French planes are crap

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

(Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message . com...
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.


Tell me then, Al, how many years it will take until the U.S. military
has a plane in operational service that can compare with the Rafale?

"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
. com...
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

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

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
. com...
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

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.ne...hter/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.

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.

"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.ne...hter/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

"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

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

On 03 Nov 2003 23:55:32 GMT, 362436 (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