "snowball's chance" in the infernal regions.
LOL Boldeagle add more details to your scenario and you will beat Holywood scenarists !
Seriously, this kind of things can't arrive due to NATO alliance, and it will surpass the U.N.
And about sells in Middle East, the customers which respect France's criterions (respect of fundamental Rights, etc...) will be able to buy french fighter planes. The Saudi Arabia, EAU, Jordania (with Saudi help), and Israel (if situation is better).
For sure, the French government will NEVER sell armament to countries like Iran or Syria.
Seriously, this kind of things can't arrive due to NATO alliance, and it will surpass the U.N.
And about sells in Middle East, the customers which respect France's criterions (respect of fundamental Rights, etc...) will be able to buy french fighter planes. The Saudi Arabia, EAU, Jordania (with Saudi help), and Israel (if situation is better).
For sure, the French government will NEVER sell armament to countries like Iran or Syria.
:rotfl :rotflzoolander said:
For stealthy aircraft we can pass but the rest...:rotfl
The Rafale can supercruise, do you know Dassault Engineer who worked on Rafale to say that ?
The Rafale can do buddy-buddy air refueling, Antiship missions with Exocet, nuke strike with ASMP-A nuke missile, recon mission... ...are you serious ? :rotfl
im sorry to disagreey but 'Antiship missions with Exocet, nuke strike with ASMP-A nuke missile, recon mission' but thease weps come with the still unfunded T3 designation of the Rafale.
Fact is always stranger than fiction, which may explain why Tom Clancy's books are so good: they are firmly rooted in fact and plausable possibilities. Case in point: the end of Debt of Honor was something which Clancy thought so outrageous that it would never happen in real life - then 9/11 happened, several years after he published it!Twix101 said:LOL Boldeagle add more details to your scenario and you will beat Holywood scenarists !
Seriously, this kind of things can't arrive due to NATO alliance, and it will surpass the U.N.
And about sells in Middle East, the customers which respect France's criterions (respect of fundamental Rights, etc...) will be able to buy french fighter planes. The Saudi Arabia, EAU, Jordania (with Saudi help), and Israel (if situation is better).
For sure, the French government will NEVER sell armament to countries like Iran or Syria.
As for French fighter sales, let me remind you of something which you already know...or should know: France had no problem selling military equipment, including jet fighters, to Saddam Hussein! There are many Americans who make the point that, historically, the French will sell anything to anyone who has the bucks to buy it...:flame
One line does confuse me, a bit, but then again, I suspect you are not a "native" English speaker, so the confusion might be expected. What did you mean by: "Seriously, this kind of things can't arrive due to NATO alliance, and it will surpass the U.N."? While this may translate from a perfectly understandable French sentence, I am having trouble parsing it into good and understandable English. Could you please explain and make it clearer?
This is the F3 Version Rafale which will be fully operationnal in 2008, French government has already signed to have all Rafale at this Standard during the 2008 year, we can conclude this is fundable.
After, the next stage will be the F3+ upgrade, with the integration of an AESA radar, new OSF, Meteor missile and new engine (more powerful) and updated SPECTRA. The last point need more detailled study for choosing final upgrades of the F3+.
After, the next stage will be the F3+ upgrade, with the integration of an AESA radar, new OSF, Meteor missile and new engine (more powerful) and updated SPECTRA. The last point need more detailled study for choosing final upgrades of the F3+.
Good grief! I suggest you have a look at exactly how the UN works, & exactly how much force it can deploy. Also, check which countries can veto a Security Council resolution.boldeagle said:
I'll give you some hints to start with: you are absolutely, totally, completely wrong.
BTW, you can also check how much of the UN budget the USA funds. I'm damned sure you'll be surprised at that. I expect it's less than half of the proportion you imagine.
Yeah, Iraq is a "casus belli" if you understand, this will not happen anymore. And we can find similar example with the Us in the past too.
About the NATO I wanted to say that treaty is more important than a decision of the UN security concil, and I remember well, France said that he will participate to intervention in Iraq even if the UN security council was for.
About the NATO I wanted to say that treaty is more important than a decision of the UN security concil, and I remember well, France said that he will participate to intervention in Iraq even if the UN security council was for.
I have looked at the U.N...
1) The U.N. Charter provides that the U.N. can deploy as much force as the total military resources of the individual member states: it provides no limits upon how much the U.N. can demand of its members in the way of military equipment and personnel, up to the limits of the existing military structure of the member state. Consider the pooling of the military production facilities of the E.U., Russia, Japan and India with the manpower of China...all against the United States...or any other nation which the denizens of the "Tombstone on the East River" care to pillage, loot, rape and murder! Are you beginning to see the dangers of a "One World" government?
2) The "veto votes" in the unelected oligarchy of the Security Council are the United States of America, Russia (the former Soviet Union), Great Britain, France and China (Red China, exercising a vote stolen from Nationalist China, which was the original "permanent member" of the Security Council). I would point out that the proposed scenario is an American pullout of the United States from the United Nations. Therefore, the United States would no longer be in the Security Council, nor any part of the U.N.
3) The United States, only one of approximately 130 U.N. member states, pays 25% of the tab for the U.N....and is constantly being told that it is "not paying its fair share" by many of the others. Talk about "biting the hand that feeds you!"
I am absolutely correct! I would also point out that the European Union (E.U.), as a Regional Government under the U.N., is a "wholly owned subsidiary" thereof. This means that, probably within five years, the "veto votes" of France, Great Britain, and, most likely, Russia, will be merged into a single E.U. vote. This means a Security Council "veto vote" list of America, the E.U. and Red China: with America gone, who will prevent dictatorial U.N. Military action against the United States by a veto in the Security Council? Are you now seeing the danger of "One World" Government? Here in the States, a good, U.S. Marine would call the U.N. a "Charlie Foxtrot" in polite company...
...apparently, in more detail than you!swerve said:
1) The U.N. Charter provides that the U.N. can deploy as much force as the total military resources of the individual member states: it provides no limits upon how much the U.N. can demand of its members in the way of military equipment and personnel, up to the limits of the existing military structure of the member state. Consider the pooling of the military production facilities of the E.U., Russia, Japan and India with the manpower of China...all against the United States...or any other nation which the denizens of the "Tombstone on the East River" care to pillage, loot, rape and murder! Are you beginning to see the dangers of a "One World" government?
2) The "veto votes" in the unelected oligarchy of the Security Council are the United States of America, Russia (the former Soviet Union), Great Britain, France and China (Red China, exercising a vote stolen from Nationalist China, which was the original "permanent member" of the Security Council). I would point out that the proposed scenario is an American pullout of the United States from the United Nations. Therefore, the United States would no longer be in the Security Council, nor any part of the U.N.
3) The United States, only one of approximately 130 U.N. member states, pays 25% of the tab for the U.N....and is constantly being told that it is "not paying its fair share" by many of the others. Talk about "biting the hand that feeds you!"
I am absolutely correct! I would also point out that the European Union (E.U.), as a Regional Government under the U.N., is a "wholly owned subsidiary" thereof. This means that, probably within five years, the "veto votes" of France, Great Britain, and, most likely, Russia, will be merged into a single E.U. vote. This means a Security Council "veto vote" list of America, the E.U. and Red China: with America gone, who will prevent dictatorial U.N. Military action against the United States by a veto in the Security Council? Are you now seeing the danger of "One World" Government? Here in the States, a good, U.S. Marine would call the U.N. a "Charlie Foxtrot" in polite company...