F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[boldeagle]

Oh, really?

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.

I would simply suggest you read the U.N. Charter. Inasmuch as the North Atlanic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.), as a "Regional Defense Arrangement" under the U.N. Charter (Article 53, if I remember correctly), it is a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the U.N. and so the difference is moot, in any case.

Another "wholly owned subsidiary" of the U.N. is the Regional Government known as the European Union (E.U.), which was originally designed, many years ago, to destroy the sovereignty of all the nations of Europe, as they merge into the Regional government headquartered in Brussels, preparatory to becoming a U.N. World Government. I wonder why it is that only some of us Americans seem to see the dangers of this course of action? I would also point out the common sense understanding that a treaty is only as good as the military force which can be brought to bear to enforce it, versus the force which can be brought against it!:kar

 

[RubiconNZ]

Good Grief

fftopic Hehe always wanted to use that, the digression of this while interesting kind of went conspiracy theoryish. Iwas going to post then i realised this could be locked. So Ill see in the morning.hwell

 

[Atlantic Friend]

Under what scenario would Rafale and F-22 go head-to-head?

Here's the key question. If Mirage-2000s sales are any indication, Rafales and Raptors are much more likely to fly combat missions together than to dogfight.

Rogue states don't go buy NATO stuff these days.

 

[contedicavour]

Here's the key question. If Mirage-2000s sales are any indication, Rafales and Raptors are much more likely to fly combat missions together than to dogfight.

Rogue states don't go buy NATO stuff these days.

Well well... the first country likely to buy Rafale is Algeria, according to several sources in March-April 2006. I agree for the moment Algeria is no rogue state, but it has been subject still very recently to military putsch (enfin, coup d'état, on se comprend) and to very serious Islamist guerrillas and terrorist attacks.
It is thus relatively easy to imagine a scenario in which several Rafales would end up in the hands of an extremist anti-Western government. This is at least a zillion times more likely than the weird scenario of US vs UN

cheers

 

[swerve]

...apparently, in more detail than 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...

Hmm. Before this veers into lockdown mode (Moderators, this will be my only response: I won't follow this digression any further), I really, really, think you ought to look into your own soul, & try to cultivate your self-awareness. I fear that you're in danger (if you aren't already) of falling over the edge into the shouting in street sort of illness.

Good luck, & I hope you manage to keep your paranoia down to the relatively harmless ranting on the internet level.

 

[swerve]

Well well... the first country likely to buy Rafale is Algeria, according to several sources in March-April 2006:

cheers

Hasn't the mooted Algerian Rafale deal been pre-empted by the Algerians buying Su-30s & new MiG-29s? I imagine the press reports of an Algerian Rafale buy were prompted by Algeria negotiating with Dassault at the same time as they were negotiating over the Russian fighters, & word getting out. Whatever, it's been publicly announced by both Algeria & Russia that Algeria will buy new Russian fighters, & denied that Algeria is buying Rafales. Presumably the Algerians preferred the Russian offer.

 

[Twix101]

The deal with Rafale is just a rumor, Dassault never sent any VRP or any demo plane in Algeria for eventual sells. For sure Algeria bought Russian jets because they add deal also with Russian Tank and armored vehicles manufacturer. Not founded rumor that's all.

 

[contedicavour]

Hasn't the mooted Algerian Rafale deal been pre-empted by the Algerians buying Su-30s & new MiG-29s? I imagine the press reports of an Algerian Rafale buy were prompted by Algeria negotiating with Dassault at the same time as they were negotiating over the Russian fighters, & word getting out. Whatever, it's been publicly announced by both Algeria & Russia that Algeria will buy new Russian fighters, & denied that Algeria is buying Rafales. Presumably the Algerians preferred the Russian offer.

yes Algeria is buying MIGs and Sukhois, though not enough to replace their large number of older MIGs and Sukhois, so, provided there's enough money from natural gas, Algeria could in theory complement their Russian acquisition with some Rafales (at knock-down price, since Dassault is becoming desperate to obtain its first export order)

cheers

 

[merocaine]

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.

wow, what can one say, other than holy sh*t, good luck with your dreams of armaggeddon!

Tom Clancy and some mystical tract from the 19th century are your sources, i say again wow.

 

[merocaine]

How would a french air force Raf mesure up against one for export, would it be shipping all the bells and whistles?

 

[contedicavour]

How would a french air force Raf mesure up against one for export, would it be shipping all the bells and whistles?

Good question. Dassault is having enough trouble trying to export the plane as it is now configured for the Air Force in its F2 standard... so if it started taking out possible weaponry (such as MICA air-to-air fire&forget missile, a good competitor for AIM-120B) this would kill all remaining chances !
The only weaponry that would almost certainly be blocked in any sale would be SCALP/Storm Shadow standoff cruise missile.

cheers

 

[Atlantic Friend]

How would a french air force Raf mesure up against one for export, would it be shipping all the bells and whistles?

I think the quality of the pilot would be the major factor of victory...

 

[merocaine]

I think the quality of the pilot would be the major factor of victory...

This kills me, what is the point of developing this fighter, pretty much cutting edge tech, a huge amount of money time and resources, and then you give it away, (sell it at a loss probobly). implicit in your statement is the expectation that you will end up flying against your own fighters, who your opponents will know inside out. Your advantage will be marginal.

Its not just france though, the americans havent even gone operational on J35 and Raptor and there pimping them around the world. Isreal is a classic example, it built its armaments industry on the back of the americans, and then try's to sell its products to china, americas main stragic compeditor!

I truly belive that this kind of behavour is acting counter to the nation states best interests, on a stratigic level your undermining your self.

In a sane world there would be no chance of a raptor and a Raf ever coming into conflict, but the way the defence industry works at the moment there is ever chance.

 

[Atlantic Friend]

This kills me, what is the point of developing this fighter, pretty much cutting edge tech, a huge amount of money time and resources, and then you give it away, (sell it at a loss probobly). implicit in your statement is the expectation that you will end up flying against your own fighters, who your opponents will know inside out. Your advantage will be marginal.

Its not just france though, the americans havent even gone operational on J35 and Raptor and there pimping them around the world. Isreal is a classic example, it built its armaments industry on the back of the americans, and then try's to sell its products to china, americas main stragic compeditor!

I truly belive that this kind of behavour is acting counter to the nation states best interests, on a stratigic level your undermining your self.

In a sane world there would be no chance of a raptor and a Raf ever coming into conflict, but the way the defence industry works at the moment there is ever chance.

My statement was purely on the grounds of this hypothetical Rafale vs Export Rafale scenario. I think the only way this will happen is in case of joint drills between the French Air Force and the buyer's air force.

I think both France and the USA are very eager to find a market for their newest toys, of course, but as of today the countries who have been proposed either the Rafale or the Raptor are not likely to find themselves opposed to America or Europe - and, more prominently, to American or European allies. I wouldn't say the same about the F-16 which has been sold to Pakistan (even thouh Washington has clearly been courting India), Venezuela (which seems to seek a permanent alignment with Cuba), or Egypt (which keeps being a coup away from militant Islamism).

But heck, who knows ?

 

[merocaine]

My statement was purely on the grounds of this hypothetical Rafale vs Export Rafale scenario. I think the only way this will happen is in case of joint drills between the French Air Force and the buyer's air force.

my mistake i misunderstood.

I agree its unlighty (Raf V Raptor), but i think the basic point still stands, there are loads of examples, if the argentaines had more exocets during the falklands war it could have been a very different outcome, now the french and britsh are allies, but for the sake of a few bucks they could have indirectly lead to a british
defeat. Now I know this was not a french intention, but still I think if you are going to sell your weapons they should be sold only to your real allies.
F16s to cairo is a classic, Now Isreal is a real straigic partner of the US and they look next door and see the americans selling state of the art military equipment to a country (dictatorship) which as you said is one free election away from a islamic goverment!
Selling F16s to pakistan is another, even if the americans withold spare parts (in the event of war) this would destroy there credibility and the pakistanies would buy russian or chinese instead, plus the side effect of making the US look unreliable as a supplier. In this case the forigen policy benifts are negible.

anyway this is off topic and I'll shut up

 

[dgadams1]

What Makes One Better Than The Other?

I'm a fan of the F-22 and the F-35. I have been reading the threads and can see that the EF Typhoon is a serious contender to the F-22. My question is, since I'm not as advanced in knowledge as most on this board, doesn't the F-22 use the same missiles as the F-16 or even the F-18? What would make it any better than either of those? It seems to me that the main ingredient in a good fighter is radar. Being able to see the opponent first. Also, the question of stealth....although the plane's radar cross section is reduced, it still has a cross section of a bee or something like that. Well....if someone sees a bee flying at 60,000 feet on a radar, they know something's wrong, therefore the plane is detected. So why spend all the extra money on reducing a radar cross signature when you can still be seen? You're only spending money to have a smaller signature. What advantage does that really give you?

 

[Twix101]

Eurofighter ? The thread is about Rafale.

 

[dgadams1]

Okay then. Rafale. Doesn't the missiles and radars really make all the difference in which fighter will come out on top? No fighter is really invisible anyways is it? Not here to argue. Just to find out why people think that a fighter can be invisible and why they think a bee flying at 60,000 feet will fool a radar operator?

 

[Twix101]

The goal of stealth if the plane is repaired is to be tracked as later as possible to esquive a potential engagment by enemy forces. Radar like the "BillBoard" (SA-10 Radar) can detect stealth planes due to is power and software capabilities, but track the target (or be able to launch and guide a missile on it) can be realized if the target is close of radar order of some about ten kilometers.

In the case of Rafale, if IRST detect a aircraft size signature (most probable detection is by IR for a stealth aircraft, indeed, the plane in contact of the air at great speed create heat, today it's impossible to eliminate heat), the TV module is scanning area searching aircraft and lock it. Second stage, Rafale firing MICA IR, thanks to is ability to be guided by the OSF, the missile follow the trajectory that it (IRST) indicated and if the stealth A/C is unable to evade to the threat, boom, plane shot down...This is a possible scenario of engagement.

The F-117A shot down during the Allied Force operation (Kosovo) was because, FRY AD combinated several upgraded SA-3 radar to shot down it and was informated of the A/C inbound.

This is a good lessons to say that plane is not invincible, if your enemy is a good tactician, you will not stay longer in the air. Several conflicts already proven that.

Out.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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!

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?

You are joking aren't you? Tom Clancy's stories are based on fact and plausible scenario's??? As long as your "plausible scenario" results in perfect American success in every possible human endeavour, particularly militarily, I guess you're spot on.

Except real life doesn't work like that. People can pick out any number of American military failures, because believe it or not, people sometimes don't want America to win an actually work against them...

So what if the French do sell advanced military capability to virtually anyone who wants them. The USA is the same. Most major military exporters are the same. How often do we see American supplying BOTH sides of a conflict or potential conflict???

As to the topic thread, why is there this fascination with discussing what platform is "better". At best only subjective views can be submitted.