Errrrr Anglo-American or European arms... yeeeah (the whole argument is kind of overboard as I'm not sure exactly how capable you think it is, but I'm basically saying it can't take a used F-16), I'm kinda tired. Sorry. Signing off.

Just call it "Western" arms. 

Anyway Rafale has proven lately that it was a capable and up-to-date weapon system. Against whatever opposition Brazil might fight in the foreseeable future (Venezuelan Flankers ?) it's arguably overkill, especially since Brazil also operate AEW aircraft. What more ? I don't think they're planning on fighting the USAF, and it will be a long time before PAK-FA is operationally deployed anywhere. Plus, I'd take a Rafale F3-F4 (or late-mark F16, I'm not picky), properly supported and operated by a competent air force, over a handful of shiny Russian gear without force multipliers or flown by second-rate pilots.

The reality with Lula re: Rafale is that the terms (economic/tech bribes) are so favourable to Brazil as to make the fighter purchase beneficial even if the specific article isn't up to much.

 

Anyone here (h) got any thoughts on how the Meteor programme is going, whether it's likely to come close to living up to the PR bluster?

"Guided by an active radar seeker based on the enhanced technologies from the mature MBDA Aster and Mica missile programmes, the weapon is capable of engaging targets in all weathers and in the most severe electronic warfare environments."

 

Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence given the limitations of both systems.

 

Ok, next question, lets assume we roll forward a year and someone with an ounce of common sense decides that Aster isn't up to the job (unlikely, sadly) what is the best way forward for the T45?

 

If I lived in the US I could look at this and see the funny side.

 

Anyone remember the T45 Press releases: "The most powerful warship ever" 

 

How arrogant a boast that was... considering it's currently a floating air traffic control station.

 

"For but not with"

 

Ironic isn't it.

 

 

 

that's everything I can see here. Yes the Aster is troubled and doesn't work as advertised, what exactly is the problem? Where is the proof that MICA doesn't work?

Meteor appears to be going well and the Swedes claim that the missile is readily integrated into the Gripen with a go to war capability right now. 

Taiwan and Greece, given a choice, carry SPARROW and WANT AMRAAM.

 

They have combat experience with testy neighbors so they know what works and what doesn't.  France's AdA only combat uses IR MICA and rejected the RH MICA in that role  Proof enough that  IS, MK. MICA doesn't work.  

 

H.

Carry Sparrow on what? And where has the AdA rejected MICA EM? Proofs not empty claims, like your lame approach to miscredit the MICA during a taiwanese missile exercise, where in fact another missile (IIRC an American design) failed.

1. F-16s for one.

2. As reported by the French National Assembly for the other.

 

Your memory fails you. The STANDARD hit the drone when the MICA failed.

In a nutshell, MICA delivers far less performance than AMRAAM yet costs nearly twice as much, and the true cost of MICA is arounnd 2M Euros..

 

So to base your entire fleet air defense doctrine around the derivatives of a product that no one wants to use, that has markedly inferior specifications to its counterparts using less advanced seekers whilst also costing far more per unit is absurd...

 

And actually, it's nothing to do with nationality, I am all for consortiums, it's how they are manipulated to favour certain nations and companies at the expense of sound engineering and design. 

1. F-16s for one.

 

Ah yes and the F-16 is cleared for MICA use...

 

2. As reported by the French National Assembly for the other.

 

Your memory fails you. The STANDARD hit the drone when the MICA failed.

 

The STANDARD hit the wrong target, actually the target intended for the MICA, the MICA launch was subsequently destroyed as the STANDARD destroyed the wrong target. But you keep lying on that quite clear case speaks volumes about your honesty. 

Reactive, the point isn't that the MICA is expensive or doesn't deliver the same performance as the AMRAAM, but that a certain person keeps claiming that the weapon doesn't work and his so called proofs are a number of allegations without any substantial back up, even more worse an article is linked as a proof and in fact proves that another missile failed, yet this failure is assigned to the MICA by a certain person, who supposedly speaks english as his first language, but clearly either doesn't comprehend what is said or is lying on purpose.

Doesn't make sense to continue production of the MICA EM, when Meteor is around the corner and some 200 missiles are already on order, does it?