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
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Beazz       11/19/2009 8:21:38 PM





I guess we'll have to wait for a resurgent Germany to once again extend it's borders to the Atlantic and the Cheese Eaters capitualte once again... before we see a USAF F22 vs Vichy France's Rafale...










Or we could wait for World War III to be fought on America's soil, for a change, with American cities being destroyed and American civilians caught in the middle and millions of American soldiers salughtered, and then we'd see afterwards if some commentators would still be so quick to call others surrender monkeys.  http://www.strategypage.com/Images/emthdown.gif" />







Did they, or did they not surrender? We had one of those wars btw. Sometime back around the ~1770s with a bunch of rag tag settlers fighting what was one of, if not the most powerful military in the world at the time. We didn't surrender and we kicked them all the way back to their side of the big pond.






Oh yes, compare the american war of Independance with WW1 and WW2. Right. <rolleyes> 

Good thing back then said powerful military had to operate across an ocean, and funnily you forget to mention how this rag-tag bunch got help from the other powerful military of the time, eh ?

What I say is, America never experienced anything as traumatic and destructive as the two world wars fought on European soil. If I wanted to be rude I'd say that Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were small farts on the European scale of experienced war and destruction (which goes far beyond the world wars as well). 

Good for America, frankly. But please don't confuse historical and geographical luck with an innate right to disparage everyone else.







 Now on something else, BW's idea made m laugh in a "lol, wtf ?" way. Seriously... proposing to shoot for real, even with warheads removed ? Those are still missiles we're talking about, big metal spears that go very fast. Just imagine one of those hitting the cockpit... mashed pilot au menu !
The French were a day late and a dollar short and you know it. Yea they helped toward the end...a little. And so the fact the mightiest military of the day had to operate across the ocean is now somehow this great handicap but the fact the USA did EXACTLY the same thing in both the world wars and for all practical purpose supplied the allied forces each time from all the way across the ocean is not worth mentioning eh? And I realize I am not a war expert, but somehow I always thought the object of war if you had to fight one, was to do it on the OTHER guys property? Shows what little I know huh?  Sorry but I'm not impressed with the fact that every few decades Europe gets it's self in a jam and has to blow the plaCE up. I am however getting a bit tired of having to send good Americans over there to die and clean the shit up!! .
And I do  not consider the war for independence and the victory of it *luck* That is pure jealous European crap. If you do not wish to fight someone on the other side of the planet, then don't try and rule them and/or pick a fight with them. If you do, then don't belly ache because you then had to travel a large distance to finish what you started.

 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       11/19/2009 8:27:04 PM







Did they, or did they not surrender? We had one of those wars btw. Sometime back around the ~1770s with a bunch of rag tag settlers fighting what was one of, if not the most powerful military in the world at the time. We didn't surrender and we kicked them all the way back to their side of the big pond.




does usa surrendering at wake island and the philippines count, ? where Macarthur left his troops and ran away to australia





Which they came back and took both right? How can you compare a strategic surrender or whatever you wish to call it of a piece of land not big enough to spit on with the surrender of ones entire nation and government of that nation? Kind of like comparing apples to bananas ain't it?
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Beaz   11/19/2009 8:40:31 PM


The French were a day late and a dollar short and you know it. Yea they helped toward the end...a little. And so the fact the mightiest military of the day had to operate across the ocean is now somehow this great handicap but the fact the USA did EXACTLY the same thing in both the world wars and for all practical purpose supplied the allied forces each time from all the way across the ocean is not worth mentioning eh? And I realize I am not a war expert, but somehow I always thought the object of war if you had to fight one, was to do it on the OTHER guys property? Shows what little I know huh?  Sorry but I'm not impressed with the fact that every few decades Europe gets it's self in a jam and has to blow the plaCE up. I am however getting a bit tired of having to send good Americans over there to die and clean the shit up!! .


And I do  not consider the war for independence and the victory of it *luck* That is pure jealous European crap. If you do not wish to fight someone on the other side of the planet, then don't try and rule them and/or pick a fight with them. If you do, then don't belly ache because you then had to travel a large distance to finish what you started.




Regarding the highlighted.  I beg to differ a little regarding that statement.  Not quite sure how this thread has become so utterly derailed.  But anyway.  France and her allies were a major factor in the US victory for a number of reasons.  To consider their contribution "a day late and a dollar short" is ignorance of the facts at best or possibly wilful revisionist history at the worst!!!
 
Regards
 
Arty


 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    More nonsense.   11/20/2009 12:34:16 AM

Beazz

I know perfectly that a Rafale RBE2 is unable to detect a F22 outside the visual range (probably even an AESA RBE2 so it makes no difference).

Rafale would rely entirely on passive means and use its LO+Spectra ECM (plus eventually some low level tactics to benefit on ground clutter) to deny F22 radar detection at long range.

And Rafale would also rely on its magic silver bullet i.e the MICA IR BVR missile.

 

A Rafale success would be already 1 to 3 ratio against F22, I means 1 F22 shoot for 3 Rafale.

A 1 to 2 ratio would be a tremendous success and a 1 to 1,5 an humiliation for Raptor.

 

 

A chase missile gas to chase a signal it receives in its sensor.  No signal, no chase.

Every chase device that sees with  light uses a receiver and relies on a signal from its target to "see". Here is an experiment. Take a pistol out to an EMPTY  pistol range. Set up a target;. Close your eyes. Try to shoot the target with your eyes closed.
 
If you cannot see with a sensor you cannot guide a weapon into it. You with a flashlight at night are a form of RADAR. If the tiger blends in and you cannot see it at night with your flashlight as you shine the light on it, then the signal managed tiger will kill you before you can even aim at point blank range..
 
SHEESH, the concepts are so simple. 
 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    More nonsense.   11/20/2009 12:55:54 AM





The French were a day late and a dollar short and you know it. Yea they helped toward the end...a little. And so the fact the mightiest military of the day had to operate across the ocean is now somehow this great handicap but the fact the USA did EXACTLY the same thing in both the world wars and for all practical purpose supplied the allied forces each time from all the way across the ocean is not worth mentioning eh? And I realize I am not a war expert, but somehow I always thought the object of war if you had to fight one, was to do it on the OTHER guys property? Shows what little I know huh?  Sorry but I'm not impressed with the fact that every few decades Europe gets it's self in a jam and has to blow the plaCE up. I am however getting a bit tired of having to send good Americans over there to die and clean the shit up!! .

WW II only.

1. Metro Francer surrendered Arty. The Free French were a few brigades inder De Gaulle and a steady stream of emigres. As many VICHY fought against the allies as Free Frencgh fought with the allies. Once North Africa was CONQUERED. (Torch) where the French negotiated a surrender (Darlan with a pistol to his head), DeGaulle had access to the French North African Army, which consisted of COLONIAL troops, including a large number of poorly disciplined and barbarous Morroccan troops, who committed numerous warcrines and atrocities during the Italian campaign. All which reflected POORLY on the French Army in Italy and on Mark Clark who had it as part of his own Fifth Army under command.      
 
2. It wasn't until after D-Day that the French Metro Army reconstituted. Largely equipped and trained by the British and the Americans during the Second Battle of France, they acquitted themselves well. But to say that during the hell years that they were anything but an enemy 1941-1943 (VICHY) the same way that Romania  was is not correct history. They shot at us, and got in our way.  

And I do  not consider the war for independence and the victory of it *luck* That is pure jealous European crap. If you do not wish to fight someone on the other side of the planet, then don't try and rule them and/or pick a fight with them. If you do, then don't belly ache because you then had to travel a large distance to finish what you started.



Regarding the highlighted.  I beg to differ a little regarding that statement.  Not quite sure how this thread has become so utterly derailed.  But anyway.  France and her allies were a major factor in the US victory for a number of reasons.  To consider their contribution "a day late and a dollar short" is ignorance of the facts at best or possibly wilful revisionist history at the worst!!!

Regards

Now France was there during the American Revolution, but it was a desire for revenge, and to diminish the British that prompted French government assistance, not the desire for any altruistic aid to the Founding Fathers.  Four  generations later, that self-same France conspired to establish Mexico as a colony and tried to destroy the United States as a means to do so.
 
Let's not kid ourselves about FRANCE.  

Arty






 


 
Quote    Reply

One Five Five Echo       11/20/2009 6:09:38 AM
As it turns out, the F-22s did NOT participate in ATLC.  From Stephen Trimble at Flightglobal:
The F-22s did not participate in ATLC. They were planned in as part of the exercise, then shortly beforehand they were withdrawn. Six jets were still deployed to Al Dhafra but they did not come out to play with the other boys and girls (OK, there were no girls). The USAF representatives at the show refused to acknowledge the aircrafts' presence or explain what they were doing in the UAE. 
So there you have it.  Or don't.
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       11/20/2009 8:48:35 AM



Now France was there during the American Revolution, but it was a desire for revenge, and to diminish the British that prompted French government assistance, not the desire for any altruistic aid to the Founding Fathers.  Four  generations later, that self-same France conspired to establish Mexico as a colony and tried to destroy the United States as a means to do so.



 

Let's not kid ourselves about FRANCE.  





A couple fair points here (about North-African troops in particular, although one should also remember that the european-origin population contributed more soldiers, in proportion, than the indigenous population). 
Now about Vichy troops fighting the Allies, well... from a legal standpoint Vichy was the legitimate government and De Gaulle didn't exactly have the full support and endorsement of America at the time. Vichy troops firing on foreign troops invading the territory they were defending was unfortunate (especially with hindsight) but understandable. 
And yes, the French monarchy helped the Insurgents largely to spite the British. So what ? Can you give me just one war that was done out of purely altruistic reasons ? I doubt it. While altruistic motives might factor in sometimes (especially for public consumption nowadays) the basic truth is, states act according to their own interest first and foremost. Any other motive is just icing on the cake. 
The US didn't enter WW1 until German subs sank one ship too much, and didn't enter WW2 until their own territory was attacked. Self-interest. Not that there's anything wrong with that !

 Oh dear was this thread derailed idneed :-)
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/20/2009 9:21:47 AM

On FS's suggestion about a live fire Rafale vs F-22 test, how about modifying a Rafale and an F-22 each as a UCAV and running the engagement that way? That should be a perfectly adequate way of testing which is likely to get a BVR shot in first and whether or not each types missile would be able to lock onto the other. Both sides would benefit from the data shared and would be able to use the information to improve their systems to be able to beat the most likely enemy aircraft that they would face, Russian fighters.

 
Quote    Reply

giblets       11/20/2009 12:27:42 PM

As it turns out, the F-22s did NOT participate in ATLC.  From Stephen Trimble at Flightglobal:


The F-22s did not participate in ATLC. They were planned in as part of the exercise, then shortly beforehand they were withdrawn. Six jets were still deployed to Al Dhafra but they did not come out to play with the other boys and girls (OK, there were no girls). The USAF representatives at the show refused to acknowledge the aircrafts' presence or explain what they were doing in the UAE. 



So there you have it.  Or don't.



So the USAF sent out not one, but SIX of its most potent fighters to the UAE to not participate in air exercises!? Sounds awfully like the 'non event' the f-22 was alegedly involved in before.
Anyone with a suspicious mind might think they are either scared, or didn't do terribly well.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       11/20/2009 12:59:01 PM




As it turns out, the F-22s did NOT participate in ATLC.  From Stephen Trimble at Flightglobal:





The F-22s did not participate in ATLC. They were planned in as part of the exercise, then shortly beforehand they were withdrawn. Six jets were still deployed to Al Dhafra but they did not come out to play with the other boys and girls (OK, there were no girls). The USAF representatives at the show refused to acknowledge the aircrafts' presence or explain what they were doing in the UAE. 








So there you have it.  Or don't.









So the USAF sent out not one, but SIX of its most potent fighters to the UAE to not participate in air exercises!? Sounds awfully like the 'non event' the f-22 was alegedly involved in before.

Anyone with a suspicious mind might think they are either scared, or didn't do terribly well.


Hmmm, so six of the US most low observable aircraft deployed to the UAE to Not participate in a Joint training ex.  Interesting.  I wonder if perchance they took off and flew due north for a little bit just to look around if you know what I mean ;)
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics