French planes are crap

"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

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

"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

"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.

"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

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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.

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.

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.

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.