French planes are crap

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.

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

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.

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 ,
"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.

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

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.

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

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

"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.