The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What is wrong with the Rafale?
Rufus    5/9/2009 10:16:10 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33   NEXT
DarthAmerica       5/21/2009 11:32:05 PM

The Mirage pilot just has to keep speed high.  If the fight is BVR the M2000 has radar that works.  If the fight is about pointing the M2000 can pull 13g's (not for long).  M2000 smokes MiG-29.


THe Mig-29 radar and IRST works as well. And can be MORE maneuverable than any Mirage or Rafale in addition to its HMS...


-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/21/2009 11:50:55 PM
The Germans escorted their 29's with F-4's because they rated the MiG as worthless in BVR.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/22/2009 12:04:27 AM

The Germans escorted their 29's with F-4's because they rated the MiG as worthless in BVR.

That has nothing to do with anything. Those Migs are ancient Soviet era Fulcrums probably carrying outdated avionics with substandard support. That isn't the same as a RUSSIAN active duty Mig in high readiness that's been kept up to date and certainly not like the newer mods that are being offered for export. Don't underestimate the Fulcrum...

link width="425" height="344">


...used" target="_blank">link properly and in good hands it's quite capable and is not outclassed.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/22/2009 12:13:35 AM
"That isn't the same as a RUSSIAN active duty Mig in high readiness that's been kept up to date and certainly not like the newer mods that are being offered for export. Don't underestimate the Fulcrum..."
 
Hmmm, I don't know, DA.  The first group of MiG-29s doesn't exist (70% are trash, remember?), and the second group apparently are no better than Rafales (same number of customers for MiG-29OVT and MiG-35 as for Rafale, I think).  ;-)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/22/2009 12:26:18 AM

"That isn't the same as a RUSSIAN active duty Mig in high readiness that's been kept up to date and certainly not like the newer mods that are being offered for export. Don't underestimate the Fulcrum..."

 

Hmmm, I don't know, DA.  The first group of MiG-29s doesn't exist (70% are trash, remember?), and the second group apparently are no better than Rafales (same number of customers for MiG-29OVT and MiG-35 as for Rafale, I think).  ;-)

 
Well I did say that it had Parity with the Rafale...lol. At least by export standards. Although thats a bit of an insult to the Mig which can be found worldwide. Whats amazing though is the robustness of the Mig considering that any are still operational after such prolonged neglect. If you think about it from a Russian point of view it's a very formidable aircraft. Just gets used by some very badly overmatched air forces. Cant really judge it based on the Iraqis, Serbs or Syrians. IMHO you put a Mig-29 up there in a more evenly matched conflict with trained pilots and I think it could do quite well.
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    FS   5/22/2009 12:55:36 AM
Mirage F1 dominated Mig 23
when where how???
Do you understand what you post? Again when and where were the Migs dominated by the Mirages?
 
Mirage 2000 dominated Mig 29
Indians saying it does not mean anything, name me one real engagement between this birds. 
Well, at least Indian have both type of aircrafts and they know which is the best.
The only known victory of a M2000 is against a Turkish F16 D
But french participated to air superiority operations over Serbia and irak.
Name me one real engagement between the Mirage F1 and the Mig-29.

And I can say you that Rafale dominate SU 35
This is complete BS! They both have their advantages and weaknesses, as was pointed out before.
I don't see any advantages of SU35, sorry.
I don't care if you see it, as far as I see it you can't see anything clearly when French air craft are involved.
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       5/22/2009 1:00:35 AM
Name me one real engagement between the Mirage F1 and the Mig-29.
I ment Mirage 2000, my bad.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Coiuple of things   5/22/2009 1:20:39 AM



 

Mirage F1 dominated Mig 23



when where how???






 
















































































































































































1987 1 Sqn Mirage F.1AZ D.Prinsloo V-3B Kukri MiG-23ML FAPA/DAA
10Sep87 3 Sqn F.1CZ A.v/Rensburg R.550 MiG-23ML FAPA/DAA
27Sep87 3 Sqn Mirage F.1CZ C.Gagiano R.550 MiG-23ML FAPA/DAA
25Feb88 1 Sqn Mirage F.1AZ J.Rankin V-3B Kukri MiG-23ML FAPA/DAA
25Feb88 1 Sqn Mirage F.1AZ J.Rankin 30mm MiG-23ML FAPA/DAA
25Feb88 1 Sqn Mirage F.1AZ T.Nel V-3B Kukri MiG-23ML FAPA/DAA






 



Mirage 2000 dominated Mig 29



Indians saying it does not mean anything, name me one real engagement between this birds. 



Well, at least Indian have both type of aircrafts and they know which is the best.



The only known victory of a M2000 is against a Turkish F16 D



But french participated to air superiority operations over Serbia and irak.







And I can say you that Rafale dominate SU 35



This is complete BS! They both have their advantages and weaknesses, as was pointed out before.



I don't see any advantages of SU35, sorry.








Hmm, appears they are actually not confirmed and on top of that, the Mirage's actually were damaged and/or came close to getting waxed themself? Correct me if I am reading the chart wrong.



























Confirmed entries are in GREEN
New entries are in RED
Corrected entries are in YELLOW
Fratricide entries are in LIGHT BLUE
Claims and unconfirmed entries are in WHITE
Damaged and Close Calls entries are in VIOLET
 


If that is the case, I'd hardly call that *dominating*. More like barely survived is what it sounds like. Assuming it actually even happened, as it appears those are NOT even confirmed kills.

 

Beazz


1. Reading the full chart I knew that the Impala based on the Aeromachi  MB-326 was a good helicopter killer. Note that those kills found  here were gun kills?
 
I read the violet entries on that chart as inconclusive.
 
About the Mig 23 series. Reviews on the aircraft are mixed. Discounting the Russian propaganda and looking at the record, the Western pilots that flew against it found it a near peer to their own third generation aircraft like the Phasntom and the Mirage F-1  The Israelis acquired several and liked the HUD radar that some of the MLs they evaluated used .They said it could out-accelerate but not outturn or outroll an early F-16..:Later F-16s with more powerful engines now leave it in the dust, bit the early Falcons were perfomance exceeded in the vertical; which is unusual for American versus Russian aircraft. The Mirage F-1 could not climb or accelerate or even pace a Flogger. Its acceleration gamma was insufficient. The F-1 though had absolute height advantage and could outdive a Flogger..
 
Americans hated that HUD radar feature as it interfered with the cue pipper they were accustomed to use imn a standard HUD.
 
The gun the Flogger, the GSh 23 mm carried was very good as Soviet.or Russian aircraft cannon tend to be. Not a DEFA but stoll effective.
 
Missiles for the Russians then were as usual, awful. Aphid was their version of Sidewinder and Apex was their design to imitate Sparrow. Like the Sparrow, the Apex was first used by the Cubans and thenb the Syrians without understanding. Especially the Syrians seemed not to understand that it was a close range drop down missile best used from altitude ambush. Like the other Russian missiles of the era the IR version was BETTER for this than the RH version, since it had a better chance of lock against the laughable Western countermeasures of the day (early 1970s) and could pursuit lead .in tailchase, whereas the SARH missile tended to simply lose track once the Western aircraft evaded the Russian aircraft's rather short radar depth and limited FoV. These were the days of 60 degree FoV and effectoive paint (reflected return at F-pole) offsets of 4x/1  for US versus Russian radars. The Russians and their clioents were operating at a real radar handicap then. The only play leveler that they had,  was the IR/SARH combo pairs they could fire. Their hope was that the SARH missile and a brave Russian pilot would force an enemy break lock and turn once close: thus exposing the enemy plane hot exhaust plume and aft end of a jet fioghter to their still primitive IR seeker equipped missiles causing a chase condition.  (Hence the Flogger's acceleration gamma-that plane was designed to SHOVE missiles hard to achieve fast closure rates and snap lobs). That like the HUD radar display matched to a GCI datalink whichj fed the Flogger pilot intercept track data; and dozens of other little things peculiarly Russuan shows that the Russians actually thought very hard and deep about what they tried to do with their aircraft systems when they rolled them out. How a third world bozo misused it was not how the Russians would use it.
 
The Flogger export model didn't have the bells and whistles of the Russian IADS to support it. It was also modified and turned ointo something it was never intended to be; a maneuvering dogfighter when in the A2A role, like the Mig 21 it was/is a slasher. Like the Mig 21 it was MISUSED.
 
The nearest Western aircraft to which I can compare it is a Phantom. Hard to beloeve that a Russian  area defense interceptor as originally designed and as modified and then flown by poorly trained third world tyros, would show so well against a Mirage F-1 flown by good pilots isn't it? 
 
Use it right and it will work.
  
Herald
 
 
      . 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/22/2009 5:27:40 AM
That has nothing to do with anything. Those Migs are ancient Soviet era Fulcrums probably carrying outdated avionics with substandard support. That isn't the same as a RUSSIAN active duty Mig in high readiness that's been kept up to date and certainly not like the newer mods that are being offered for export. Don't underestimate the Fulcrum...

The West Germans made the East Germans requalify as part of a quality control process just after unification.  IIRC. close to 70% of the east germans failed to requalify.  Bear in minds that the East Germans were highly regarded on the WARPAC side of the fence - and up until the West Germans running them through the mill, they were picking up a somewhat feared to legendary status... (compared to the other WARPAC members).

I'd also add that the West Germans/Germans tightly maintained those Fulcrums, and they were far better cared for than the Sovs who at that stage were in real terms "going broke" .

The best of the Fulcrums up until recently (and thats assuming that the Mig35 does get legs) was  the Israeli modified Romanian upgrade. (Sniper??).  Ended up stillborn as it was not seen as value for money when compared against an Israeli modified Mig21 Lancer.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/22/2009 10:32:35 AM

That has nothing to do with anything. Those Migs are ancient Soviet era Fulcrums probably carrying outdated avionics with substandard support. That isn't the same as a RUSSIAN active duty Mig in high readiness that's been kept up to date and certainly not like the newer mods that are being offered for export. Don't underestimate the Fulcrum...

The West Germans made the East Germans requalify as part of a quality control process just after unification.  IIRC. close to 70% of the east germans failed to requalify.  Bear in minds that the East Germans were highly regarded on the WARPAC side of the fence - and up until the West Germans running them through the mill, they were picking up a somewhat feared to legendary status... (compared to the other WARPAC members).
 
 I have a rhetorical question. Was the training time anything like what it was in the West (200+ hours)? Just taking a military aircraft into the air and flying  is not enough. You have to actually function check the aircraft in simulated exercises to see if your tactics and equipment work as you designed or if the aircraft is defective and your tactics don't work. .

I'd also add that the West Germans/Germans tightly maintained those Fulcrums, and they were far better cared for than the Sovs who at that stage were in real terms "going broke"
 
.DACT exercises against the USAF showed that FRoG piloted Fulcrums could compete.very well in achieving their training simulation objectives (air interception and defense against an intruder package - target defense). Indian Air Force Fulcrums were also able to compete very well against the bozos they faced (Kargil wartime-same mission.in combat) Trained butt  in the seat was the factor that was the driver in both cases. 

The best of the Fulcrums up until recently (and thats assuming that the Mig35 does get legs) was  the Israeli modified Romanian upgrade. (Sniper??).  Ended up stillborn as it was not seen as value for money when compared against an Israeli modified Mig21 Lancer.
 
True. The Mig 29 is just not that much better than the Mig 21 for the target defense role. Mig screwed up on Fulcrum avionics airframe and engine. The Mig 21 is just better(and simpler) built.  In its Lancer configuration that silly bird has Israeli avionics and  US style weapon interfaces that make it NATO compatible. .
 
The clanger for the Romanians was the avionics-especially the Elbit radar and countermeasures suites as well as the Russian refusal to supply parts for their Fulcrums and Floggers. Bad MiG mistake. The Romanians could get parts for the simple Fishbed, or MAKE them.
. .
For a much maligned aircraft, Fishbed can be called a Russian success. 

Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/22/2009 7:44:26 PM
I don 't have much time right now so I 'll make it short .
 
The FAF is perfectly capable to defend the French 's airspace and a good part of the European 's airspace .
This is France 's goal and it is a done deal .
Now regarding the "projection" , the CdG Battle Group  (when at Sea) is something to be accounted for even for an advanced Nation , we also have numerous Airbases in the seven Seas from where we can conduct any missions we need .
We have absolutely no desire to fight Russia or China for the time being and for the foreseeable future and our actual aircraft can take take of any threat we might face .
The Rafale F3 is the best 4th generation aircraft and its suit France because we did designed it for us . Its only real operational contender is the F-18 SH and I believe Rafale to be a better A2A platform . Just the fact to fly 3km higher than the SH (18.400m versus 15.240m) at a higher speed (Mach 1.8+ versus Mach 1.6) is already telling much . Unless the SH gets some proper AESA ECMs/ECCMs and the "know how" , Rafale has the edge in BVR .
The F-16 Blk-52 can 't match the Rafale in BVR (big RCS and lower EW suite) , the F-15K already lost against Rafale in BVR during the Korean evaluation , the Typhoon encounter did not provided anything meaningfull and the Gripen 's radar is too short ranged to get a lock before the RBE2 (by at least 30km on the best case scenario) .
That is for the friendlies .
The possible enemies are the SU series  , latest Mig-29s and Mig-35s . 
Since Russia and China are partners (so far) , the only jets the FAF or the MN could face are unupgraded SUs and Migs . No problem ;-)
 
If we take into the equations the Russians and the Chineses , the deal is different . Latest SUs from Russia and their Pilots are to be accounted for big time . The Chineses are also very dangerous BUT for different reasons : they can send 3 elephants to crush a single mouse just for the sake of media bragging afterwards . When China will attack a target , they ' ll go heavy because loosing is not an option when you are Chinese . As an exemple , a US/French/UK/Japanese/ (fill the blank) AEGIS/ASTER equipped Destroyer could get a nuclear missile just for the sake of it . Believe me .
 
SU-30s and 35s are a real pain in the a** to deal with but they have a huge RCS . The problem is that their radars are powerfull enough to catch you from far away and they have the missiles to go with . They also have decent to good IRSTs to help them . Russia also have a huge C4 Net , satelittes , AWAC covering , etc . The FAF alone would probably be overwhelmed within 2 weeks , but France in situated in the heart of Europe and Europe , this is 27 Nations so far .
Without Europe (France alone) , Rafales and M2000s would gain very quickly the better kill ratio against the Russian jets because of the near perfect awareness all over Europe and huge local support but we would run out of aircrafts before the Russians do , unless we fight better than I expect .
But within NATO , France and its AirForce includind the MN is an heavy weight . Since GW2 , we provided the second airpower behind the USA against the WOT and by a mile .
Everything I just said sounds good to me .
 
Cheers .

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Let me be charitable......   5/22/2009 8:05:44 PM

I don 't have much time right now so I 'll make it short .

 

The FAF is perfectly capable to defend the French 's airspace and a good part of the European 's airspace .


This is France 's goal and it is a done deal .


Now regarding the "projection" , the CdG Battle Group  (when at Sea) is something to be accounted for even for an advanced Nation , we also have numerous Airbases in the seven Seas from where we can conduct any missions we need .


We have absolutely no desire to fight Russia or China for the time being and for the foreseeable future and our actual aircraft can take take of any threat we might face .


The Rafale F3 is the best 4th generation aircraft and its suit France because we did designed it for us . Its only real operational contender is the F-18 SH and I believe Rafale to be a better A2A platform . Just the fact to fly 3km higher than the SH (18.400m versus 15.240m) at a higher speed (Mach 1.8+ versus Mach 1.6) is already telling much . Unless the SH gets some proper AESA ECMs/ECCMs and the "know how" , Rafale has the edge in BVR .


The F-16 Blk-52 can 't match the Rafale in BVR (big RCS and lower EW suite) , the F-15K already lost against Rafale in BVR during the Korean evaluation , the Typhoon encounter did not provided anything meaningfull and the Gripen 's radar is too short ranged to get a lock before the RBE2 (by at least 30km on the best case scenario) .

That is for the friendlies .


The possible enemies are the SU series  , latest Mig-29s and Mig-35s . 

Since Russia and China are partners (so far) , the only jets the FAF or the MN could face are unupgraded SUs and Migs . No problem ;-)


 

If we take into the equations the Russians and the Chineses , the deal is different . Latest SUs from Russia and their Pilots are to be accounted for big time . The Chineses are also very dangerous BUT for different reasons : they can send 3 elephants to crush a single mouse just for the sake of media bragging afterwards . When China will attack a target , they ' ll go heavy because loosing is not an option when you are Chinese . As an exemple , a US/French/UK/Japanese/ (fill the blank) AEGIS/ASTER equipped Destroyer could get a nuclear missile just for the sake of it . Believe me .


 

SU-30s and 35s are a real pain in the a** to deal with but they have a huge RCS . The problem is that their radars are powerfull enough to catch you from far away and they have the missiles to go with . They also have decent to good IRSTs to help them . Russia also have a huge C4 Net , satelittes , AWAC covering , etc . The FAF alone would probably be overwhelmed within 2 weeks , but France in situated in the heart of Europe and Europe , this is 27 Nations so far .

Without Europe (France alone) , Rafales and M2000s would gain very quickly the better kill ratio against the Russian jets because of the near perfect awareness all over Europe and huge local support but we would run out of aircrafts before the Russians do , unless we fight better than I expect .


But within NATO , France and its AirForce includind the MN is an heavy weight . Since GW2 , we provided the second airpower behind the USA against the WOT and by a mile .


Everything I just said sounds good to me .

 

Cheers .





 

 

Those falsehoods were written out of the poster's utter ignorance and not because of the other obvious conclusion.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/22/2009 8:09:53 PM
Dear Herald (I say "Dear" because your lasts posts have impressed me)
 
Where do you think I am wrong and why ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/22/2009 8:18:30 PM
Herald , I' ve learned my bit with your lasts 3 or 4 posts and I thank you . You know stuff I don 't .
You still use your usual "Herald patronising tone" (no need to) and I really dislike it . If you would be cooler , I would be cooler too .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/22/2009 8:19:50 PM
BW,

nothing, and I do mean nothing, even comes remotely close to being true in that last post you just wrote. I mean seriously we could start 3 to 5 separate threads based solely on correcting some of the inaccurate assertions you just made. About the only thing that deserves any acknowledgement is that you like the Rafale which we already know. Other than that I'd honestly never repeat any of that to someone that I wanted to take me seriously on the topic of Air Power current events.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy