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: 6*F-22 vs 6*Typhoon vs 6*Rafale in the UAE?!
giblets    11/16/2009 4:48:58 AM
According to both Flight Global, and Defence News, other than attending the Dubai airshow, the USAF, RAF, and FAF each sent 6 of their finest fighter aircraft to the desert Kingdom to take part in multinational exercises. Other than adding much fuel to the fire for forum members here! It raises many questions (such as why the USAF was unable to send 1 F-22 to Paris, and can now send 6 to the UAE, despite no drop in operational tempo). And will the F22 and Typhoon not be in the air at the same time again?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Beazz    BW   11/26/2009 11:36:56 AM
Beazz surpassed himself , rather amazing ...
I quote :
""but we got men and women whose life will be in mortal danger if Israel does strike Iran and therefore we had better damn well take an active role in it to insure it's success if for no ther reason then to keep our own tropps and ships safe.""

Huh ??? To keep your own troops and ships safe , you go to War ??? 
No , you take your troops and ships and you send them away , then they will be safe .
 
 
Taking those narcartics again I see? Lemme see if I understand you correctly. The US has in excess of 150K troops in the area and tens of ships woths 10s of billions of dollars and we simply just take them away huh? You do know we are fighting 2 wars at the moment and just *sending* them away is not an option?  There are many reasons to go to war, and I can't think of a better one then protecting ones troops. Of course if we had a military footprint the size of France we could do as you say and simply move them. Not very hard to move 200 troops and 3 planes is it BW? Real world powers have a few more things to consider then world power wannabes like France and their 3 plane air force in action over the skys of Astan lol Now go have another snort there sport l;-)))
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       11/26/2009 12:04:56 PM
Hamilcar :
""Ask why the French Air Force uses infra red MICA, truck driver, and considers the radar homing version useless.""
 
easy :
-1) to have a longer IR leg for BVR shots
-2) HoJ missiles are useless against AESA jamming , totally useless .
As I said on another thread , I am going to explain why very soon .
 
Beazz , I see that you take things personaly one more time , you shouldn 't .
To start with , the USA are not at War . Nobody is amongst the Western Nations .
We are only trying to fight the talibans in A-Stan , and Pakistan is trying to help within its borders .
 
Irak is a done deal , you took Saddam out and now you will be back home soon .
Who are you at war with ? With the international terrorism like we all are and that 's it .
Now , to want to protect your Men and Women by participating actively in a act of war is bound to life losses , of course if it is worth doing it , I am no-one to lecture you . Act as you see fit as long as you hold the moral ground and care about human life . It is all I have to say .
 
Cheers . 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       11/26/2009 12:32:29 PM
To go back on the question (why the F-22s are not participating) , various military forums are "heating up" .
 
The most obvious reason being that the USA have nothing to gain from such a confrontation (against Rafales , Typhoons , M2000-5Fs and -9s) . The risk factor is simply too high .
Then , since the UAE wants the very long range Meteor missile with the Rafale deal , the FAF and RAF might have been asked to simulate the possible use of the missile under diverse conditions . If one of the 6 French Rafales participating at the excercise is using the RBE2-AA (which is a possibilty as France did with the Swiss) and the RAF trusting the actual mechanical Captor radar , the USA may have wanted to avoid to participate . 
If (I say if) the combo RBE2-AA/Spectra/OSF/Meteor could negate the Amraam/F-22 threat , the USA would loose instantly some of the F-35 market . 
So yes , I understand the USA decision to not participate ;-)
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

MK       11/26/2009 1:34:21 PM

Ask why the French Air Force uses infra red MICA, truck driver, and considers the radar homing version useless.

 Ask why Britain develops a replacement complement for ASTER.
 
Well covered in depth and technical detail. 

They use the MICA IR to replace the Magic II as their primary WVR missile and ensure redundancy among seekers for BVR missiles, not because the MICA EMs seeker is junk as you repeatedly allege without any proper evidence. The same unproven claims which are made with regards to the Meteor.
 
Quote    Reply

MK       11/26/2009 1:40:12 PM

To go back on the question (why the F-22s are not participating) , various military forums are "heating up" .

 

The most obvious reason being that the USA have nothing to gain from such a confrontation (against Rafales , Typhoons , M2000-5Fs and -9s) . The risk factor is simply too high .

Then , since the UAE wants the very long range Meteor missile with the Rafale deal , the FAF and RAF might have been asked to simulate the possible use of the missile under diverse conditions . If one of the 6 French Rafales participating at the excercise is using the RBE2-AA (which is a possibilty as France did with the Swiss) and the RAF trusting the actual mechanical Captor radar , the USA may have wanted to avoid to participate . 

If (I say if) the combo RBE2-AA/Spectra/OSF/Meteor could negate the Amraam/F-22 threat , the USA would loose instantly some of the F-35 market . 

So yes , I understand the USA decision to not participate ;-)


 

Cheers .



I wouldn't speculate to much, maybe we'll know more in the future or maybe not. But it happens way to fast that a personally motivated assumption gets misquoted and we suddenly have a new "truth". There could be many reasons for the americans not to participate in that exercise. Was there ever a proof in the first place that the F-22 are meant to participate at all? 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz    BW   11/26/2009 4:57:01 PM
Bluewings12       11/26/2009 12:04:56 PM
 
 
Beazz , I see that you take things personaly one more time , you shouldn 't .
To start with , the USA are not at War .
 
Yea we are you clown. Why don't you go tell the familys of the over 4000 dead since we went to war and the 10s of thousands wounded since we went to war that they are NOt at war. I understand your left wing Obama minded idiotic thinking, but that still don't make it so. You can call it a *man made catastrophy* till the cows come home like your pal Hussein, but that don't make it so. The USA IS AT WAR!!
 
 Nobody is amongst the Western Nations .
The USA is!!
 
We are only trying to fight the talibans in A-Stan , and Pakistan is trying to help within its borders .
 
We are at WAR with the Taliban as well as other insurgents in the 2 countrys which we occupy.
 
Irak is a done deal , you took Saddam out and now you will be back home soon .
 
Well maybe your definition of soon and mine are obviously 2 different things. I don't call 3-8 years SOON!! Your pal Hussein has just said we will be out of Iraq by 2018!! Is that soon to you genious?
 
Who are you at war with ? With the international terrorism like we all are and that 's it .
 
No. we are at war with the Taliban, terrorists, as well as insurgents in 2 nations. I realize in France it may be like this for you. I know you like to pat yourslef on the back for sending 3 planes and a handful of troops to *help* out and that's ok. I realize not all nations are made equal and France is simply not capable of contributing more to the cause. Of course it's not a war for France. We have more personel in one little corner on one of 10s if not hundreds of bases now established in the 2 nations then France has total  for the mission of fighting terrorists. So for France it is just a sideshow. For the US it is a war involving hundreds of thousands of troops, planes and ships and thousands already killed.
 
Now , to want to protect your Men and Women by participating actively in a act of war is bound to life losses , of course if it is worth doing it , I am no-one to lecture you . Act as you see fit as long as you hold the moral ground and care about human life . It is all I have to say .
 
War always costs lifes. The crime and shame would be for the US to sit by doing nothing while an act is taking place that they know is going to result in massive missile strikes against its fighting men and women resulting in what could me major loss of life and do NOTHING!!! To take an active role will surely save American lifes.
 
As for moral high ground and human life, the only Human life I am concerned with are those of American men and women and our allies. Those animals you call human I do not!! If every last Iraqi and Afghani has to die to save even one American life I got no problem whatsoever with that. How bout you BW? You got a son or daughter you wish to sacrifice for the sake of those backwoods sub human animals? I'd be willing to bet if there were no longer any living thing in those 2 nations we would by now be reading about this thing in the past called terrorism and not still be fighting it!
 
Cheers . 
Same to ya,
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/27/2009 2:23:47 PM
No , you take your troops and ships and you send them away , then they will be safe .
 
Anybody curious as to why France lost so badly in 1940?
 
Now you know.
 
 
Quote    Reply

One Five Five Echo       11/27/2009 2:32:35 PM


 I wouldn't speculate to much, maybe we'll know more in the future or maybe not. But it happens way to fast that a personally motivated assumption gets misquoted and we suddenly have a new "truth". There could be many reasons for the americans not to participate in that exercise. Was there ever a proof in the first place that the F-22 are meant to participate at all? 



No in fact it's pretty obvious the F-22s were never intended to take part in ATLC / Iron Falcon and it was just Flight Journal that misreported the story.  The USAF press release... which was issued several days before Flight Journal broke the bogus story makes it pretty clear.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       11/27/2009 3:22:41 PM

Wake UUUP !

2 aggressor pilots during the last RedFlag have been shotdown by a Blue Rafale when the Dassault fighter was on a penetration mission (2 external fuel tanks , 6 AASMs , 4 Micas and flying at medium altitude) . The aggressors didn 't see them coming (the Micas) . They didn 't shoot at the Rafale by the way ...


Could someone/anyone do me a favor and list all the possible ways the aggressors *COULD* have seen the missiles coming?  I can only think of the following two possibilites, neither of which is something that I would bet the aggressor aircraft are necessarily equipped to make use of in these scenarios (although both may well be theoretically possible to do if the aggressor aircraft are properly equipped), neither of which I would bet is necessarily done by the firing aircraft during exercises like RED FLAG, and the second of which I would bet is not necessarily done by the firing aircraft even in real life except in long range engagements:
 
1.  Detect a change in the firing aircraft's radar emissions that is indicative of missile launch/guidance/etc.
2.  Detect other communications from the firing aircraft meant to be received by the missile that is indicative of missile in-flight target location updating.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

MK       11/27/2009 3:31:05 PM

1.  Detect a change in the firing aircraft's radar emissions that is indicative of missile launch/guidance/etc.
 
2.  Detect other communications from the firing aircraft meant to be received by the missile that is indicative of missile in-flight target location updating. 

Well we could simply some it this way:
How can you detect a missile which isn't launched? Modern ARH missiles or basically everything which isn't SAHR don't require any specific change in the radar signal and I doubt somehow that the aircraft will sent out target updates via the fighter-missile datalink if the missile isn't launched at all. 
 
Or short that BW claim was entirely nonsense.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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