I almost mentioned that 83-0071 "Spitfire" was one of the 2 aircraft that had it's engines fail and resulted in that grounding, but did not think it really applied in this discussion so I did not. But those aircraft in the 1990's were barely a decade old. That is pretty damned young to be placed as museum pieces unless they have been rendered obsolete by another aircraft (or found dangerously unsafe). And it is quite obvious that the B-1 series was not replaced. And the interesting thing is, as you know I do research before I make posts. I actually tried to do some research into the US attempting to sell the Lancer bomber to anybody, and came up empty. Well, it was winding down, but certainly not over. Remember, the Gulf War started just about a year after China decided to use it's citizens for speed bumps for tanks. And also barely a year after the Berlin Wall fell and "Prague Spring" brought down the Marxist state of Czechoslovakia. At that time, nobody knew if the Soviets were going to start using force to try and keep it's former puppet states in place, or let them fall peacefully. I always find it amazing how soon people have forgotten the tensions of the Cold War. The younger generation can not imagine it, having "duck and cover" drills in school and fearing a nuclear war at any time and the tension that went with it is beyond their imagining. Just this weekend I was riding with a young PFC, and he had no idea the Modern English song "I Melt With You" was about being with your loved one as the world was destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Huge amounts of our "pop culture" from the 1970's through 1980's were about nuclear war and it's aftermath. You can never listen to Timbuk3's song "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades" the same way ever again, once you realize it is about a graduate science student who goes to work in a lab making nuclear weapons. He "has to wear shades" because the world is about to be destroyed in a nuclear war, but he does not care because he is making lots of money at the moment. Two Tribes by Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Land of Confusion by Genesis, 99 Luftballoons by Nena, even "Hammer to Fall" by Queen. It always amazes me how most people completely miss that one: Then you have the older generation, which should actually know better. There is really no explanation for them, other then may to much drugs at the time.
Excellent post. Anyone born from 1990 forward thinks the only enemy the U.S. has ever known is Islamic extremism. Suicide bombings did rear their ugly head in 1983 as a Marine barracks was bombed in Beirut, as reaction to Israel's invasion of Lebanon; but certainly from 1979 - 1985, it was all about the Cold War as relations with the USSR were at their lowest since the Bay of Pigs.
Reference, or it never happened. Because trust me, I spent 20 minutes trying to find something to verify what you said. And I have been looking ever since then, and come up with absolutely nothing. Remember, I do not just jump up because I do not like something or think it is wrong, I do some research first to make sure I will not be making a fool out of myself. And every so often, I even throw out comments on things that sound so silly that they could not be true. They almost always are used in what seems to be a sarcastic or silly manner, but they are actually true. And I always get a chuckle when people try to call "BS" on me. Yea, sounds like I am making something up, and nobody could ever think of doing something like that. But it is true, like launching an ICBM from a cargo plane. Or making aircraft carrier submarines. Or a bazooka with an atomic warhead. All have been made or tested, but they do sound like something that somebody would just make up But they are good "gatchas" to use on people who refuse to do research. This is one of the reasons I encourage people to fact check themselves, and to fact check others. Hell, I even encourage people to fact check me all the time, to make sure I am not just making things up. After all, the B-1 was only put into service in 1986. Why would the US government even be considering retiring it after a decade makes absolutely no sense. That retirement did not come until a decade later, generally the oldest planes that were nearing the end of their lifespan or ones that had been damaged to one degree or another.
How hard would this be to find? http://aviationweek.com/awin/boeings-b-1b-sales-pitch-bombs-uk-australia Satisfied?
Errrr, yea. Dateline 1 October 2002. That is not "1990's" at all. And right at about the point they started to retire them. The problem is, I was researching "1990's", not "2000's". A decade makes a huge difference in this kind of thing. In the 1990's, they were all in operational service. But by the early 2000's, quite a few had been retired and put in the boneyard. Replace most anything in the military and foreign sales and change decades, you go from "not a chance in hell" to "possible". Sell M1 tanks to Iraq? 1990's, no freaking way in hell. 2000's? Sure, why not? Selll F-16s to Libya in the 2000's? No way. Sell them in the 2010's after Uncle Mommar took a bullet in the head, why not? In things like this, being off by a decade makes a huge difference. And I have absolutely no problem admitting that Boeing (not the US) offered to sell them to the UK and Australia. But that is the 2000's after all, not the 1990's.
Boeing not Congress and not the Bush administration. No different than Lockheed Martin wanting to have Japan becoming a partner on manufacturing the F-22 and the U.S. Air Force brass were on board with the idea to bring down the cost of the F-22 but Congress has the final say, NO.
Yep - yep. I remember "Russians" by Sting and "Out of the Blue" by Pink Floyd guitar David Gilmour, and those movies like "The Day After". Terrorizing stuff.
Not from what I read. Conclusion As it can be seen, Rafale is best by far in all effectiveness characteristics except for outnumbering the opponent, where it is bettered by Gripen. F-22 and F-35, the “most advanced”, and certainly most expensive, fighters in the world, do not get above 3rd place in any of criteria, while Typhoon – which is more expensive than Rafale but less so than F-22 and F-35 – achieves no more than 2nd place in any of the criteria. Reason is difference in approach – Dassault had experience and money, Saab had experience, and Eurofighter had the money. Lockheed Martin had money but it was not interested in desigining effective fighters; rather, its interest was to suck money from the US Government, which means desigining outrageously expensive, and consequently ineffective, fighters; reason why F-22 turned out (relatively) well is that Lockheed Martin was helped out by General Dynamics. But even Rafale, for all its qualities, is far from perfect, and it is comparatively easy to design a fighter which will better it in most or all characteristics. Rating with everything except numbers would result in following: 1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. Gripen, 4. F-22, 5. F-16, 6. F-15, F-35, 7. F-18. Gripen C’s lack of supercruise and situational awareness will likely make it less effective than the F-22 in combat (on platform level) due to these characteristics’ overwhelming importance, but its ease of maintenance and low cost might make it more effective than any of other fighters noted on battlefield level, as pilots need to train and human factor is more important than any technological factor. As David Axe said, only thing that United States have always done well is not predict the next war. But he, as many others, draws a wrong conclusion from it.
Don't read Defense Issues. It's an online blog. Picard578 the author is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who hates Lockheed Martin and would use any random excuse and false number to slam it. This is what he says. https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/picard578-hates-the-f-35-omnibus-edition.233034/page-7
Kinda irregular, the aspect you took from the author to attack his credibility is something totally irrelevant to avionics. If you had attacked him on his methods, now... And just to remind you; The official explanation for 9-11 is also a conspiracy theory.
Not really. If you read the forum from page 1 it's a argument why Lockheed Martin products are horrible while people disagree him. It's a 19 page argument. Picard has his a history of posting numbers with no official sources. Nobody truly knows the exact classified details. Picard loves using things like cost, but cost is not a set number. The Rafale may cost $80 million for France but $200 million for India. It depends on what you are buying. For example he claims the OSF the IRST sensors for the Rafale detect a fighter size target frontally at 80km with no actual reference.
And what if LM is indeed a crappy manufacturer? You got a point here. He gives the same numbers for the Raptor's IRST, isn't he?
In 2005, Singapore chose the F-15 over the Rafale as both were shortlisted after the Eurofighter Typhoon was knocked out of the running for new fighters to replace a squadron of aging A4SU Super Skyhawks. Singapore is regarded as a picky buyer whose rigorous selection process influences other countries' decisions. Basically... Singpore chose the F-15 because it is a proven combat platform while the Rafale and (Eurofighter) Typhoon are not combat-proven in the way that the F-15 is. So when folks brag about the Rafale being the best modern fighter, I have to chuckle. Even the aging F-15 was chosen over Dassault's pride and joy.
The difference between the F-22 and the Rafale is this: The F-22 is the best fighter that can be built. The Rafale is the best fighter France can afford.
I'd suggest there is no such thing as the best "multi-role" fighter if you have the best "air supremacy" fighter going against it. - - - Updated - - - That's what I am hearing.
That's not very convincing, Dayton3. As the F-35 proves, money is neither the problem nor the solution. And France is a world leader in avionics.
While the SU-35 "Super Flanker" is the best fighter aircraft Russia has ever fielded, the command and control to execute military tactics places the advantage of U.S. over Russia. The Su-35 is a 4++ generation aircraft employing technologies of the fifth generation, while the F-22 is the World's only operational true 5th generation air superiority aircraft. The Su-35 is basically a heavily upgraded Su-27, not to dismiss it's capabilities because it is regarded as a killer for sure; but it is not a true 5th generation fighter the way the F-22 is. One part of the conversation that is not mentioned is of course missile technology. Short of steering a fighter directly into the path of another aircraft, what does most of the dirty work in air superiority is missile technology. Right now, the best missile in the World for this purpose is the Meteor. A beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM). It's intended for the Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 (Italian), Gripen and a couple other foreign fighters...and it is highly regarded as the best in class at what it does. Meanwhile the U.S. AIM-120 AMRAAM is no slouch and again, combat tested, but the Meteor, is..at least on paper the best in the World at beyond visual range air-to-air. No matter the technology however, putting it all together in combat requires the execution of command and control elements and the best in the World at this..is the United States.
I don't believe much in 5th gen fighters. Most of their stealth boasts are now revealed as either hoaxes or overstatements. It was a simple matter of upgrading sensors to detect them. They still have a huge thermo signature, even bigger than the Rafale's. The rest is just fancy avionics, with little regards to the actual platform. Don't take me wrong - the F22 and F35 are fearsome machines, but they sure don't surpass "4th gen fighters" in any domian but the price and maintenance tags. Real "5th gen fighters" shall be drones.
It sure isn't cheap, if you'll admit that; And its maintenance/flight hours ratio is terrible. For all of that, its performance is quite mediocre. Someone in this thread said it wasn't really a fighting aircraft, but rather a "satellite/hive" support aircraft... that would make more sense, but then its hardly a multirole fighter. PS: Another point for the Rafale on the F-22: Rafale is carrier-able. AND combat-proven. Why did the US F-22s took no part in recent conflicts?
Outside of the business aspect of competition, France and the U.S. are allies, in the event of an actual war, I don't think we'll see a Rafale going up against an F-22. The most likely scenario will be NATO fighters going up against Russian or Chinese fighters. In the minds of many, the weapon of choice for beyond-visual-range (BVR) air combat remains Raytheon Missile Systems' AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile. However the more I read about the Meteor, it should give Russia some pause...if they think their Super Flankers will simply own the skies over Europe. The Meteor adds another dimension to existing platiforms like the Rafale and Typhoon.
It wasn't needed. Remember the F-15 didn't fly in combat in American service until 1991 some 17 years after it entered the ranks.
The Rafale is a very good aircraft. But to say it's better than the F-22? No way. The Raptor IS combat proven in Syria now. Here is what a French report says about matches against the F-22. The Raptor detected the French Fighter's emissions from beyond visual range and shot it down. Also in two visual range encounters the Raptor got two gun kills. In the UAE matches, the French did claim locking on to Raptor on video I believe, but no kill was recorded. The official score was 1-0. Raptor has no IRST.
