French planes are crap

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.

"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.

"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

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.