You said once it grazed it with its fins. The next time it missed by 4m. I thought this was HIT to KILL???????????????? Not Kiss Miss or Almost! Is this a missile or a hand grenade? Or a horseshoe? ;> ROFL BISM (boy I slay myself) ;> ;> ;> Cheers!

The ASTER missile had NO warhead to be able to recover the target for expertize . Both scored a direct hit . Cheers .

Try [email protected]

4m may be enough with a warhead--certainly the graze, i was just kidding--but did you not say it was Hit to Kill?

It 's OTW Gixxx . Cheers .

So , to go back on tracks I repeat what I said few posts ago : Feedback please ? Important points to KEEP in mind : 1) We can strike at Egypt from as far away as a 1000nm using Air Refuelling . --> Egypt cannot do Jack against our Fleet if we sail 600/800nm away from theirs coats as they do NOT have tankers . UK bombed the Falklands after flying 14.000 miles (!) in 1892 using in-flight refuelling (longuest strike in history). 2) Surprise is NOT an issue at all . In fact we don 't really care . 3) Tempo is "almost" a non-issue . Just by using 10 tankers we could send waves of SEADs ~30 aircrafts~ with strong escort and CAPs ~20 aircratfs from CdG~ without any trouble at all . --> I wander what Egypt would DARE to scramble when seeing 50+ French Fighters coming ... 4) Logistics : WHAT logistics ??? The FN ~like any other good Navy~ can go at sea and sustain combat for a WHOLE month without the need to re-supply . How would Egypt look like after a WHOLE month of bombing ? Aircrafts flying from France, Chad or Djibouti already have all their needs at theirs airbases . We 'll talk about logistics Ground Ops later ... 5) ONLY FS is talking about using Chad or Djibouti to launch ground Ops . I don 't . 6) Spec Ops . I already said long ago how France would use Commandos to attrit/ distract/disturb/destroy Egypt will to fight . Ships would suddently sink in Harbors , Radar towers would go down , bridges would tumble down , coastal defenses and ammo dumps would blow off , etc ... ********************************************************* In GW1 , the Allies bombed the $hit out of Irak for 3 months . Why not doing the same ?... How would look Egyptian Med coast after that time ? You have to remember that Egypt has NOTHING but few old Romeos subs to worry the FN if we stay at more than 600-800nm . They CANNOT bring the fight to the French but stay like sitting ducks on their soil . I understand that the main problem for non-believers is the French capability to set up strong enough Logistics . But France does NOT need logistics UNTIL we begin the ground Operations . I believe that we can simply use the Med Sea for the ENTIRE campaign , and only use Chad and Djibouti for Air-strikes . When the Egyptian Sub threat is gone and when France decide to do so , supplies will simply sail peacefully on the Med Sea from home soil to wherever needed under escort . Most of the non-believers think that we are going to conduct a kind of "Blitzkrieg" where the supply lines would HAVE to try to keep up . No ! If it takes 1 , 2 or even 3 months to secure some good landing points on Egypt Med coast , so be it . Now , to go back on the Air-strikes themselves , Egypt would only have 2 choices : 1) Duck , sit tight , using ground air defenses and hope for the best . 2) Scramble against 50+ French Fighters equipped with all bells and whistles . What would they do ?... think about it ... If they choose option #1 , they get crippled without getting much in return . If they choose option #2 , they are going to loose their AF ~while scoring hits~ very quickly . 50+ French Fighters going after ~let say~ Alexandria ground air defenses/air bases are BEYOND their ability to handle . How long to do give them before they loose the ability to fight efficiently in the air ? Their AF gone and it 's almost game over . All this time , we did not commit any Force near Egypt yet ... 10 tankers over the Med in rotation , 2 in Chad and 2 in Djibouti are more than enough to conduct a very efficient Air Campaign . using a 1000tons of fuel everyday is more than we need ... Time is the essence . Egypt WILL fall , I have no doubts whatsoever . Cheers .

1) We can strike at Egypt from as far away as a 1000nm using Air Refuelling . --> Egypt cannot do Jack against our Fleet if we sail 600/800nm away from theirs coats as they do NOT have tankers . UK bombed the Falklands after flying 14.000 miles (!) in 1892 using in-flight refuelling (longuest strike in history). Wow Britain have bombers in 1892! ;) in all seriousness I believe you are referring to the Black Buck raids, which according to my sources were only 8,000 miles round trip (perhaps you were thinking kms?) These raids consisted of ONE bomber and EIGHTEEN tankers (some of which were needed to tank the other tankers) not exactly an efficient use of resources. There is no doubt that France can bomb Egypt from 1000 miles away (or even 1200-1400 miles which is the distance to reach most of the Egyptian military infrastructure). The question is what is the temp and weight of the strikes from such extended distances. 2) Surprise is NOT an issue at all . In fact we don 't really care . Your choice, I personally would want surprise on my side no matter what, but in this situation strategic surprise would be almost impossible to achieve. 3) Tempo is "almost" a non-issue . Just by using 10 tankers we could send waves of SEADs ~30 aircrafts~ with strong escort and CAPs ~20 aircratfs from CdG~ without any trouble at all . --> I wander what Egypt would DARE to scramble when seeing 50+ French Fighters coming ... I don’t know, they might consider it worth the lost of 50 of their own to take out 10 or so of yours, not to mention the losses that the ADS. Even if they don’t send up opposition the French can only manage 3 or 4 of these attacks a day. At 200 sorties a day its going to take a LONG time to wear down the Egyptians. 4) Logistics : WHAT logistics ??? The FN ~like any other good Navy~ can go at sea and sustain combat for a WHOLE month without the need to re-supply . How would Egypt look like after a WHOLE month of bombing ? Aircrafts flying from France, Chad or Djibouti already have all their needs at theirs airbases . We 'll talk about logistics Ground Ops later ... Well most of my concern was dealing with air and ground logistics not naval. Though I am a bit skeptical about the French having month worth of supplies at sea in a combat environment. A US carrier has to be replenished every 72 hours of combat operations. I think the French support element would be strained especially when also having to support a major amphibious assault. 5) ONLY FS is talking about using Chad or Djibouti to launch ground Ops . I don 't . As I said earlier, your plan has a chance of success, not odds I would particularly want to go with, but a chance. Stratege’s plans on the other hand are almost certain to lead to disaster. 6) Spec Ops . I already said long ago how France would use Commandos to attrit/ distract/disturb/destroy Egypt will to fight . Ships would suddently sink in Harbors , Radar towers would go down , bridges would tumble down , coastal defenses and ammo dumps would blow off , etc ... Would certainly have some effect “In GW1 , the Allies bombed the $hit out of Irak for 3 months . Why not doing the same ?...” Actually it was 42 days, the problem is to equal the number of sorties that the allies flew in DS then the French would have to bomb Egypt for around 8 months! The Allies lost about 50 aircraft in those 42 days, how many would the French lose in 8 months? “10 tankers over the Med in rotation , 2 in Chad and 2 in Djibouti are more than enough to conduct a very efficient Air Campaign . using a 1000tons of fuel everyday is more than we need ...” Don’t fall into Stratege’s thinking, if you only have two tankers that means what a 10 plane force? Likely without AEW support? That’s the group the EAF would likely focus on and destroy. Give France 2 to 5 years to ramp up and they could conquer Egypt, but from a standing start their odds arn’t that good iIMHO.

Very good post ex-98C . I mean it . Few of your points are actually worrying me ! lol ... 3) Tempo (etc..) Only the first 200kms inland Egypt are of French concern ~air defenses/Bases , etc~ as the point is to attrit their Med coasts as much as we can . In GW1 , we bombed all over Irak including Bagdhad itself . Concentrating 50+ Aircrafts on a 100km by 100km square ~ like a spearhead should be~ englobing one or two Airbases would produce tremendous results . (see there :http://www.scramble.nl/mil/1/egypt/orbat.htm 4) Logistics : You said : "A US carrier has to be replenished every 72 hours of combat operations" . Yes , from its nearby supply Ships , not from homeland . 5) --> Thank you ;-) *********************************** Your most valid point is ~ I quote : "Don’t fall into Stratege’s thinking, if you only have two tankers that means what a 10 plane force? Likely without AEW support? That’s the group the EAF would likely focus on and destroy." I rgr that loud and clear . My answer : I have to go back to the Falkands first ~sorry~ and the long bombing (I was indeed talking Kms not miles) . It was in fact a 2 (two) planes strike , not one , and the outcome has been devastating for the Argies , even if only one runway was lightly hit . I quote : "In the end only a single bomb hit the runway at Port Stanley, but the Argentine Air Force (FAA) realized that the British were likewise capable of hitting targets on the mainland, and immediately recalled all jet fighters in order to protect against this possibility. The attack was therefore a strategic success, hampering Argentine efforts at close air support, reducing the effective loiter time of incoming Argentine aircraft, and compelling them to overfly British forces in any attempt to attack the islands." To cut short , the Airstrikes from Chad and Djibouti on Egypt airbases down South would try to archive the same goal : forcing them to REACT and displace OR focus on another threat . Btw , 2 tankers allow a 16 Aircrafts strike flight composed as follow : 6 M2000Ns as strikers 4 M2000Bs as SEADs 6 M2000-5MkII as escort Quite an impressive flight for a single deep strike mission . You can of course count on 2 simultaneous missions , one from Chad and the other from Djibouti . Coordinated with the 50+ Aircrafts coming from homeland and CdG and you have a nightmare on your hands if you are an Egyptian . Repeat twice a day , at random hours , for a month . Casualties : hard to see ~even for a Jedi~ (lol) . My guess if that after a month of Air Ops , egypt has no AF left to fight with and France lost 30 M2000s and 10 Rafales . It is almost game over . Shall we go to Ground Ops now ? Cheers .

I still think you're overly optimistic on dealing with tempo via the use of refuelers. any competent planner will be measuring theoreticals on: where refuel is likely to take place assess where the race tracks are determine the bingo points of the CAP for the racetrack events determine tempo effect on degraded refuelers (ie hot losses) it's not a trivial task - and IMV you need a minimum of at least 6 refuelers to maintain air tempo. that means refuelers maintaining incoming and outgoing theatre supporters as well as the local CAP. if the egyptians time it right (and Bar Lev is a good example of how the Egyptians can get it right with good planning) then your invasion plan starts to get chewed around the edges. It's a critical timing event. Unless you place your tankers further away, then land based fighters can saturate by presence and persistence. The further away you are, the less over target time that your fighters and strike aircraft have.

Quote : "any competent planner will be measuring theoreticals on" -gf0012-aust I don 't see myself as a competant planner lol ! I simply try with an optimistic mind ;-) I surely believe that the French Highs-up would do a better job . Which is even more worrying for the Egyptians ... Quote : "The further away you are, the less over target time that your fighters and strike aircraft have." Sure . But the plan was to strike and come back , and not to set up a barbecue over Egypt Air Bases ! Runways are quite easy to repair in a relatively short time , but what about Tower Controls , ammo dumps , hardened hangars , etc ...? Taking Egypt Air Bases one after each other would surely keep their AF down , and it 's the primary goal ~ while blinding their Air Defenses , SA-2/6 , Crotales , etc ... The fact is that the FAF is better than the EAF , the FN is better than the EN and the FA is better than the EA . The goal is to take one after each other methodically with a surgeon scalpel . Cut the jugular and the body fall . Another thing about the "Tempo" . French for the last 35 years are known to have a very fast tempo in battle . I could point you to different exemples where the French Forces were simply ahead of everybody else around , like in Kolwesi or with the Dagget Division in GW1 or with our Armor in Kosovo . We move very fast now . We 've learned the hard way from Germany ... 2000 Legionnaires would have taken Fallujah in 3 days . No bashing intended . I now see a bit more clearly what the problem is for the majority of US posters . USA usually go HEAVY and LOUD on the opponent , in fact so heavylly (?) and loudly that they try to archive the "near zero" casualties point . This is fine and well thought , but it is slow . Same with the Britishs . Casualties seems to be the main focus . US and UK don 't like to see coffins coming back home . Us French , we are very different . We don 't give a $hit about dying . In fact , we go berserk at the first slap . We ALWAYS fought ~I repeat~ ALWAYS fought outnumbered . So , the speed of the "scalpel" is the essence . And we 're good at it . France can win alone against Egypt , I have no doubts whatsoever . It would surely test our Military but it would be done . Cheers .