French planes are crap [Archive]

John Mullen

November 2nd 03, 09:06 PM

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE"
> >Date: 11/2/2003 10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Have you ever been able to make a SST?
> >NOPE
>
> Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40 years
ago,
> which in some ways could be considered an SST.

No, it was an experimental Mach 3 bomber. Not a passenger transport. (The
'T' in SST)

> The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of
public
> opposition for environmental reasons.

I was always a bit sceptical whether those public objections would have been
allowed to hold sway if it had been a Boeing SST though! Especially as they
were later rescinded anyway...

> The government was helping to fund it since it was so expensive, but
stopped
> funding it, which killed it.

Although having massive govt orders for their military and dual-use types
has definitely helped the US plane firms.

John

Ron

November 2nd 03, 09:56 PM

> The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of
>public
>> opposition for environmental reasons.
>
>I was always a bit sceptical whether those public objections would have been
>allowed to hold sway if it had been a Boeing SST though! Especially as they
>were later rescinded anyway..

But the American SST program was Boeing...

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

John Mullen

November 2nd 03, 11:42 PM

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> > The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of
> >public
> >> opposition for environmental reasons.
> >
> >I was always a bit sceptical whether those public objections would have
been
> >allowed to hold sway if it had been a Boeing SST though! Especially as
they
> >were later rescinded anyway..
>
> But the American SST program was Boeing...

Uh-huh. But it was already cancelled by that time IIRC

John

[email protected]

November 2nd 03, 11:44 PM

(Ron) wrote:

>
>But the American SST program was Boeing...
>
>Ron

Not nearly as boeing as watching glasgow...

--

-Gord.

Yeff

November 2nd 03, 11:59 PM

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 23:44:19 GMT, Gord wrote:

> Not nearly as boeing as watching glasgow...

[BANG!]

-Jeff B. (who thinks Gord just needed killin' after that)
yeff at erols dot com

Ron

November 3rd 03, 12:42 AM

>> > The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of
>> >public
>> >> opposition for environmental reasons.
>> >
>> >I was always a bit sceptical whether those public objections would have
>been
>> >allowed to hold sway if it had been a Boeing SST though! Especially as
>they
>> >were later rescinded anyway..
>>
>> But the American SST program was Boeing...
>
>Uh-huh. But it was already cancelled by that time IIRC

Not quite sure what you mean. Boeings plane would have been our SST if it had
been produced. What "time" are you referring to?

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

robert arndt

November 3rd 03, 03:13 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message >...
> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
> >
> >
> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
> >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
> >bells? Moron.
> >
> >Rob
>
> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current French
> aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
>
> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the art and
> are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
>
> Al Minyard

Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
Mirage.
Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
capable aircraft.
You just don't like anything foreign Al.

Rob

Matt

November 3rd 03, 04:04 AM

Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.

The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's weapon
systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered the
F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract
(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
instead. Suprise!

The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
years.

Matt

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> > On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
>...
> > >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
> > >
> > >
> > >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
> > >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
> > >bells? Moron.
> > >
> > >Rob
> >
> > Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current
French
> > aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
> >
> > Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the
art and
> > are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
> first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
> inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
> D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
> certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
> After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
> racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
> against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
> Mirage.
> Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> capable aircraft.
> You just don't like anything foreign Al.
>
> Rob

Jason Strong

November 3rd 03, 05:21 PM

"Matt" > wrote in message >...
> Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
> absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
>
> The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's weapon
> systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
> Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered the
> F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract
> (i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
> instead. Suprise!
>
> The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
> years.
>
> Matt
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
> > > (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
> > > >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
> > > >bells? Moron.
> > > >
> > > >Rob
> > >
> > > Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current
> French
> > > aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
> > >
> > > Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the
> art and
> > > are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
> > >
> > > Al Minyard
> >
> > Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
> > first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
> > inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
> > D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
> > certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
> > After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
> > racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
> > against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
> > Mirage.
> > Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> > capable aircraft.
> > You just don't like anything foreign Al.
> >
> > Rob

while touring France i got to see a variety of different French combat
aircraft. some of the older ones were the Ouragan and Vautour.

i saw an Ouragan on display at the Abbeville Airfield. that aircraft
is always overlooked. it served with the French and Israeli air forces
as well as Indian Navy (as Toofani). in Israeli service it attacked
the Egyptian 1st Armored Division in Sinai and disabled the Egyptian
destroyer Ibrahim el Awal which was captured by the Israeli Navy. in
the 1980s Israel supplied El Salvador with 18 Ouragans for operations
against leftist guerillas.

i also saw a S.O.4050 Vautour at the Aerienne base at Reims on display
outside. the Vautour also served with the Israeli air force as a
bomber and ECM aircraft. the Vautour served in the Six Day war and
destroyed 309 aircraft on the ground including Tu-16 bombers. they
also harassed arab tank formations.

while not a fan of French aircraft i can still appreciate the
successful aircraft they built.

it will be interesting to see if the new Rafale will see combat in the
future.

Jason

if you've never been to France before you gotta go. despite the
anti-French stuff going around, a lot of Americans still travel there.
Paris is wonderful and the people are not as arrogant as we make them
out to be. if anything Americans are the really rude people when they
tour Europe. we don't take time to really plan a tour efficiently,
bring the right essentials, prepare for emergency situations, or
bother to learn the language of the countries we visit.
its not the fault of the French for loathing loud, arrogant Americans
who think they can do anything they want anywhere in the world.

Alan Minyard

November 3rd 03, 05:47 PM

On 02 Nov 2003 18:12:33 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>>rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE"
>>Date: 11/2/2003 10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Have you ever been able to make a SST?
>>NOPE
>
>Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40 years ago,
>which in some ways could be considered an SST.
>
>The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of public
>opposition for environmental reasons.
>
>The government was helping to fund it since it was so expensive, but stopped
>funding it, which killed it.
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

And would have killed the concord if the governments of France and the UK
would have been interested in anything other than the "prestige" of flying
a costly white elephant.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 3rd 03, 05:47 PM

On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message >...
>> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
>> >
>> >
>> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
>> >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
>> >bells? Moron.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current French
>> aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
>>
>> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the art and
>> are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
>first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
>inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
>D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
>certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
>After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
>racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
>against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
>Mirage.
>Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
>capable aircraft.
>You just don't like anything foreign Al.
>
>Rob

Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and F-22
are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
does little to bolster your case.

Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
of the F-35.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 3rd 03, 06:06 PM

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" > wrote:

>Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
>absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
>
>The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's weapon
>systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
>Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered the
>F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract
>(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
>instead. Suprise!
>
>The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
>years.
>
>Matt
>
The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any offered
by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.

Al Minyard

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 3rd 03, 11:27 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt)
> wrote:

>>Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during
>>the first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406
>>while inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from
>>1939-40. The D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the
>>surrender and was certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of
>>the time. After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to
>>the Israelis who racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage
>>out of the aircraft against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super
>>Mystere, Vautour, and Mirage.
>>Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
>>capable aircraft.
>>You just don't like anything foreign Al.
>>
>>Rob
>
> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35
> and F-22 are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in
> France.

I'd agree on the two latter, but on the paper I'd say the Rafael
easily matches those three for it's intended roles. And it
does that years ahead of both the F22 and F35.

We could just JOUST it for an interesting perspective:

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html

> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export
> sales of the F-35.

What export sales?

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 3rd 03, 11:49 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" >
> wrote:
>
>>Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the
>>world in absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
>>
>>The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take
>>it's weapon systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The
>>Republic of Korea's Air Force wanted the Rafale with uprated
>>engines, but since the US offered the F-15K with economic
>>offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract (i..e.
>>they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for
>>that instead. Suprise!
>>
>>The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is
>>getting on in years.
>>
>>Matt
>>
> The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any
> offered by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.

I don't understand your POV. The F35 is 5 years, if all
goes well, from even entering service with the US -- the Rafale
has already been in service for two years.

Regards...

Ron

November 3rd 03, 11:55 PM

Rafale is a fine plane. Regardless of what I think about French policies,
their aircraft are not bad at all. At least they have finally perfected the
F-102

(grin)

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

robert arndt

November 4th 03, 06:20 AM

At least they have finally perfected the
> F-102
>
> (grin)
>
>
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Which goes all the way back to the Lippisch DM-1/P13a aircraft of
1945. I guess all that rushed testing at Langley paid off. Another
stolen German/French idea*.

Rob

* Payen Flechair delta was captured by the Germans in 1940. Although
it didn't influence Lippisch's design, Payen deserves credit for the
delta wing. His designs were to deltas what the Hortens were to flying
wings.

Chad Irby

November 4th 03, 07:34 AM

(robert arndt) wrote:

> At least they have finally perfected the
> > F-102
> >
> > (grin)
>
> Which goes all the way back to the Lippisch DM-1/P13a aircraft of
> 1945.

Not to mention about a hundred odd little prototypes of one sort or
another from the previous thirty years. And a couple of Englishmen who
actually patented a delta wing design (that never flew) in the late
1860s. Yes, that's *eighteen*-sixties.

> I guess all that rushed testing at Langley paid off. Another
> stolen German/French idea*.
>
> * Payen Flechair delta was captured by the Germans in 1940. Although
> it didn't influence Lippisch's design, Payen deserves credit for the
> delta wing. His designs were to deltas what the Hortens were to flying
> wings.

Except that delta wings had been tried, on and off, for decades. They
were never that useful, due to the comparatively small engines and low
airspeeds before WWII.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

killfile

November 4th 03, 07:36 AM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" > wrote:
>
> >Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
> >absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
> >
> >The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's
weapon
> >systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
> >Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered
the
> >F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the
contract
> >(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
> >instead. Suprise!
> >
> >The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
> >years.
> >
> >Matt
> >
> The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any offered
> by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.
>
> Al Minyard

Nice to see you completely failed to do any research whatsoever before
opening your ass, I mean, mouth.

The Rafale deal offered to South Korea was essentially a licensed production
deal, with Dassault offering to transfer an entire Rafale production line to
Seoul. France would build the first few aircraft, and then provide a few
limited components once the line was established. In the end, it worked out
to around a $4bn offset.

The US/Boeing offer was a transferred-tech deal that directly shook out to
about $3.2bn once the US government gave Boeing a $250m subsidy to reduce
the overall price, but was closer to $6bn in linked defence and economic
loans. The bottom line from the US was "If you don't buy our fighter, we're
not going to give you these loans. Oh, and we're currently reviewing your
most-favoured-nation trade status. No pressure!"

The F-35 has zero - nil - export sales. A number of foreign governments,
including the UK, are contributing financially to the development process as
partners... but no-one has actually bought the aircraft yet, including the
US. All the 'partner nations' get for their money is technological
information and, in the case of the UK, component production contracts.
After all, Bush might still cancel it to pay for his adventure in Iraq.

Do try to keep up!

Matt

Marcus Andersson

November 4th 03, 07:40 AM

killfile

November 4th 03, 07:47 AM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> >> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >>
> >> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
>...
> >> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
> >> >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
> >> >bells? Moron.
> >> >
> >> >Rob
> >>
> >> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current
French
> >> aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
> >>
> >> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the
art and
> >> are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
> >first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
> >inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
> >D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
> >certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
> >After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
> >racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
> >against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
> >Mirage.
> >Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> >capable aircraft.
> >You just don't like anything foreign Al.
> >
> >Rob
>
> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and F-22
> are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
> quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
> does little to bolster your case.
>
> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
> of the F-35.
>
> Al Minyard

The Republic of Korea Air Force seem to think that the Rafale is superior to
the F-15 and F-16, as well as the Su-35 and Eurofighter.

The clearest thing is that nothing is superior to the *price* of the F-22
.... I'll certainly bet the six Rafales or Eurofighters you could get the
price of one F-22 against that lone F-22 in combat.

And to repeat, the F-35 has zero - nil - export sales. A number of foreign
governments, including the UK, are contributing financially to the
development process as partners... but no-one has actually bought the
aircraft yet, including the US. All the 'partner nations' get for their
money is technical information and, in the case of the UK, component
production contracts. After all, Bush might still cancel it to pay for his
adventure in Iraq.

Matt

Ralph Savelsberg

November 4th 03, 09:12 AM

Ron wrote:

>> rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE" Date: 11/2/2003
>> 10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id:
>> >
>>
>> Have you ever been able to make a SST? NOPE
>>
>
> Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40
> years ago, which in some ways could be considered an SST.
>
> The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot
> of public opposition for environmental reasons.
>

> The government was helping to fund it since it was so expensive, but
> stopped funding it, which killed it.
>
> Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
>
A big issue in this was simply the timing.
In the early 'sixties even Boeing thought that SSTs were the future and
expected to sell more 747s as freighters than as passenger carriers.
Brittain and France chose to go for a Mach 2 design, that from a
technological point of view was successful.
US manufacturers, most notably Boeing, also jumped aboard the SST wagon,
supported by US governement funding. The US SST was more ambitious than
Concorde (and the Tu-144) in the sense that it was supposed to fly at
Mach 3 and was supposed to carry more passengers. That greatly
complicated things and lead to a far longer development time.
Then, the 1973 oil crisis occurred, leading to dramatic increases in
fuel costs. Coupled to an increasing environmental awareness the
commercial interest in SSTs evaporated, after Concorde had already flown
but before the more ambitious US SST ever took to the skies.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Mike

November 4th 03, 10:57 AM

One more time,you lie Minyard,and you know it.
The problem for you is the Rafale is not made in the usa,but made in france.
What a shame!
Strictly the same aircraft made in your country you would say is the best
one actually in use.
Rafale is really superior to the us production.Not difficult,every fighter
you got at he moment has been
developped in the late 60's or in the 70's.
F.22 will be superior,and F.35 i honestly don't know.
The Mirage 2000 compares with the F.16,and the -5 series are really
advanced.

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> >> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >>
> >> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
>...
> >> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
> >> >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
> >> >bells? Moron.
> >> >
> >> >Rob
> >>
> >> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current
French
> >> aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
> >>
> >> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the
art and
> >> are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
> >first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
> >inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
> >D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
> >certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
> >After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
> >racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
> >against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
> >Mirage.
> >Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> >capable aircraft.
> >You just don't like anything foreign Al.
> >
> >Rob
>
> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and F-22
> are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
> quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
> does little to bolster your case.
>
> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
> of the F-35.
>
> Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 04:36 PM

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:27:47 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt)
>> wrote:
>
>>>Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during
>>>the first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406
>>>while inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from
>>>1939-40. The D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the
>>>surrender and was certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of
>>>the time. After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to
>>>the Israelis who racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage
>>>out of the aircraft against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super
>>>Mystere, Vautour, and Mirage.
>>>Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
>>>capable aircraft.
>>>You just don't like anything foreign Al.
>>>
>>>Rob
>>
>> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35
>> and F-22 are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in
>> France.
>
> I'd agree on the two latter, but on the paper I'd say the Rafael
> easily matches those three for it's intended roles. And it
> does that years ahead of both the F22 and F35.

Is it flying, or still grounded? And you would not want to try
ACM with an F-15, F-14, or F-16. Their avionics, weapons,
and airframes are all superior.
>
> We could just JOUST it for an interesting perspective:
>
> http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
>
>
>> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export
>> sales of the F-35.
>
> What export sales?

Look at the partnership agreements signed by the UK, Australia,
Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and
Canada. There are currently contracts for 3002 aircraft with
many more in the negotiation phase.

Chad Irby

November 4th 03, 05:32 PM

In article >,
"killfile" > wrote:

> The Republic of Korea Air Force seem to think that the Rafale is superior to
> the F-15 and F-16, as well as the Su-35 and Eurofighter.

Considering that they're comparing the Rafale to 30 year old designs
that are in the midst of being phased out in the US, that's hardly
shocking.

> The clearest thing is that nothing is superior to the *price* of the F-22
> ... I'll certainly bet the six Rafales or Eurofighters you could get the
> price of one F-22 against that lone F-22 in combat.

You misspelled "two" as "six."

The Eurofighter is going for $80 to $85 million each (that's what the
Brits are paying).

The F-22 is pushing $170 million each (that's the worst-case cost if we
only buy 70 of them - the price drops dramatically if we buy more, and
could have been as low as $90 million a pop with full-rate production).

These are _full program_ costs, not just for the aircraft themselves.

So for much less capability, the Eurofighter costs about half as much
money. The Rafale is in the same price range, so there's no savings on
that one either.

Don't compare airframe costs (no parts, no training, no support) in
Europe to full program costs in the US (parts, training, support).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

killfile

November 4th 03, 05:57 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:27:47 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" >
wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
> >> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt)
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>>Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during
> >>>the first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406
> >>>while inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from
> >>>1939-40. The D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the
> >>>surrender and was certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of
> >>>the time. After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to
> >>>the Israelis who racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage
> >>>out of the aircraft against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super
> >>>Mystere, Vautour, and Mirage.
> >>>Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> >>>capable aircraft.
> >>>You just don't like anything foreign Al.
> >>>
> >>>Rob
> >>
> >> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35
> >> and F-22 are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in
> >> France.
> >
> > I'd agree on the two latter, but on the paper I'd say the Rafael
> > easily matches those three for it's intended roles. And it
> > does that years ahead of both the F22 and F35.
>
> Is it flying, or still grounded? And you would not want to try
> ACM with an F-15, F-14, or F-16. Their avionics, weapons,
> and airframes are all superior.
> >
> > We could just JOUST it for an interesting perspective:
> >
> > http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
> >
> >
> >> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export
> >> sales of the F-35.
> >
> > What export sales?
>
> Look at the partnership agreements signed by the UK, Australia,
> Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and
> Canada. There are currently contracts for 3002 aircraft with
> many more in the negotiation phase.

The partnership agreements concern technology transfer and workshare on the
development of the production article. No money has yet transferred hands
for any production aircraft, and NO ORDERS have been made yet. The Bush
administration is even studying canceling the thing in favour of an expanded
Block-60 F-16 purchase and UCAV's - not ouside the bounds of reality,
considering how big the budget defecit has become during the 'war on
terror'.

Get your facts straight.

Matt

Pierre-Henri Baras

November 4th 03, 06:08 PM

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> > I'd agree on the two latter, but on the paper I'd say the Rafael
> > easily matches those three for it's intended roles. And it
> > does that years ahead of both the F22 and F35.
>
> Is it flying, or still grounded? And you would not want to try
> ACM with an F-15, F-14, or F-16. Their avionics, weapons,
> and airframes are all superior.
> >

Grounded? The Rafale?? Errr, you're confusing the Rafale with the
Eurofighter. The Rafale never crashed, and wasn't grounded unlike the
Eurofighter.
As for ACM, the Rafale M flew against the Carl Vinson air wing last year:
humiliated the F-14 (I'm sorry to say this as I love the Turkey) and rapidly
disposed of the F-18 that put up a better fight than the F-14, but
eventually gave in. This is for dogfights; BVR simulations were done too but
I don't have reports of them.
If anyone has info on Eagle or Viper vs Rafale mock fights I'd be glad to
hear from them!

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 06:11 PM

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:49:25 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the
>>>world in absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
>>>
>>>The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take
>>>it's weapon systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The
>>>Republic of Korea's Air Force wanted the Rafale with uprated
>>>engines, but since the US offered the F-15K with economic
>>>offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract (i..e.
>>>they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for
>>>that instead. Suprise!
>>>
>>>The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is
>>>getting on in years.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>>
>> The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any
>> offered by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.
>
> I don't understand your POV. The F35 is 5 years, if all
> goes well, from even entering service with the US -- the Rafale
> has already been in service for two years.
>
>
>
> Regards...

The Rafale has been a commercial failure. No export sales at
all. "In service" and an effective weapons system are not the
same thing. How many Rafales are currently contracted for?
The F-35 has 3000+ orders in hand.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 06:11 PM

On 03 Nov 2003 23:55:32 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>Rafale is a fine plane. Regardless of what I think about French policies,
>their aircraft are not bad at all. At least they have finally perfected the
>F-102
>
>(grin)
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

ROTFLMAO

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 06:11 PM

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:36:44 -0000, "killfile" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" > wrote:
>>
>> >Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
>> >absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
>> >
>> >The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's
>weapon
>> >systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
>> >Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered
>the
>> >F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the
>contract
>> >(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
>> >instead. Suprise!
>> >
>> >The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
>> >years.
>> >
>> >Matt
>> >
>> The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any offered
>> by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Nice to see you completely failed to do any research whatsoever before
>opening your ass, I mean, mouth.
>
>The Rafale deal offered to South Korea was essentially a licensed production
>deal, with Dassault offering to transfer an entire Rafale production line to
>Seoul. France would build the first few aircraft, and then provide a few
>limited components once the line was established. In the end, it worked out
>to around a $4bn offset.
>
>The US/Boeing offer was a transferred-tech deal that directly shook out to
>about $3.2bn once the US government gave Boeing a $250m subsidy to reduce
>the overall price, but was closer to $6bn in linked defence and economic
>loans. The bottom line from the US was "If you don't buy our fighter, we're
>not going to give you these loans. Oh, and we're currently reviewing your
>most-favoured-nation trade status. No pressure!"
>
No Rafales. It was, and is, inferior to the F-15

>The F-35 has zero - nil - export sales. A number of foreign governments,
>including the UK, are contributing financially to the development process as
>partners... but no-one has actually bought the aircraft yet, including the
>US. All the 'partner nations' get for their money is technological
>information and, in the case of the UK, component production contracts.
>After all, Bush might still cancel it to pay for his adventure in Iraq.
>
>Do try to keep up!
>
>Matt
>
There are 3000+ orders for the F-35. They have not been paid for,
because payment is due on delivery.

It will not be canceled, the war on terrorism is expensive, but the US
is quite capable of affording it without impacting other programs

The UK is planning on replacing its excellent, but old, Harrier
fleet with the F-35

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 06:11 PM

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:47:14 -0000, "killfile" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
>> >> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
>...
>> >> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
>> >> >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
>> >> >bells? Moron.
>> >> >
>> >> >Rob
>> >>
>> >> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current
>French
>> >> aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
>> >>
>> >> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the
>art and
>> >> are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >
>> >Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
>> >first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
>> >inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
>> >D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
>> >certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
>> >After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
>> >racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
>> >against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
>> >Mirage.
>> >Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
>> >capable aircraft.
>> >You just don't like anything foreign Al.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and F-22
>> are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
>> quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
>> does little to bolster your case.
>>
>> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
>> of the F-35.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>The Republic of Korea Air Force seem to think that the Rafale is superior to
>the F-15 and F-16, as well as the Su-35 and Eurofighter.

Oh, that must be why they bought the F-35 instead of the rafale.
>
>The clearest thing is that nothing is superior to the *price* of the F-22
>... I'll certainly bet the six Rafales or Eurofighters you could get the
>price of one F-22 against that lone F-22 in combat.

The F-22 would kill all of them before they knew it was there.
>
Al Minyard

Mike

November 4th 03, 06:18 PM

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:47:14 -0000, "killfile" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt)
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c
in
> >> >> >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring
any
> >> >> >bells? Moron.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rob
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so
current
> >French
> >> >> aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of
the
> >art and
> >> >> are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Al Minyard
> >> >
> >> >Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
> >> >first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
> >> >inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
> >> >D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
> >> >certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
> >> >After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
> >> >racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
> >> >against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
> >> >Mirage.
> >> >Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> >> >capable aircraft.
> >> >You just don't like anything foreign Al.
> >> >
> >> >Rob
> >>
> >> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and F-22
> >> are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
> >> quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
> >> does little to bolster your case.
> >>
> >> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
> >> of the F-35.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >The Republic of Korea Air Force seem to think that the Rafale is superior
to
> >the F-15 and F-16, as well as the Su-35 and Eurofighter.
>
> Oh, that must be why they bought the F-35 instead of the rafale.
> >
> >The clearest thing is that nothing is superior to the *price* of the F-22
> >... I'll certainly bet the six Rafales or Eurofighters you could get the
> >price of one F-22 against that lone F-22 in combat.
>
> The F-22 would kill all of them before they knew it was there.

bla bla bla
> >
> Al Minyard

Ian Craig

November 4th 03, 06:37 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:36:44 -0000, "killfile" >
wrote:
>
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world
in
> >> >absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
> >> >
> >> >The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's
> >weapon
> >> >systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's
Air
> >> >Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered
> >the
> >> >F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the
> >contract
> >> >(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for
that
> >> >instead. Suprise!
> >> >
> >> >The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on
in
> >> >years.
> >> >
> >> >Matt
> >> >
> >> The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any offered
> >> by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >Nice to see you completely failed to do any research whatsoever before
> >opening your ass, I mean, mouth.
> >
> >The Rafale deal offered to South Korea was essentially a licensed
production
> >deal, with Dassault offering to transfer an entire Rafale production line
to
> >Seoul. France would build the first few aircraft, and then provide a few
> >limited components once the line was established. In the end, it worked
out
> >to around a $4bn offset.
> >
> >The US/Boeing offer was a transferred-tech deal that directly shook out
to
> >about $3.2bn once the US government gave Boeing a $250m subsidy to reduce
> >the overall price, but was closer to $6bn in linked defence and economic
> >loans. The bottom line from the US was "If you don't buy our fighter,
we're
> >not going to give you these loans. Oh, and we're currently reviewing your
> >most-favoured-nation trade status. No pressure!"
> >
> No Rafales. It was, and is, inferior to the F-15
>
> >The F-35 has zero - nil - export sales. A number of foreign governments,
> >including the UK, are contributing financially to the development process
as
> >partners... but no-one has actually bought the aircraft yet, including
the
> >US. All the 'partner nations' get for their money is technological
> >information and, in the case of the UK, component production contracts.
> >After all, Bush might still cancel it to pay for his adventure in Iraq.
> >
> >Do try to keep up!
> >
> >Matt
> >
> There are 3000+ orders for the F-35. They have not been paid for,
> because payment is due on delivery.
>
> It will not be canceled, the war on terrorism is expensive, but the US
> is quite capable of affording it without impacting other programs
>
> The UK is planning on replacing its excellent, but old, Harrier
> fleet with the F-35

Not strictly true. This is the current favourite for the job, but it has
not been set in stone yet (and knowing British politics it won't be for a
while)

Mike

November 4th 03, 06:39 PM

Mister minyard's logic:

Rafale is **** compared to F.35,because it has not been exported at he
moment.ok
So,Rafale is also inferior to Mirage 2000!...
Same logic,same result: F.22 is hit because it has not been exported yet
(and will probably remain ****).And it's
also inferior to F.16!....
And let's go:
-F.14 is inferior to Mirage F.1 because it has been less exported
-F.106 was ........ Mig.17 ............
-Viggen is .......... Su.22
-F.15 is ............... Mig.29 ............
-................

What a specialist we got here!
The rule is: the more a plane is purchased by foreign countries,the better
it is! YES!

Tell it to the Korean militaries,they've liked your "diplomatic"
reasons,cancelling technical results...
And in the same time,ask the F.14 and F.18 pilots that were on the Vinson
last year what they think about the "****-Rafale".
If you got time left,have a tour in Taïwan,they've got "****-Mirage
2000-5",that have already been opposed to F.16 during
some exercices.They'll tell you about it...

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:36:44 -0000, "killfile" >
wrote:
>
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world
in
> >> >absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.
> >> >
> >> >The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's
> >weapon
> >> >systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's
Air
> >> >Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered
> >the
> >> >F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the
> >contract
> >> >(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for
that
> >> >instead. Suprise!
> >> >
> >> >The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on
in
> >> >years.
> >> >
> >> >Matt
> >> >
> >> The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any offered
> >> by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >Nice to see you completely failed to do any research whatsoever before
> >opening your ass, I mean, mouth.
> >
> >The Rafale deal offered to South Korea was essentially a licensed
production
> >deal, with Dassault offering to transfer an entire Rafale production line
to
> >Seoul. France would build the first few aircraft, and then provide a few
> >limited components once the line was established. In the end, it worked
out
> >to around a $4bn offset.
> >
> >The US/Boeing offer was a transferred-tech deal that directly shook out
to
> >about $3.2bn once the US government gave Boeing a $250m subsidy to reduce
> >the overall price, but was closer to $6bn in linked defence and economic
> >loans. The bottom line from the US was "If you don't buy our fighter,
we're
> >not going to give you these loans. Oh, and we're currently reviewing your
> >most-favoured-nation trade status. No pressure!"
> >
> No Rafales. It was, and is, inferior to the F-15
>
> >The F-35 has zero - nil - export sales. A number of foreign governments,
> >including the UK, are contributing financially to the development process
as
> >partners... but no-one has actually bought the aircraft yet, including
the
> >US. All the 'partner nations' get for their money is technological
> >information and, in the case of the UK, component production contracts.
> >After all, Bush might still cancel it to pay for his adventure in Iraq.
> >
> >Do try to keep up!
> >
> >Matt
> >
> There are 3000+ orders for the F-35. They have not been paid for,
> because payment is due on delivery.
>
> It will not be canceled, the war on terrorism is expensive, but the US
> is quite capable of affording it without impacting other programs
>
> The UK is planning on replacing its excellent, but old, Harrier
> fleet with the F-35
>
> Al Minyard

Pierre-Henri Baras

November 4th 03, 06:41 PM

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...

> >The Republic of Korea Air Force seem to think that the Rafale is superior
to
> >the F-15 and F-16, as well as the Su-35 and Eurofighter.
>
> Oh, that must be why they bought the F-35 instead of the rafale.

Gee, they're gonna be disappointed when they get F-15Ks instead of
F-35s......

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

Skysurfer

November 4th 03, 06:55 PM

Pierre-Henri Baras wrote :

> Grounded? The Rafale?? Errr, you're confusing the Rafale with the
> Eurofighter. The Rafale never crashed, and wasn't grounded unlike
> the Eurofighter.
> As for ACM, the Rafale M flew against the Carl Vinson air wing
> last year: humiliated the F-14 (I'm sorry to say this as I love
> the Turkey) and rapidly disposed of the F-18 that put up a better
> fight than the F-14, but eventually gave in.

I don't try anymore to find any logic or truth in Al's posts ...

Skysurfer

November 4th 03, 06:57 PM

Mike wrote :

>> The F-22 would kill all of them before they knew it was there.
>
> bla bla bla

Remember me when the Crotale french SAM and Shahine saudi SAM detected
the F117 during the 1st gulf war ...

killfile

November 4th 03, 07:22 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:47:14 -0000, "killfile" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt)
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c
in
> >> >> >WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring
any
> >> >> >bells? Moron.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rob
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so
current
> >French
> >> >> aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of
the
> >art and
> >> >> are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Al Minyard
> >> >
> >> >Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
> >> >first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
> >> >inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
> >> >D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
> >> >certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
> >> >After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
> >> >racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
> >> >against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
> >> >Mirage.
> >> >Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> >> >capable aircraft.
> >> >You just don't like anything foreign Al.
> >> >
> >> >Rob
> >>
> >> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and F-22
> >> are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
> >> quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
> >> does little to bolster your case.
> >>
> >> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
> >> of the F-35.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >The Republic of Korea Air Force seem to think that the Rafale is superior
to
> >the F-15 and F-16, as well as the Su-35 and Eurofighter.
>
> Oh, that must be why they bought the F-35 instead of the rafale.
> >
> >The clearest thing is that nothing is superior to the *price* of the F-22
> >... I'll certainly bet the six Rafales or Eurofighters you could get the
> >price of one F-22 against that lone F-22 in combat.
>
> The F-22 would kill all of them before they knew it was there.
> >
> Al Minyard

YOU ARE ENTERING ... THE AL MINYARD ZONE

DO DO DOO DO DOO DO DO DOO

How is one F/A-22 going to kill six Rafales? If you ask any USAF pilot if
you'd get Six-Shots, Six-Kills with the AIM-120, they'd laugh in your face.

And don't start talking about dogfighting ... the F/A-22 is a tennis court
with wings. It has serious high-alpha stall problems and the thrust
vectoring is still not flight-certified. The Rafale would dance circles
around it.

Matt

Chad Irby

November 4th 03, 08:39 PM

In article >,
"killfile" > wrote:

> How is one F/A-22 going to kill six Rafales?

By calling on his two wingmen, of course.

Unless the Rafales are selling for less than $30 million each, of course.

Parts, support, and training included.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 4th 03, 08:56 PM

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:47:14 -0000, "killfile" > wrote:
>>The clearest thing is that nothing is superior to the *price* of the F-22
>>... I'll certainly bet the six Rafales or Eurofighters you could get the
>>price of one F-22 against that lone F-22 in combat.
>
>The F-22 would kill all of them before they knew it was there.

The Germans said that about the Me.262... unfortunately, being badly
outnumbered tends to end up with heavy casualties because the enemy
aircraft aren't just met in ideal engagements. Sometimes you meet enemy
aircraft when they drop penetrating bombs through hardened shelters and
runway intersections, or in the same raid when your 'stealthy' aircraft
is dirtied up with flaps and undercarriage down on approach or
departure.

Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
it'll be seriously stretched.

Odds are that none of its enemies will have the means or ability to
seriously challenge it, but then you could say the same about an
upgraded F-15 (which threat nation can seriously challenge the Eagle now
or in the credible future?) for a _lot_ less money.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

November 4th 03, 09:03 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "killfile" > wrote:
>> How is one F/A-22 going to kill six Rafales?
>By calling on his two wingmen, of course.
>
>Unless the Rafales are selling for less than $30 million each, of course.

Are these in French service or exported? Very different accounting
systems used (one of the reasons people joke about "Shock Horror News
From France - GIAT Makes Profit!")

>Parts, support, and training included.

Hey, how much do you get for the cost of a F-22? Not much in terms of
maintenance, crew training, or flying hours... you get the aircraft and
the rest is all extra, same as the competition.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 4th 03, 11:10 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
> and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
> numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
> it'll be seriously stretched.

That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
numbers, for everything.

For airfield and short-range defense, you don't need a stealth plane as
much (although it's a very good force multiplier). We can keep using
upgraded F-15s and F-16s for that, and the F-35 when it comes on line.

For *offense*, though, the new-generation European fighters are going to
have a much more difficult time. There's not going to be that many of
them, either, at the rate they're cutting procurement.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 4th 03, 11:14 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "killfile" > wrote:
> >> How is one F/A-22 going to kill six Rafales?
> >By calling on his two wingmen, of course.
> >
> >Unless the Rafales are selling for less than $30 million each, of course.
>
> Are these in French service or exported? Very different accounting
> systems used (one of the reasons people joke about "Shock Horror News
> From France - GIAT Makes Profit!")

Those "very different accounting systems" are why the Rafale and
Eurofighter are *much* more expensive than the lowball numbers some
people have been expecting. $85 million each, for the British, and the
German version is about the same price.

> >Parts, support, and training included.
>
> Hey, how much do you get for the cost of a F-22? Not much in terms of
> maintenance, crew training, or flying hours... you get the aircraft and
> the rest is all extra, same as the competition.

Wrong.

When you see those sub-$30 million numbers for the European planes, it's
for airframe alone. Which is why the British version of the Eurofighter
is pricing out at $80 to $85 million a pop for the full buy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 4th 03, 11:21 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:49:25 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>>> The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any
>>> offered by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.
>>
>> I don't understand your POV. The F35 is 5 years, if all
>> goes well, from even entering service with the US -- the Rafale
>> has already been in service for two years.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> The Rafale has been a commercial failure. No export sales at
> all. "In service" and an effective weapons system are not the
> same thing. How many Rafales are currently contracted for?
> The F-35 has 3000+ orders in hand.
>
> Al Minyard

What about the plane you in question, the Eagle, how many exports
in the last 30, or so, years?

Regards...

Yeff

November 4th 03, 11:33 PM

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:21:03 GMT, Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:

> What about the plane you in question, the Eagle, how many exports
> in the last 30, or so, years?

Israel - F-15A/B/D/I
Japan - F-15J/DJ
Saudi Arabia - F-15C/D/S
Republic of Korea - F-15K

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 5th 03, 12:16 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:27:47 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>>>
>>> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35
>>> and F-22 are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in
>>> France.
>>
>> I'd agree on the two latter, but on the paper I'd say the
>> Rafael easily matches those three for it's intended roles. And
>> it does that years ahead of both the F22 and F35.
>
> Is it flying, or still grounded?

It's never been grouned to my knowledge, though I could
be mistaking.

> And you would not want to try
> ACM with an F-15, F-14, or F-16. Their avionics, weapons,
> and airframes are all superior.

That seems unlikely since their basic desing is 30 years old.

I'd take those two 30mms over the Vulcan any day. Choose
between Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM, or
Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick, or Exocet/AM39,
Penguin 3 and Harpoon. That will give any US fighter a
good run for its money.

>> We could just JOUST it for an interesting perspective:
>>
>> http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
>>
>>
>>> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export
>>> sales of the F-35.
>>
>> What export sales?
>
> Look at the partnership agreements signed by the UK, Australia,
> Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and
> Canada. There are currently contracts for 3002 aircraft with
> many more in the negotiation phase.

Ok, so there haven't actually been any sales yet.

I seem to be missing your point though.

Regards...

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 05:42 PM

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:57:25 -0000, "killfile" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:27:47 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >Alan Minyard > wrote in
>> :
>> >> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt)
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during
>> >>>the first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406
>> >>>while inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from
>> >>>1939-40. The D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the
>> >>>surrender and was certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of
>> >>>the time. After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to
>> >>>the Israelis who racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage
>> >>>out of the aircraft against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super
>> >>>Mystere, Vautour, and Mirage.
>> >>>Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
>> >>>capable aircraft.
>> >>>You just don't like anything foreign Al.
>> >>>
>> >>>Rob
>> >>
>> >> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35
>> >> and F-22 are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in
>> >> France.
>> >
>> > I'd agree on the two latter, but on the paper I'd say the Rafael
>> > easily matches those three for it's intended roles. And it
>> > does that years ahead of both the F22 and F35.
>>
>> Is it flying, or still grounded? And you would not want to try
>> ACM with an F-15, F-14, or F-16. Their avionics, weapons,
>> and airframes are all superior.
>> >
>> > We could just JOUST it for an interesting perspective:
>> >
>> > http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
>> >
>> >
>> >> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export
>> >> sales of the F-35.
>> >
>> > What export sales?
>>
>> Look at the partnership agreements signed by the UK, Australia,
>> Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and
>> Canada. There are currently contracts for 3002 aircraft with
>> many more in the negotiation phase.
>
>The partnership agreements concern technology transfer and workshare on the
>development of the production article. No money has yet transferred hands
>for any production aircraft, and NO ORDERS have been made yet. The Bush
>administration is even studying canceling the thing in favour of an expanded
>Block-60 F-16 purchase and UCAV's - not ouside the bounds of reality,
>considering how big the budget defecit has become during the 'war on
>terror'.
>
>Get your facts straight.
>
>Matt
>
My facts are straight, the orders are from the US Air Force, Navy,
and Marines. The other countries have options to buy, and
several, including the Brits and Canadians have made verbal
commitments. There are always (in the US, at any rate) fall back
scenarios in the event of major program glitches. There is
no serious talk of canceling the F-35, as no other aircraft
can perform its mission. You do realize it has a STOL
variant? And we can quite easily afford them. You do
not seem to have any idea of the size of US budgets.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 05:42 PM

>
>Not strictly true. This is the current favourite for the job, but it has
>not been set in stone yet (and knowing British politics it won't be for a
>while)
>
Quite true, I meant (and thought I said) that the UK is "planning"
on the F-35, not that any purchases had been made. Overseas
sales are nice, although there are very few countries that could
operate and maintain the F-35, the UK obviously has that
ability. In addition, there are very few countries that could be
trusted with the technology, again, no problem with the UK.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 05:42 PM

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:57:54 +0100, Skysurfer > wrote:

>Mike wrote :
>
>>> The F-22 would kill all of them before they knew it was there.
>>
>> bla bla bla

My, what a thoughtful response.
>
>Remember me when the Crotale french SAM and Shahine saudi SAM detected
>the F117 during the 1st gulf war ...

What are you smoking? The F-117 was not detected, and there is no
evidence that it ever has been. If Saddam's french SAMs had
"detected" the F-117 they would have fired unless you mean french
manned Crotales, in which case they never detected the F-117
either.

Al Minyard

Tarver Engineering

November 5th 03, 06:10 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "killfile" > wrote:
>
> > The Republic of Korea Air Force seem to think that the Rafale is
superior to
> > the F-15 and F-16, as well as the Su-35 and Eurofighter.
>
> Considering that they're comparing the Rafale to 30 year old designs
> that are in the midst of being phased out in the US, that's hardly
> shocking.
>
> > The clearest thing is that nothing is superior to the *price* of the
F-22
> > ... I'll certainly bet the six Rafales or Eurofighters you could get the
> > price of one F-22 against that lone F-22 in combat.
>
> You misspelled "two" as "six."
>
> The Eurofighter is going for $80 to $85 million each (that's what the
> Brits are paying).
>
> The F-22 is pushing $170 million each (that's the worst-case cost if we
> only buy 70 of them - the price drops dramatically if we buy more, and
> could have been as low as $90 million a pop with full-rate production).

No, your F-22 price is very far off.

> These are _full program_ costs, not just for the aircraft themselves.

No, you failed to amortize the costs of the F-22.

> So for much less capability, the Eurofighter costs about half as much
> money. The Rafale is in the same price range, so there's no savings on
> that one either.

No, not even close.

> Don't compare airframe costs (no parts, no training, no support) in
> Europe to full program costs in the US (parts, training, support).

You are kidding yourself, Irby.

killfile

November 5th 03, 06:11 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:57:25 -0000, "killfile" >
wrote:
>
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:27:47 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alan Minyard > wrote in
> >> :
> >> >> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during
> >> >>>the first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406
> >> >>>while inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from
> >> >>>1939-40. The D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the
> >> >>>surrender and was certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of
> >> >>>the time. After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to
> >> >>>the Israelis who racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage
> >> >>>out of the aircraft against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super
> >> >>>Mystere, Vautour, and Mirage.
> >> >>>Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
> >> >>>capable aircraft.
> >> >>>You just don't like anything foreign Al.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Rob
> >> >>
> >> >> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35
> >> >> and F-22 are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in
> >> >> France.
> >> >
> >> > I'd agree on the two latter, but on the paper I'd say the Rafael
> >> > easily matches those three for it's intended roles. And it
> >> > does that years ahead of both the F22 and F35.
> >>
> >> Is it flying, or still grounded? And you would not want to try
> >> ACM with an F-15, F-14, or F-16. Their avionics, weapons,
> >> and airframes are all superior.
> >> >
> >> > We could just JOUST it for an interesting perspective:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export
> >> >> sales of the F-35.
> >> >
> >> > What export sales?
> >>
> >> Look at the partnership agreements signed by the UK, Australia,
> >> Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and
> >> Canada. There are currently contracts for 3002 aircraft with
> >> many more in the negotiation phase.
> >
> >The partnership agreements concern technology transfer and workshare on
the
> >development of the production article. No money has yet transferred hands
> >for any production aircraft, and NO ORDERS have been made yet. The Bush
> >administration is even studying canceling the thing in favour of an
expanded
> >Block-60 F-16 purchase and UCAV's - not ouside the bounds of reality,
> >considering how big the budget defecit has become during the 'war on
> >terror'.
> >
> >Get your facts straight.
> >
> >Matt
> >
> My facts are straight, the orders are from the US Air Force, Navy,
> and Marines. The other countries have options to buy, and
> several, including the Brits and Canadians have made verbal
> commitments. There are always (in the US, at any rate) fall back
> scenarios in the event of major program glitches. There is
> no serious talk of canceling the F-35, as no other aircraft
> can perform its mission. You do realize it has a STOL
> variant? And we can quite easily afford them. You do
> not seem to have any idea of the size of US budgets.
>
> Al Minyard

So what you're saying is ... there's no export sales.

You are, in fact, admitting you were wrong. Amazing.

Matt

killfile

November 5th 03, 06:12 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:57:54 +0100, Skysurfer > wrote:
>
> >Mike wrote :
> >
> >>> The F-22 would kill all of them before they knew it was there.
> >>
> >> bla bla bla
>
> My, what a thoughtful response.
> >
> >Remember me when the Crotale french SAM and Shahine saudi SAM detected
> >the F117 during the 1st gulf war ...
>
> What are you smoking? The F-117 was not detected, and there is no
> evidence that it ever has been. If Saddam's french SAMs had
> "detected" the F-117 they would have fired unless you mean french
> manned Crotales, in which case they never detected the F-117
> either.
>
> Al Minyard

I think he's aiming at the fact that the F-117 is detectable on survailance
radar, but not trackable for missile guidence ... apart from the brief
period where it's belly doors are open, when it has the radar signiture of a
greyhound bus.

Matt

Skysurfer

November 5th 03, 07:41 PM

Alan Minyard wrote :

>>Remember me when the Crotale french SAM and Shahine saudi SAM
>>detected the F117 during the 1st gulf war ...
>
> What are you smoking? The F-117 was not detected, and there is no
> evidence that it ever has been. If Saddam's french SAMs had
> "detected" the F-117 they would have fired unless you mean french
> manned Crotales, in which case they never detected the F-117
> either.

I'm not talking about the irakis but the french and the saudis !
Irak don't and didn't have Crotale.

Tarver Engineering

November 5th 03, 07:42 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "killfile" > wrote:
> >> How is one F/A-22 going to kill six Rafales?
> >By calling on his two wingmen, of course.
> >
> >Unless the Rafales are selling for less than $30 million each, of course.
>
> Are these in French service or exported? Very different accounting
> systems used (one of the reasons people joke about "Shock Horror News
> From France - GIAT Makes Profit!")
>
> >Parts, support, and training included.
>
> Hey, how much do you get for the cost of a F-22? Not much in terms of
> maintenance, crew training, or flying hours... you get the aircraft and
> the rest is all extra, same as the competition.

Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170 million a
copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces. For 70 pieces the F-22 will be over $300
million a copy. That of course assumes the program woks out their problems
during FY2004, otherwise there will be only about a dozen production copys
ever.

Ian Craig

November 5th 03, 08:01 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >Not strictly true. This is the current favourite for the job, but it has
> >not been set in stone yet (and knowing British politics it won't be for a
> >while)
> >
> Quite true, I meant (and thought I said) that the UK is "planning"
> on the F-35, not that any purchases had been made. Overseas
> sales are nice, although there are very few countries that could
> operate and maintain the F-35, the UK obviously has that
> ability. In addition, there are very few countries that could be
> trusted with the technology, again, no problem with the UK.
>
> Al Minyard

I'll now do something that nobody else on RAM seems to do - apologise!

I'd misread what you had entered.

tadaa

November 6th 03, 01:22 AM

> What are you smoking? The F-117 was not detected, and there is no
> evidence that it ever has been. If Saddam's french SAMs had
> "detected" the F-117 they would have fired unless you mean french
> manned Crotales, in which case they never detected the F-117
> either.

What about the one in Yugoslavia? :)

Skysurfer

November 6th 03, 05:52 AM

tadaa wrote :

> What about the one in Yugoslavia? :)

<Al>
It didn't happen.
That's propaganda.
</Al>

Chad Irby

November 6th 03, 07:33 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> No, your F-22 price is very far off.

> No, you failed to amortize the costs of the F-22.

> No, not even close.

> You are kidding yourself, Irby.

Note the complete lack of actual information in the above replies...

It's like the "Argument Sketch" from Monty Python.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 6th 03, 07:34 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170 million a
> copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces.

Nope. For 336 pieces, the price would be $90 million each. At the
current buy rate, it's $170 million.

> For 70 pieces the F-22 will be over $300
> million a copy.

Nope. Look it up for once.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Alan Minyard

November 6th 03, 03:35 PM

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:11:09 -0000, "killfile" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message

>> My facts are straight, the orders are from the US Air Force, Navy,
>> and Marines. The other countries have options to buy, and
>> several, including the Brits and Canadians have made verbal
>> commitments. There are always (in the US, at any rate) fall back
>> scenarios in the event of major program glitches. There is
>> no serious talk of canceling the F-35, as no other aircraft
>> can perform its mission. You do realize it has a STOL
>> variant? And we can quite easily afford them. You do
>> not seem to have any idea of the size of US budgets.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>So what you're saying is ... there's no export sales.
>
>You are, in fact, admitting you were wrong. Amazing.
>
>Matt
>
No, I am saying that there have been no payments. Several
countries are *planning* to purchase the F-35, as it is a
unique and extremely capable aircraft.

Al Minyard

Tarver Engineering

November 6th 03, 04:00 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > No, your F-22 price is very far off.
>
> > No, you failed to amortize the costs of the F-22.
>
> > No, not even close.
>
> > You are kidding yourself, Irby.
>
> Note the complete lack of actual information in the above replies...

All in the spirit of your zero referenced numbers, Irby.

> It's like the "Argument Sketch" from Monty Python.

Most any post can be made to look that way with editing.

Here is some data:
When the F-22 departed controlled flight this year and nearly fell out of
the sky, the program tried to cover up the incident. Much as the F-22's
tail cracks, that apeared immediately after the tail boom was stiffened and
were hidden for months. Congress has stated that if the F-22 does not "get
it's problem fixed" during FY04, it will be cancelled.

Tarver Engineering

November 6th 03, 04:03 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170 million
a
> > copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces.
>
> Nope. For 336 pieces, the price would be $90 million each. At the
> current buy rate, it's $170 million.

You are looking at way old data. All these delays have driven up costs for
the F-22 program markedly. The smart thing to do would have been to kill
this luster **** in FY99, the first time congress realized they were being
taken for a ride. I am glad they didn't, for the sake of keeping edwards
running, but the program has been a monumental waste of money.

Chad Irby

November 6th 03, 05:18 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Note the complete lack of actual information in the above replies...
>
> All in the spirit of your zero referenced numbers, Irby.

Except that I actually *had* some numbers, which are commonly available.
Your "$300 million" price tage, in another post, is just silly.

The only way you could get $300 million each for the F-22 is if they
cancelled the program, *today*, and took no more deilveries other than
the ones they already have on hand.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 6th 03, 05:20 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170 million
> a
> > > copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces.
> >
> > Nope. For 336 pieces, the price would be $90 million each. At the
> > current buy rate, it's $170 million.
>
> You are looking at way old data. All these delays have driven up costs for
> the F-22 program markedly.

My numbers are from last year. There have been no real changes in
costs since then. $170 million is the current price, according to
current planned buys.

Where did you get your guesswork from?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tarver Engineering

November 6th 03, 05:32 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > Note the complete lack of actual information in the above replies...
> >
> > All in the spirit of your zero referenced numbers, Irby.
>
> Except that I actually *had* some numbers, which are commonly available.
> Your "$300 million" price tage, in another post, is just silly.

The costs are already abve $200 million a copy for the F-22 in the current
trimmed down to 220 airframes buy. Amortizing this 20 year program over
less airframes drives the price up rapidly.

> The only way you could get $300 million each for the F-22 is if they
> cancelled the program, *today*, and took no more deilveries other than
> the ones they already have on hand.

No, if the program were cancelled today, each delivered production model
would be over a $billion a copy. As the program is still attemptig to hide
deficiencies, I find it doubtful the program will turn around tis year.

Either way, all the flying the F-22 is doing is a big help for Edwards.

Tarver Engineering

November 6th 03, 05:32 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170
million
> > a
> > > > copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces.
> > >
> > > Nope. For 336 pieces, the price would be $90 million each. At the
> > > current buy rate, it's $170 million.
> >
> > You are looking at way old data. All these delays have driven up costs
for
> > the F-22 program markedly.
>
> My numbers are from last year. There have been no real changes in
> costs since then. $170 million is the current price, according to
> current planned buys.

Not for seventy pieces and not for the additional delays.

Paul J. Adam

November 6th 03, 05:41 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
>> and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
>> numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
>> it'll be seriously stretched.
>
>That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
>numbers, for everything.

So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
enemies?

Or are these upgraded aircraft thoroughly capable against the current
and projected threat, making the F-22 an expensive luxury?

Either your existing platforms are obsolete and need replacement, or
they aren't...

>For *offense*, though, the new-generation European fighters are going to
>have a much more difficult time.

I'm interested in the scenario where this is the case.

>There's not going to be that many of
>them, either, at the rate they're cutting procurement.

"Not many" being around 150 Typhoons for the RAF _if_ Tranche 3 bites
the dust (which is by no means a given - serious contractual and
workshare issues to resolve before it's doable).

>

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

November 6th 03, 09:38 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Are these in French service or exported? Very different accounting
>> systems used (one of the reasons people joke about "Shock Horror News
>> From France - GIAT Makes Profit!")
>
>Those "very different accounting systems" are why the Rafale and
>Eurofighter are *much* more expensive than the lowball numbers some
>people have been expecting. $85 million each, for the British, and the
>German version is about the same price.

How much of development cost is factored into each airframe, and exactly
what support is included?

(You might have noted I singled out the French for criticism for opaque
accounting)

>> Hey, how much do you get for the cost of a F-22? Not much in terms of
>> maintenance, crew training, or flying hours... you get the aircraft and
>> the rest is all extra, same as the competition.
>
>Wrong.
>
>When you see those sub-$30 million numbers for the European planes, it's
>for airframe alone. Which is why the British version of the Eurofighter
>is pricing out at $80 to $85 million a pop for the full buy.

So, how much support, training, infrastructure, et cetera comes with
each F-22? What is the "real cost" of one F-22?

I know this for a fact: for the price the US was willing to sell and
sustain, you could buy and fly two Eurofighters for one F-22. And while
the Raptor was certainly better one-for-one, it wasn't better enough
against the threat to overcome the fundamental problem: divide airframes
by two and Red raids are much less likely to be intercepted.

The F-22 (or is it really now the F/A-22?) shows every sign of being a
lethal aircraft; and an extraordinarily expensive one. Trouble is, to be
lethal you have to get into weapons range of the enemy.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 7th 03, 01:12 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The costs are already abve $200 million a copy for the F-22 in the current
> trimmed down to 220 airframes buy.

Nope. $170 million, for the *current* schedule. If they go as high as
200 planes, the price drops down to $120 million or so.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 7th 03, 01:27 AM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
> >> and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
> >> numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
> >> it'll be seriously stretched.
> >
> >That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
> >numbers, for everything.
>
> So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
> antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
> enemies?

Note that those old "antiquated deathtraps" are competitive with the
current offerings from Europe, and much better than anything else in the
world.

> Or are these upgraded aircraft thoroughly capable against the current
> and projected threat, making the F-22 an expensive luxury?

They're good enough for air support and moderate-threat missions, but
not as good as the next generation planes (the F-22 and F-35).

> Either your existing platforms are obsolete and need replacement, or
> they aren't...

False premise. There's more than one mission, more than one level of
threat, and more than one plane in the inventory.

> >For *offense*, though, the new-generation European fighters are going to
> >have a much more difficult time.
>
> I'm interested in the scenario where this is the case.

Long range missile combat.

> >There's not going to be that many of
> >them, either, at the rate they're cutting procurement.
>
> "Not many" being around 150 Typhoons for the RAF _if_ Tranche 3 bites
> the dust (which is by no means a given - serious contractual and
> workshare issues to resolve before it's doable).

Just wait until the new planes hit the inventory, and watch the old
planes disappear completely overnight...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

killfile

November 7th 03, 02:51 AM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:11:09 -0000, "killfile" >
wrote:
>
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
>
> >> My facts are straight, the orders are from the US Air Force, Navy,
> >> and Marines. The other countries have options to buy, and
> >> several, including the Brits and Canadians have made verbal
> >> commitments. There are always (in the US, at any rate) fall back
> >> scenarios in the event of major program glitches. There is
> >> no serious talk of canceling the F-35, as no other aircraft
> >> can perform its mission. You do realize it has a STOL
> >> variant? And we can quite easily afford them. You do
> >> not seem to have any idea of the size of US budgets.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >So what you're saying is ... there's no export sales.
> >
> >You are, in fact, admitting you were wrong. Amazing.
> >
> >Matt
> >
> No, I am saying that there have been no payments. Several
> countries are *planning* to purchase the F-35, as it is a
> unique and extremely capable aircraft.
>
> Al Minyard

It's fine to say a country is 'planning' to purchase something, but actually
ordering it is a different matter. the Czech republic was 'planning' to
order Gripens and Austria was 'planning' to order Eurofighters but it
doesn't look like either of those will happen.

There are no orders.

Matt

Alan Minyard

November 7th 03, 05:04 PM

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:41:24 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>>In article >,
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>> Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
>>> and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
>>> numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
>>> it'll be seriously stretched.
>>
>>That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
>>numbers, for everything.
>
>So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
>antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
>enemies?
>
I take it that you have never heard of the F-35?? It will be capable of
taking on any other aircraft in the world, with the exception of the F-22
(the UK plans on buying quite a few).

Al Minyard

Ian Craig

November 7th 03, 08:50 PM

"killfile" > wrote in message
...
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:11:09 -0000, "killfile" >
> wrote:
> >
> > >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> >
> > >> My facts are straight, the orders are from the US Air Force, Navy,
> > >> and Marines. The other countries have options to buy, and
> > >> several, including the Brits and Canadians have made verbal
> > >> commitments. There are always (in the US, at any rate) fall back
> > >> scenarios in the event of major program glitches. There is
> > >> no serious talk of canceling the F-35, as no other aircraft
> > >> can perform its mission. You do realize it has a STOL
> > >> variant? And we can quite easily afford them. You do
> > >> not seem to have any idea of the size of US budgets.
> > >>
> > >> Al Minyard
> > >
> > >So what you're saying is ... there's no export sales.
> > >
> > >You are, in fact, admitting you were wrong. Amazing.
> > >
> > >Matt
> > >
> > No, I am saying that there have been no payments. Several
> > countries are *planning* to purchase the F-35, as it is a
> > unique and extremely capable aircraft.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> It's fine to say a country is 'planning' to purchase something, but
actually
> ordering it is a different matter. the Czech republic was 'planning' to
> order Gripens and Austria was 'planning' to order Eurofighters but it
> doesn't look like either of those will happen.
>
Austria has ordered (12?) Typhoons
>

Peter Kemp

November 7th 03, 10:25 PM

On or about Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:04:53 -0600, Alan Minyard
> allegedly uttered:

>On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:41:24 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>>In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>>>In article >,
>>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>>> Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
>>>> and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
>>>> numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
>>>> it'll be seriously stretched.
>>>
>>>That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
>>>numbers, for everything.
>>
>>So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
>>antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
>>enemies?
>>
>I take it that you have never heard of the F-35?? It will be capable of
>taking on any other aircraft in the world, with the exception of the F-22
>(the UK plans on buying quite a few).

Which raises the obvious question that Paul was hinting at....

If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Tarver Engineering

November 7th 03, 10:42 PM

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:04:53 -0600, Alan Minyard
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:41:24 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> >
> >>In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >>>In article >,
> >>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >>>> Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own
base
> >>>> and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
> >>>> numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor
means
> >>>> it'll be seriously stretched.
> >>>
> >>>That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
> >>>numbers, for everything.
> >>
> >>So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
> >>antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
> >>enemies?
> >>
> >I take it that you have never heard of the F-35?? It will be capable of
> >taking on any other aircraft in the world, with the exception of the F-22
> >(the UK plans on buying quite a few).
>
> Which raises the obvious question that Paul was hinting at....
>
> If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
> aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?

We don't.

Chad Irby

November 8th 03, 12:45 AM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> I know this for a fact: for the price the US was willing to sell and
> sustain, you could buy and fly two Eurofighters for one F-22.

Which is pretty much exactly what I was claiming.

....as opposed to the insane "six to one" cost ratio claimed by someone
earlier in the thread.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 8th 03, 12:53 AM

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:

> If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
> aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?

Hitting targets about twice as far away.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

killfile

November 8th 03, 05:36 AM

"Ian Craig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "killfile" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:11:09 -0000, "killfile" >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >> My facts are straight, the orders are from the US Air Force, Navy,
> > > >> and Marines. The other countries have options to buy, and
> > > >> several, including the Brits and Canadians have made verbal
> > > >> commitments. There are always (in the US, at any rate) fall back
> > > >> scenarios in the event of major program glitches. There is
> > > >> no serious talk of canceling the F-35, as no other aircraft
> > > >> can perform its mission. You do realize it has a STOL
> > > >> variant? And we can quite easily afford them. You do
> > > >> not seem to have any idea of the size of US budgets.
> > > >>
> > > >> Al Minyard
> > > >
> > > >So what you're saying is ... there's no export sales.
> > > >
> > > >You are, in fact, admitting you were wrong. Amazing.
> > > >
> > > >Matt
> > > >
> > > No, I am saying that there have been no payments. Several
> > > countries are *planning* to purchase the F-35, as it is a
> > > unique and extremely capable aircraft.
> > >
> > > Al Minyard
> >
> > It's fine to say a country is 'planning' to purchase something, but
> actually
> > ordering it is a different matter. the Czech republic was 'planning' to
> > order Gripens and Austria was 'planning' to order Eurofighters but it
> > doesn't look like either of those will happen.
> >
> Austria has ordered (12?) Typhoons
> >

Whoops, you're right, they did order 18 Typhoons back in August.

Unfortunately, the Austrian opposition is fighting tooth and nail to get
that order cancelled, so the future of the program is very cloudy indeed.
Their proposition is that they instead take MIG-29SMT's (or SM2's ... or
whatever the latest MIG-29 varient is this week) as an off-set against the
debt that Russia owes to Austria.

Matt

killfile

November 8th 03, 05:58 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> > I know this for a fact: for the price the US was willing to sell and
> > sustain, you could buy and fly two Eurofighters for one F-22.
>
> Which is pretty much exactly what I was claiming.
>
> ...as opposed to the insane "six to one" cost ratio claimed by someone
> earlier in the thread.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

A GAO report put the price of a single F-22 at $200m with no parts, weapons
or servicing, if production is capped at the current rate, for a total of 70
aircraft. Which, if they do want the F-35, it might well be.

Weirder things have happened ... they did scrap Crusader, after all.

Matt

killfile

November 8th 03, 05:58 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>
> > If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
> > aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?
>
> Hitting targets about twice as far away.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

How? They're using the same missile.

Matt

Michael Williamson

November 8th 03, 07:15 AM

killfile wrote:

>>>If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
>>>aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?
>>
>>Hitting targets about twice as far away.
>>
>>--
>>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
>
> How? They're using the same missile.
>
> Matt
>
>

Presumably by flying farther, and at a higher speed, to the
target before firing.

Mike

killfile

November 8th 03, 07:58 AM

"Michael Williamson" > wrote in
message ...
> killfile wrote:
>
> >>>If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
> >>>aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?
> >>
> >>Hitting targets about twice as far away.
> >>
> >>--
> >>cirby at cfl.rr.com
> >
> >
> > How? They're using the same missile.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>
> Presumably by flying farther, and at a higher speed, to the
> target before firing.
>
> Mike
>

I was reffering to air-to-air engagements. Despite the ingenious 'name
change' approach, the F/A-22 really has very little in the way of AtG
capability thus far.

Matt

Tarver Engineering

November 8th 03, 05:50 PM

"Michael Williamson" > wrote in
message ...
> killfile wrote:
>
> >>>If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
> >>>aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?
> >>
> >>Hitting targets about twice as far away.
> >>
> >>--
> >>cirby at cfl.rr.com
> >
> >
> > How? They're using the same missile.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>
> Presumably by flying farther, and at a higher speed, to the
> target before firing.

An F-22 is not a fast airplane, by historical perspectives and will have
less range than some F-35 versions. Same Company, different guys, better
airplane.

November 8th 03, 09:27 PM

"Skysurfer" > wrote in message
. 0.136...

> I'm not talking about the irakis but the french and the saudis !
> Irak don't and didn't have Crotale.

Iraq did indeed have Crotale. Both Roland and Crotale were supplied during
the 80's and have been recovered in recent months in Iraq.

TJ

Paul J. Adam

November 8th 03, 09:46 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
>> antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
>> enemies?
>
>Note that those old "antiquated deathtraps" are competitive with the
>current offerings from Europe, and much better than anything else in the
>world.

If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and leased
F-16s instead.

Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.

>> Or are these upgraded aircraft thoroughly capable against the current
>> and projected threat, making the F-22 an expensive luxury?
>
>They're good enough for air support and moderate-threat missions, but
>not as good as the next generation planes (the F-22 and F-35).

So what threat _does_ demand the F-22?

>> Either your existing platforms are obsolete and need replacement, or
>> they aren't...
>
>False premise. There's more than one mission, more than one level of
>threat, and more than one plane in the inventory.

But the new aircraft will make the old aircraft disappear overnight.
Your own words.

>> I'm interested in the scenario where this is the case.
>
>Long range missile combat.

Interesting to recall that the F-16 was designed explicitly to avoid
this "useless boondoggle" and BVR capability was a late addition; and
the F-15 was designed to be an agile dogfighter that also carried the
Sparrow. (1970s dogma, complicated causes.)

Interesting also to know that the only aircraft to better the Typhoon in
BVR combat is the F-22... except that for a constant-cost comparison you
can't afford enough F-22s to match the Typhoon force. (Being better only
counts if you can intercept enough Red raids: 'better aircraft' that are
spread too thin don't help)

>> "Not many" being around 150 Typhoons for the RAF _if_ Tranche 3 bites
>> the dust (which is by no means a given - serious contractual and
>> workshare issues to resolve before it's doable).
>
>Just wait until the new planes hit the inventory, and watch the old
>planes disappear completely overnight...

So the "old planes" (the F-15s and F-16s you were previously expecting
to upgrade) are actually _not_ up to the job, since they'll 'disappear
overnight' when the new airframes arrive?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 9th 03, 12:20 AM

In article >,
"killfile" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >
> > > I know this for a fact: for the price the US was willing to sell and
> > > sustain, you could buy and fly two Eurofighters for one F-22.
> >
> > Which is pretty much exactly what I was claiming.
> >
> > ...as opposed to the insane "six to one" cost ratio claimed by someone
> > earlier in the thread.
>
> A GAO report put the price of a single F-22 at $200m with no parts, weapons
> or servicing, if production is capped at the current rate, for a total of 70
> aircraft. Which, if they do want the F-35, it might well be.

Nope. The $200 million is the "limited buy, full program" number.

Parts and service included.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 9th 03, 12:21 AM

In article >,
"killfile" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
> >
> > > If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
> > > aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?
> >
> > Hitting targets about twice as far away.
>
> How? They're using the same missile.

....since the F-22 has about twice the unrefueled range of the F-35.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 9th 03, 12:22 AM

In article >,
"killfile" > wrote:

> I was reffering to air-to-air engagements. Despite the ingenious
> 'name change' approach, the F/A-22 really has very little in the way
> of AtG capability thus far.

Except for dropping a few thousand pounds of precision-guided bombs...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 9th 03, 12:23 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> An F-22 is not a fast airplane, by historical perspectives

Mach 2. About the same as everyone else out there, and faster than some
of the current-generation European planes.

> and will have
> less range than some F-35 versions.

Name one. All of the current F-35 variants top out at about half the
range.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 9th 03, 12:24 AM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes

> >Note that those old "antiquated deathtraps" are competitive with the
> >current offerings from Europe, and much better than anything else in the
> >world.
>
> If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and leased
> F-16s instead.
>
> Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.

....and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
reasons.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tarver Engineering

November 9th 03, 12:33 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > An F-22 is not a fast airplane, by historical perspectives
>
> Mach 2. About the same as everyone else out there, and faster than some
> of the current-generation European planes.
>
> > and will have
> > less range than some F-35 versions.
>
> Name one. All of the current F-35 variants top out at about half the
> range.

We shall see.

killfile

November 9th 03, 10:57 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "killfile" > wrote:
>
> > I was reffering to air-to-air engagements. Despite the ingenious
> > 'name change' approach, the F/A-22 really has very little in the way
> > of AtG capability thus far.
>
> Except for dropping a few thousand pounds of precision-guided bombs...
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

The F/A-22 won't have any PGM capability for a while yet. JDAM integration
will be relatively easy, but it won't have laser designation capability
unless some kind of external pod is integrated - and external stores means
your radar signature goes waaaay up. On the same subject, the F/A-22 isn't
going to be able to carry more than two 1000lb JDAM's without going to
external stores, until the Small Diameter Bomb enters service.

The F/A-22 was designed to be the ultimate interceptor, a Cold War
requirement that no longer exists. It might be a first-rate fighter, but
it's not a bomber yet.

The proposed F/A-22E looks pretty interesting, though.

Matt

Chad Irby

November 9th 03, 05:08 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > and will have less range than some F-35 versions.
>
> We shall see.

No, we shan't.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 9th 03, 05:17 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and leased
>> F-16s instead.
>>
>> Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.
>
>...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
>reasons.

No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

But at that point, if the F-16 had offered a cost-effectiveness
advantage, it would have been bought: there was significant pressure to
walk away from Eurofighter.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Tarver Engineering

November 9th 03, 06:02 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > and will have less range than some F-35 versions.
> >
> > We shall see.
>
> No, we shan't.

The only way we won't see is if the F-22 examples are beer cans, when the
F-35 reaches service.

Chad Irby

November 10th 03, 05:02 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and leased
> >> F-16s instead.
> >>
> >> Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.
> >
> >...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
> >reasons.
>
> No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
> money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
> years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

> But at that point, if the F-16 had offered a cost-effectiveness
> advantage, it would have been bought: there was significant pressure to
> walk away from Eurofighter.

There still is, as evidenced by the reduced buys.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 10th 03, 05:04 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> > > > > and will have less range than some F-35 versions.
> > >
> The only way we won't see is if the F-22 examples are beer cans, when
> the F-35 reaches service.

The only way you could get the sort of performance increse you're
talking about is to completely redesign the F-35 and add a few tons to
the airframe. None of the proposed variants have the sort of range
increase you're claiming.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tarver Engineering

November 10th 03, 06:29 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > and will have less range than some F-35 versions.
> > > >
> > The only way we won't see is if the F-22 examples are beer cans, when
> > the F-35 reaches service.
>
> The only way you could get the sort of performance increse you're
> talking about is to completely redesign the F-35 and add a few tons to
> the airframe. None of the proposed variants have the sort of range
> increase you're claiming.

Read up on the RR F-35 engine offering and also see the test results for the
F-22. One is short of expectations and the other looks like a trick.

Tarver Engineering

November 10th 03, 06:29 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> > In message >, Chad Irby
> > > writes
> > >In article >,
> > > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> > >> If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and
leased
> > >> F-16s instead.
> > >>
> > >> Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.
> > >
> > >...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
> > >reasons.
> >
> > No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
> > money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
> > years old and it's running out of growth room.
>
> You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
> twenty years old.
>
> > But at that point, if the F-16 had offered a cost-effectiveness
> > advantage, it would have been bought: there was significant pressure to
> > walk away from Eurofighter.
>
> There still is, as evidenced by the reduced buys.

The UK could save a lot of money in a no F-22 world.

Peter Kemp

November 10th 03, 07:28 PM

On or about Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:02:29 GMT, Chad Irby
> allegedly uttered:

>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> In message >, Chad Irby
>> > writes
>> >In article >,
>> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> >> If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and leased
>> >> F-16s instead.
>> >>
>> >> Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.
>> >
>> >...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
>> >reasons.
>>
>> No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
>> money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
>> years old and it's running out of growth room.
>
>You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
>twenty years old.

As is the F-22. Thanks to extended gestations there aren't any "new"
designs with less than a 10 year history, and at 20 the Typhoon's
about average.

>> But at that point, if the F-16 had offered a cost-effectiveness
>> advantage, it would have been bought: there was significant pressure to
>> walk away from Eurofighter.
>
>There still is, as evidenced by the reduced buys.

Indeed, just like the reductions in buy of F-22, and the cuts in the
required F-18E/F numbers and F-35 numbers. Welcome to the post cold
war era.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Paul J. Adam

November 10th 03, 08:42 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
>> money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
>> years old and it's running out of growth room.
>
>You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
>twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Tarver Engineering

November 10th 03, 09:42 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
> >> money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
> >> years old and it's running out of growth room.
> >
> >You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
> >twenty years old.
>
> As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability to
**fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter was
there's to write from day one. ;)

Ian Craig

November 10th 03, 10:22 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, Chad Irby
> > > writes
> > >In article >,
> > > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> > >> No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
> > >> money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is
thirty
> > >> years old and it's running out of growth room.
> > >
> > >You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
> > >twenty years old.
> >
> > As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?
>
> The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability to
> **fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter was
> there's to write from day one. ;)
>
>
Sorry - are you talking FCS software here?

Tarver Engineering

November 10th 03, 10:53 PM

"Ian Craig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In message >, Chad
Irby
> > > > writes
> > > >In article >,
> > > > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> > > >> No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much
less
> > > >> money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is
> thirty
> > > >> years old and it's running out of growth room.
> > > >
> > > >You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
> > > >twenty years old.
> > >
> > > As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?
> >
> > The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability
to
> > **fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter
was
> > there's to write from day one. ;)
> >
> >
> Sorry - are you talking FCS software here?

I misspelled their's, so sorry.

Chad Irby

November 10th 03, 11:13 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Read up on the RR F-35 engine offering and also see the test results for the
> F-22. One is short of expectations and the other looks like a trick.

....except for the needed "trump" of offering half the fuel economy o do
what you claimed.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 10th 03, 11:14 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The UK could save a lot of money in a no F-22 world.

They could also save a lot of money by using ultralights...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

November 10th 03, 11:17 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
>
> >You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
> >twenty years old.
>
> As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way. They took
a long time getting to initial designs, but ti's those designs you have
to compare. The Eurofighter is pretty much the same design (plus some
avionics and materials changes) as the late-1970s initial requirement.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 11th 03, 08:06 AM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> In message >, Chad Irby
>> > writes
>>
>> >You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
>> >twenty years old.
>>
>> As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?
>
>The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
>due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way.

One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
program being one example).

>They took
>a long time getting to initial designs, but ti's those designs you have
>to compare. The Eurofighter is pretty much the same design (plus some
>avionics and materials changes) as the late-1970s initial requirement.

Sorry, but that last is no more true than that the F-22 that enters
service is just a productionised YF-22.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 11th 03, 05:49 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes

> >The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
> >due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way.
>
> One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
> the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
> program being one example).

But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

killfile

November 12th 03, 07:37 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> > In message >, Chad Irby
> > > writes
> > >In article >,
> > > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> > >> If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and
leased
> > >> F-16s instead.
> > >>
> > >> Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.
> > >
> > >...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
> > >reasons.
> >
> > No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
> > money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
> > years old and it's running out of growth room.
>
> You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
> twenty years old.
>

That's not true. Twenty years ago we had the Anglo-French EFA flying around,
but that wasn't a Eurofighter.

The Eurofighter was planned to fly in 1992, and to enter squadron service in
1999. The final design for production aircraft was actually frozen only four
years ago.

Matt

Paul J. Adam

November 15th 03, 11:02 AM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
>> the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
>> program being one example).
>
>But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
>consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

Would that it were so simple. "Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely
results in a FOD hazard: how do you shield the compressor blades?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 15th 03, 11:40 AM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
>
> >But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
> >consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.
>
> Would that it were so simple.

Actually, it was. A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
radar return went away. Look at some cross sections of the plane, and
note where the airflow goes to get to the engine.

> "Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely results in a FOD hazard: how
> do you shield the compressor blades?

By using the normal turns in the intake. As for the FOD hazard: it
shouldn't exist, if you fasten everything correctly, and no more so than
normal aircraft structure.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 15th 03, 06:14 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> >But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
>> >consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.
>>
>> Would that it were so simple.
>
>Actually, it was.

I'll take the designers opinion on the issue, thanks.

>A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
>radar return went away.

After reshaping the intake, sure.
>> "Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely results in a FOD hazard: how
>> do you shield the compressor blades?
>
>By using the normal turns in the intake.

Those "normal turns" didn't figure in the design baseline and were a
1990s addition.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 15th 03, 06:53 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> I'll take the designers opinion on the issue, thanks.

Better yet, look at the friggin' plane and read their website. It was a
minor redesign of the intake and addition of RAM. It doesn't take much
to drop that one area's RCS by a *lot*.

> >A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
> >radar return went away.
>
> After reshaping the intake, sure.

Not by much, though, and mostly enlarging it a *little* to allow for a
bit more thickness due to the RAM.

They did little more than the USAF did with the F-16...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 15th 03, 08:43 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> I'll take the designers opinion on the issue, thanks.
>
>Better yet, look at the friggin' plane and read their website.

Right. I talk to the design engineers, you read a website.

Fuurfu.

>It was a
>minor redesign of the intake and addition of RAM. It doesn't take much
>to drop that one area's RCS by a *lot*.

Also doesn't tale much to choke the engine or give it some nasty habits
at high AoA. (Remember how much fun the F-111 had with inlet design, and
that wasn't even trying for low RCS?)

>> After reshaping the intake, sure.
>
>Not by much, though, and mostly enlarging it a *little* to allow for a
>bit more thickness due to the RAM.

With what knock-on effects elsewhere...?

Where's the "reduced RCS" field modification for the F-15 or F-16, if
it's such a simple change?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 15th 03, 08:54 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Right. I talk to the design engineers,

Suuure you did. In the minutes between reading my post and replying to
it. On a Saturday.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 16th 03, 12:35 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> Right. I talk to the design engineers,
>
>Suuure you did. In the minutes between reading my post and replying to
>it. On a Saturday.

No, two years ago up at Farnborough.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 16th 03, 05:38 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >
> >> Right. I talk to the design engineers,
> >
> >Suuure you did. In the minutes between reading my post and replying to
> >it. On a Saturday.
>
> No, two years ago up at Farnborough.

....and they spent a lot of time telling you about the specific problems
they had with the intake design...

"Oi, we had some problems with the intake, eh, Herbie?"

"No foolin. First, Mikey here forgot to take the foil wrap off of the
RAM panels, and it lit up like a fookin' flare when we hit it with a
signal, then after we fixed that, Jimmy (God rest his soul) put the
engine in backwards after a six-pint lunch. Pain in the fookin' arse,
that intake was..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 16th 03, 09:05 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> In message >, Chad Irby
>> > writes
>> No, two years ago up at Farnborough.
>
>...and they spent a lot of time telling you about the specific problems
>they had with the intake design...

Well, I was an employee of the same company, interviewing them towards a
Masters' in systems engineering (sponsored by that company), and they
had some strong viewpoints about the cost of late changes to design
versus the need to keep a design up to date when the program slipped to
the right that were very relevant to my dissertation.

So, yes, we had an interesting discussion.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby

November 16th 03, 11:46 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Well, I was an employee of the same company, interviewing them towards a
> Masters' in systems engineering (sponsored by that company), and they
> had some strong viewpoints about the cost of late changes to design
> versus the need to keep a design up to date when the program slipped to
> the right that were very relevant to my dissertation.
>
> So, yes, we had an interesting discussion.

....and they told you that redesigning the intakes for lower RCS was a
long, difficult problem, including major structural changes such as
moving the engines or large structural members?

Or did they just tell you it cost a lot of money compared to leaving it
alone?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul J. Adam

November 17th 03, 07:16 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Well, I was an employee of the same company, interviewing them towards a
>> Masters' in systems engineering (sponsored by that company), and they
>> had some strong viewpoints about the cost of late changes to design
>> versus the need to keep a design up to date when the program slipped to
>> the right that were very relevant to my dissertation.
>>
>> So, yes, we had an interesting discussion.
>
>...and they told you that redesigning the intakes for lower RCS was a
>long, difficult problem, including major structural changes such as
>moving the engines or large structural members?
>
>Or did they just tell you it cost a lot of money compared to leaving it
>alone?

The former is more accurate, yes. ("It was a bit tricky and not that
cheap" doesn't play well for a MSc. thesis)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chuck Johnson

November 22nd 03, 01:58 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:

> On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>>Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
>>> On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>> >> because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c
>>> >in WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad
>>> >ring any bells? Moron.
>>> >
>>> >Rob
>>>
>>> Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so
>>> current French aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at
>>> work there.
>>>
>>> Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of
>>> the art and are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.
>>>
>>> Al Minyard
>>
>>Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
>>first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
>>inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
>>D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
>>certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
>>After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
>>racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
>>against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
>>Mirage.
>>Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
>>capable aircraft.
>>You just don't like anything foreign Al.
>>
>>Rob
>
> Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and
> F-22 are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
> quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
> does little to bolster your case.
>
> Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
> of the F-35.
>
> Al Minyard
>

Al,

While the superior F-16 and F-15 were released into production and
'operational' they were actually severely handicapped. The much vaunted
F100 engine had severe restrictions imposed on it. Should the pilot
violate the operating procedures he would find himself cruising in a
very heavy glider. Not the most enjoyable scenario to encounter should
one find himself in combat, eh? Of course it was resolved effectively
with that high tech solution of de-rating the engine a significant
amount.

Contrast this the Mirage 2000 (comparable to the F-16), a fly-by-wire
aircraft released with absolutely no operational restrictions.

About the superiority of American aircraft: they are the best (at this
time). The US has the defense budget to prove it. As far as next best,
there are plenty of excellent aircraft produced and armed in the world
today, you just chose not recognize them.

Many of them are not as far behind as you think.

-Chuck