I don't think the relationship with Israeli will suffer to any great degree. There is still substantial experience that the Chinese are prepared to buy from Israel in a number of areas. China is dealing with Islamic extremism in the western (XAR) Xinjiang Autonomous Region. Turkic speaking Uighur separatists have been mounting attacks on Chinese officials since 1996. There are numerous rising militant forms of Islam continue to seep into Xinjiang. The Uighurs aspire for self rule and independence have grown as they have witnessed brother states in the former soviet union achieve their own independance. China which also helped to shift the Soviets from Afghanistan over a decade ago, is now finding itself a target of Islamic militancy unleashed by that war. ie the Uighar militants trained in Afghanistan. Wahhabism has begun to penetrate into Xinjiang. This places China at the front of a potential target list with Al Quaeda. Therefore, co-operation between Israel and China in their mutual fight against Islamic extremism is an obvious area of joint cooperation. China also has: extensive police action in the south against extremists executed hundreds of Islamic extremists forcibly migrated millions of Han immigrants to the Xinjiang Autonomous Region (former Turkestan) in recent decades. (to dilute the muslim populations) Israel has significant experience in building new cities in remote areas and is in a position to help design and develop new cities in western Xinjiang. Israel then has a potential to assist in Chinas new goals of developing western China. It gives Israeli another revenue stream, apart from arms sales. Israeli has dry land farming expertise that the Chinese need. I think the relationship is strong enough to survive this. At the end of the day, with chinese monies,, the Israelis could be in a position to re-engineer some of the phased array radar systems that the chinese currently have in place. Some of the russian phased array systems are better than those in the west. The israelis have a history of demonstrating integrating disparate systems. The relationship will become more stable due to other economic and socio-political requirements and demands.

sntinel28a wrote: >I don't think they're quite that big, and they do have fabric control surfaces (at least the older models, which the VPAF flew, did). Well I did say "practically". And there was fabric used on parts of the wings, but the fuselage, fin, and a good part of the main wings were all stressed-skin alloy. >Your point is taken, though--an An-2 would present a far larger target than a Spad. There ya go. >Given that the newest radars can track cars on the highway, I would still think that they could find a Spad. Kind of a moot point anyway. I don't think even the Russians have any Ilya Muromets they're saving for a rainy day How about Maxim Gorkys?

I've come across some information which might be interesting: >What chance does an airborne helicopter have against a $35 million dollar supersonic fighter armed with air to air missiles flown by a top notch pilot? >The only correct answer [according to an officer in charge of advanced tactical instruction] to maximize your chance of survival in that scenario is this: Turn the helicopter to face the attacking fighter and fly straight at him as fast as you can, and if the fighter turns, you turn with him to keep yourself 180 degrees pointed straight at him at all times, keep closing the distance as fast as you can as you charge toward this fighter and stay as low to the ground as possible! >Here is why: if you fly away from the fighter, your exhaust presents a great target for a heat seeking missile; you give the pilot time to solve his weapon systems sequence to get you within his parameters for a high PK; your nose guns, if any, will point in the wrong direction so the fighter can use guns to bring you down [to save the cost of a more expensive missile] or a missile that will guide on your exhaust, that you so kindly gave him the hottest point to guide on; if you land, he can strafe/rocket/bomb you; but if you fly straight at him, you minimize his use of heat-seeking missiles, you give him the smallest target to shoot at; you give him least amount of time to aim and fire at you and to solve his targeting problems; and he will soon overfly you. As this fighter jock turns, you can change direction and try to find terrain to get lost in or, absent such terrain, you would be best off to turn and charge the fighter again--to fly as fast as you can straight at him! >This instructor said the helo pilot should keep pointing right at the fighter and fly straight toward him at high speed: always. Never deviate from that coping technique. In that scenario, it is the tried and proven way to stay alive if you are a helo pilot attacked by a fighter. >The instructor also said that after a while, the fighter pilot will give up. He also stressed that a helo pilot who stays close to the ground make it very difficult for a fighter to get below to attack from below, and it also makes it difficult for the fighter to use a radar guided missile against the helo when that kind of a missile is fired from above because it is difficult for a radar missile to sort out the false radar returns from the ground--the helo is just too close to the ground for the radar missile to work well. >This officer went on to say that this special tactics development squadron put the Corps' best fighter jocks in their best fighters and pitted them in the air against run of the mill, snail paced, helos manned by average helo pilots on instrumented ranges to test this tactic. What do you think the real life results were? This is what that officer told me: The fighter pilots did not score any kills against these snail paced helos! They pulled a lot of G's, worked up a lot of sweat, burned a lot of fuel and never scored a single kill. He also said they retested this tactic with different pilots and the results were the same: No fighter pilot scored a kill against a helicopter! >He said they then outfitted these helos with short range air to air missiles on instrumented ranges and reflew the exercise against the best fighters flown by the best fighter pilots. This was not done in a simulator. They tested this tactic for real--in the air over an instrumented range where real weapons did not have to be fired. Everything was scored electronically. >I was told that the helo pilots scored kills against the best fighter pilots flying the best fighters. Why? Because nothing out-turns a helo in the air. The helos flew, and maneuvered, like W.W.I fighter planes. >Maneuverability and tactics were better than speed! When the fighters overflew the helos, the helos would turn, point toward the fighter and "fire" a missile at the fighter, "destroying" it! >The presumptively arrogant, y fighter pilots, in this scenario, made some classic mental errors: they tangled with air-to-air missile equipped helos operated by pilots who knew the best tactic and implemented the best tactic; they got within range of the helos' weapons; they got into a turning battle with the helos that can out turn them; and they presented the helos with their hot exhaust tail--a perfect target for an IR missile! > P. Mancus

Me? French bashing? Check some of my posts! I'm usually defending the French war record, being the Bonapartist that I am. It's your politicians I have a problem with, not the people of France or its military. Well, except maybe the Parisians, but I understand the rest of France can't stand them either. Alright you're not bashing the French, you just take pot shot here and there once in a while with your pop gun. Every country have problem with their politicians. France is not immune to that and so do other countries. Parisiens are pretty bad I agree, but not worse than New Yorkers, Berliners and any other major city dwellers. Anyway you are right. You and Heorots don't have venon. You bite but you're not poisonous :-) I've been getting flaks from all directions since day one here. hehehehe Only Couac appears to be reasonable and knowledable with his subject matter. You're right though your posts are well written

I have read something similiar to this before. There is a compliling study about helicopter versus airplance since 1950 until the present. The statistic is very sobering for the helicopter. 9 to 1 kill ratio in the favor of airplane.

Jacques, the problem with looking at hsitorical stidues is that they are relevant for a point in time. for example, Lets pretend it was 1953 and you had Bell 47 helo and you were able to arm it with 21st century all aspect sidewinders A9x. It would have a better chance than its contemporary with a similar vintage A9B sidewinder. Comversely, the AA systems on a contemporary Rafale would be a lot more useful that a Mystere or a Fouga Magister. :) Either way, I'd rather be driving the Rafale than either the Bell 47 or the Magister!

There have been some very nasty surprises for F-15 drivers that try to go low and slow with an Apache or an A-10. You NEVER fight the way your opponent fights. The best bet against those types of aircraft is to pop them from a distance with an AMRAAM (or in your case, Jacques, a Mica). Speaking of Jacques, I may take a potshot at the French now and then, but as you regularly claim that anything French is uber alles, then I think we're about even.

Mmmm...don't they call it the Warthog Stomp? Never get close. Try to get radar lock, if possible, and engage BVR. That's a free shot with no return shot possible. If that doesn't work, look for a long range infra red lock with your sidewinders. The engagement envelopes are not identical for the fight, otoh, and the helicopter or A-10, otoh. The fighter has the option of moving inside the maximum range of the sidewinder to take a shot which the target can't simply outrun. With it's superior speed, there's a belt inside the nominal range of the sidewinder where, if a return shot is taken, the fighter can move past the sidewinder's maximum range before the missile gets there. If nothing else works, and he needs a gun fight, then bang and zoom. The absolute last thing a fighter pilot wants to do is get into a turning duel with an attack helicopter. He can't possibly win.

Hey guys, you are getting a bit off the beaten track here. The Red Baron is mouldering in his grave, long since. Such hypotheticals scenarios as an F-15 taking on a Fokker DVII are pretty silly. Why don't we get back to the subject at hand... the qualitative superiority of the IAF?

I heard people here talking about israels airforce against little milddle eastern countries and saying that it is the best because of how it handled Iraq when they bombed the nuclear reactor, but in my opinion I think the US airforce is better because we kept Iraq from even trying to send up planes in the second Gulf War, and in the first we made hit their planes so much that they didn't even bother sending them up after a while. While I don't doubt that Israel has a good airforce, because they buy from the US and have US help, I think that if you did Israel vs US in the sky, the US would win. The US has had alot of experience with wars in countries that aren't anywhere nere our country, while Israel has only ventured as far as egypt and Iraq. Examples of conflicts would be The Korean War, The Second Indochina War "Vietnam War", U.S. Intervention in Lebanon, Dominican Intervention, Iranian Hostage Rescue "Desert One" or "Operation Eagle Claw", U.S. Libya Conflict, U.S. Intervention in Lebanon, U.S. Invasion of Grenada, The Tanker War "Operation Earnest Will", U.S. Invasion of Panama, Second Persian Gulf War "Operation Desert Storm", "No-Fly Zone" War, U.S. Intervention in Somalia, NATO Intervention in Bosnia (Operation Deliberate Force), U.S. Occupation of Haiti, U.S. Embassy bombings and strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (The bin Laden War), "Desert Fox" Campaign (part of U.S./Iraq Conflict), Kosovo War, Afghanistan War (Operation Enduring Freedom), and Third Persian Gulf War "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I mean, you would think after all these wars, and those are just in the past 50 years, the US has some experience. Since humans can take learn from mistakes and such, you would think that the US would learn alot of tactics in all theses wars, and I'm sure that the airforce has been used in alot of them. All those wars, and the fact that the US goes to countries all over the world and has fought many foes, makes me think the US has the best airforce. The US might not have used their airforce in some of those battles, but they have in the majority of them. Also, the fact that the US has a wide arrange of bombers and fighters, and more money and manpower, makes them a better airforce. Anyone who says that Israel is the best needs to look into all the facts of other airforces I think. The US has highly trained people, and lots of money is put into their pilots. I'm not saying that Israel doesn't put in alot of money to their fighters, but the US basically lends them money so they can buy military items and such from them and without the US Israel's army would not be what it is I think. Well that's just my opinion on the subject.