Posting a picture and claims to ise that artifact, does not show me diddly. Freudian slips always reveal truth to me.

 

Marksmen are know to fire 100 rounds+ a day. Shooting, like any skill, must be practiced, as I'm finding out.  

 

H.

 

Back on topic, the F-22s seem to be a show of force action, more than anything else. Iran was the object of the exercise.

 

Archery and American football, truck-driver.  I KNOW target size at engagement distance and how to hit it without iron sights.

 

 

 

Marines.  They meant "fire 2 clips a month at people".

 

J/K

In all likelihood, we will not see a WW1/WW2 situation again where, let's say, France must gear up for all out war. If however this did happen, how many Rafales a month could be manufactured? 10? 20? In real combat, France would be out of planes very fast.

 

I wonder if the world is not waiting for a jeune ecole type approach to the fighter plane. It is obviously not feasible to use them in wars but only in conflicts. Because of their high cost and low production rate, are they nothing but interwar toys?

 

In a hot war between two top-rank opponents, i think they might be quickly swapped for SAMS, air defences and, for offense, drones. Or saved for a special offensive to tip the scales in one theater. But as a warplane, let's face it, fighter planes have evolved themselves off the battlefield.

 

PS

BW, i have been reading the Fighter board for some time and have to tip my hat to you. Your knowledge in this field is quite impressive for someone who comes from a different background... and in a foreign language. I think my French is pretty good.... but as i read your posts, i realize i could never say the same things in French. Many reading your posts take this for granted: i do not. 

 

However, my advice to you would be to ask questions rather than make assertions in the future. I don't know who is right or wrong in these discussions because i lack technical knowledge, but my gut feeling is that you are never going to change anyone's mind, and you may be playing checkers against chess players in many cases.... asking questions would allow you to fly certain ideas up the flagpole and see who salutes (as the saying goes), rather than knocking heads. IF you don't agree with the answer, you ask another pointed question and the truth in this way, will come up, believe me. The Socratic Method.... works every time.

 

j'espere te lire sous peu et bien a vous chef!

 

150m a long way ????

perhaps you should try and tell fullbore/pamar shooters that, out to 900-1000m comps with iron sights

its not for me to question your mil claims, there are dedicated websites and organisations to track down false claims

but if a sniper says that 150m is long range with iron sights, i'd be tempted to call him a liar

Hello Godofgamblers

 

I tend to agree with you, modern warplane are made of limited conflict. but thats what war have become after all? I reeded somewhere that back in the cold war, USAF was expecting to lose 79% of its aircraft in the initial nuclear exchange with USSR. Industrial complex would probably not survive to produce such advanced piece of technology after that. So I guess we can say it would not look like ww2 nor Gulf war situation if the belligerents are top rank nation. Like Albert Einstein said:

 

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." 

About the jeune ecole type approach. I think "6st gen" warplanes&warfare will be radically different from what we know. I am willing to discuss about that with you and the other poster. This topic is not the place to talk about that. I am gonna create a topic on that subject.

 

PS

I have to say that I really enjoyed reading your previous post. Respectful and humble, we definitively need more post like that on StrategyPage. I would love to see more of Socratic type of debate here. Solid Fact and source are rarely available when talking about military tech. But if Democritus and Leucippus discovered the atom only with the power of deduction, we might find some clue about various subject here.

I don't understand this jeune ecole stuff - new school? so what? - but I have long suggested that the French aren't interested in sustaining conflict.  That's why they go for heavy surface-launched-missile loadouts instead of doing the work with aircraft.  Missiles are cheap and easy and low-skill and you never have to do a thing with them except when you use them - no massive training, with its dangers and expenses. 

 

The problem comes when 1) missiles are not good enough and 2) you have to reload, to sustain combat.  Missiles are cheaper - till you have to reload.  Ergo, the French never expect to fire off a basic load.  In effect their entire strategy is a bluff - bluff is their strategy.  Or to be kinder, I suppose you could think of it as a fleet-in-being.

 

The French don't plan to fight, except against colonial rabble.  They're probably right, too.

This is the part where we get a lecture on how they've maintained a constant presence of like 6 fast jets in OEF since 2001, and don't you forget it mister.

 

Fact is what they are good at is operating snug as a bug in US-sanitized and US-managed airspace (and taking up twice as much ramp space to do half the work).  But get them out of our ATO cycle and their ground troops are on their own without air support.  They are so non-self-sustaining it isn't even funny, they had to borrow RAF tanker assets just to fly to al Dhafra for the exercise this thread is about.