Dassault Rafale

They don't rely on US.

>>34469609
>have BAe design a plane
>have krauts join in too
>throw a fit
>leave
>build Rafale
That's how.

>>34469609
surrender so hard you cause a stack underflow like ghandi nuking the fuck out of you in civ

>>34469635

>Dassault
>needing Brits or Krauts to design plane

If anything the EuroFighter is a knock off of whatever scraps Dassault left before leaving.

>>34469635
>>34469660
France pulled out of eurofighter.

BAE/ dassault still had a mutual assistance agreement

>>34469609

France doing what made them somehow still great after and despite WW2...Post WW2 France could design many flavours of AMX, Mirage, SPGs, Missiles, their own damn nukes or still great small arms. All on their own.

Meanwhile Britain had to steal designs from Murrica for nukes and even their rifles and still mess it up.

It's all going to shit though, France has no more industries, IQ been dropping ten points, not even kidding, within four decades because of mass immigration and failing education.

>>34469609
>Be the nation created by the best warriors ever (the Franks)
>profit

>>34469692

That and France was also the first country to have stealth designs for their destroyers.

Meanwhile UK building two DIESEL aircraft carriers running on windows XP with fucking ramps. And for what lel.

>>34469692
>Meanwhile Britain had to steal designs from Murrica for nukes and even their rifles and still mess it up.
Funny considering the brits were about 70% complete in atomic weapons in ww2, when USA was baout 20%

Even funnier how Eisenhower and truman refused to help the british nuclear weapons until 1957 when they realised oh shit the brits have nukes too, and panicked to make a treaty with the brits in order to prevent a split in NATO.

In return for british intelligence they got help with dreadnought and Polaris,

>>34469709
the british have stealth subs, win XP is only for development, and isn't too different from the ford class which has the same
CDG is pretty much a mobile airstrip rather than a carrier considering she spend a third of her life so far in drydock

Your average 4th gen jet that is probably worse than a gripen, what's your point?

>>34469709
Brits have always been known good for one thing, that's putting us all under jewish domination. They are worthless scums.

>>34469726
>Brits have always been known good for one thing, that's putting us all under jewish domination. They are worthless scums.

the brits fought against jewish independence you moron

>>34469609
French have always been good at aircraft design. US fighter pilots in WW1 were flying french aircraft.

There's a reason a lot of the aircraft terminology is French, like Fuselage, aileron, nacelle, Empennage, Hangar and Monocoque.

>>34469709
Windows Xp isn't that surprising the majority of the ADF still uses XP and office 2003.

>>34469609
>current year
>not having retractable IFR probes

File: Duck vs F-35.jpg (165KB, 620x1063px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 620x1063px

>>34469609

>>34469709

Daily reminder that France wanted a conventionally powered QE class.

>>34469869
100% of these I've come across on /k/ are always fucking wrong. The formula seems to be some autist putting his country's plane on the left, then blatant BS about the F35 on the right. I'm going to stop opening them.

File: whell.png (20KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 560x407px

>>34469609
what's good about it? why buy this over a Typhoon or F15 etc?

>>34469869
Gee, it's almost like a CAS/carrier fighter built to replace the A-10 and F-14 has an almost entirely different mission to the Rafale and similar air-superiority fighters.

>>34469974
Gee, it's almost like that image is completely bullshit

>>34469637
When did they surrender? This is like an dead meme at this point.

>>34469965
It can outmaneuver an F-22 for one. Also it can carry ASMs, and the SLAM-ER. For a 4th gen it's RCS is pretty impressive too.

1) We have high pride, so much that the split from Eurofighter project was largely a consequence of this and not just project disagreements

2) By the time, we felt we couldnt trust the rest of Europe to build proper jet since the eternal anglo is bad at it and we understood just how much a meme German engineering was, and it also didn't hurt that we were arguably the leading aircraft manufacturing country in Europe.

3) Rafale happens.

>>34470057
You base this on...

>>34469609
Because it needs to be able to get away fast

>>34470066
On phone right now, but there's a video of an F-22 and a Rafale floating about from a joint training exercise a few years ago, and the Rafale was flying circles around the 22.

>>34470080
You mean that BFM gun cam clip?

You are basing your opinion on a 30 second anecdotal clip with no set up?

>>34469965

In the early days, Eurofighter was a bit meh with its ground attack capabilities as the Consortium wanted to focus more on the air superiority role.

Rafale had a few other advantages since it wasn't subjected to the bureaucracy of half a dozen other European nations inputting into the design.

However, Eurofighter in regards to the later tranches and ones owned by nations that actually give a shit aka Italy and UK have now advantages over France in A2G and A2A.

>>34470057
>>34470080

You mean the one where the Rafale pilot tagged him when the exercise had ended?

The Eurofighter was supposed to be smaller and purely an air superiority fighter. But then some politics antics happened

In fact the ground attack capacities of the Eurofighter are still limited because none of the operates ever really want to use it in a ground-attack role.

>>34469692
French tanks at the start of WW2 were excellent, they just weren't deployed effectively.

>>34470354
No he means the one where F-22 was flying with 5 drop tanks and Luneburg lenses which is the only reason Rafale could get a gun lock on it.

>>34470371
They weren't excellent. Slow, short range, bad crew management, no radio.

No one except Germany had a working armored warfare doctrine and the right tanks for one.

>>34470370
>In fact the ground attack capacities of the Eurofighter are still limited because none of the operates ever really want to use it in a ground-attack role.

Well, that's just wrong.

>>34469609
>ridiculously good

>still can't use BVR AAMs

>>34470410
It's fact.

There are options for constumers who want to use the Eurofighter for ground-attack but they aren't widely deployed (or at all) by the founder nations.

Most of them still deploy the Tornado for that role.

File: 1487908112864.jpg (17KB, 500x423px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x423px

>>34469722
>below F-16 tier fighter versus F-15 tier fighter
you're wrong

>>34469869
GTFO

>>34469965
Frenchmen, some anti-american faggots who don't want to buy Russians.

>>34470057
>outmaneuver an F-22
source document pls ;XD
>anti ship missile, SLAM-ER
nothin special

>>34469609
>start building a 4th gen plane 20 years after it's obsolete
>h...how if it so good guise?
t. frenchfag

>>34470428

That's competely different to what you just said. You just said none.

>they aren't widely deployed (or at all) by the founder nations.
Two of the four founding nations have actually given their Eurofighters investment for ground attack.

Three of the four Eurofighter founders use Tornado, two of them are the same nations that have actually invested into their Eurofighters.

Stop making shit up.

>France will join Germany and Airbus for a Tornado successor and an unified 6th gen platforn.

File: fixed.jpg (334KB, 620x1063px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 620x1063px

>>34469869

>>34470560
That's better.
Why yellow and red for VHF/HF radar?
Most planes these days including the F35 have digital radar processors that can generate pulses from baseband to X band, it's all a matter of software. The analog front end is the real problem. I would bet the F35 can do VHF, HF would be a little questionable but does anyone actually know if the Rafale has an HF antenna of some sort?? otherwise I would guess its HF abilities are pretty low power too.

>>34470553
France should really cut ties with Krauts and Bongs,
and instead outsource the design of some future fighter's components to companies in US
>>>but that won't happen

>>34470619
>buying American shit

>>34470619

Why should they?

The French have made it their lifes work to never truly depend on America for anything unless totally necessary.

Both the French have been working on developing LO UAV platforms for a while now. Can't see the reason why you'd make such a choice.

>>34470619
>not supporting their own crucial aerospace industry

>>34470619
Yeah nah, it's good to see diversity in NATO air platforms. If we all buy/fly the same thing it could end up being shit like much of the Soviet airforce.

>>34470354
>Eurofighter in regards to the later tranches and ones owned by nations that actually give a shit aka Italy and UK have now advantages over France in A2G and A2A.

don't you know that Rafale also has been and is being upgraded?

>>34470596
Even if the AESA T/R module signal generators can produce those frequencies, an X-band radar (ie an array comprised of ~3cm antennas) is going to be pretty weak if you try to pump out a wavelength several metres long; a 3m wavelength being radiated from a 3cm antenna has 10,000x the radiation resistance.

Being LO or VLO anyway is generally considered a matter of passive stealth; it seems a bit disingenous to say that something like an EC-135 is broadband VLO because it can inject something with a Suter virus and shut down their radars. If things like passive radars are used it doesn't hold up.

File: Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon 2.jpg (431KB, 3456x2592px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 3456x2592px

Where are all the eurofighter autists?

>>34470731
Yes I'm aware of the effects of frequency on antenna size. That was my main point is if the F35 can't efficiently produce HF radar I doubt the Rafale could either both having AESAs

>>34470653
>>34470664
i mean buying "american shits" is far better than participating in joint development consortium like ones resulting in the creation of Typhoon

>>34470033

Surrendered is a strong word.

More like gobbled Nazi cock like their lives depended on it.

Oh yeah, Vietnam too.

>>34470765
It isn't.

File: eurofighter-typhoon-crash-allemand-californie-tarmac.jpg (9KB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x286px

MEANWHILE IN AUSTRIA....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/185031/austria-looks-for-new-fighter-as-eurofighter-retirement-looms.html

They're dumping their Eurofighters for Gripens

>>34470830
Because of cost. Hard to justify heavy defense spending when not shit is ever going to happen.

>>34470889

It also shows how poorly designed the Tranche 1 Eurofighters were, 80,000 Euros per flight hour is $91,100 while the F-15C is about $44,000 and the F-16C is about $23,000 hour. $91,100 is a ridiculous cost per flight hour for ANY air force. The F-22A is about $72,000 per hour for fucks sake!

>>34470404
The russians had the technology but not the tactics

The french tanks weren't made for WW2 (eventhough the general Estiennes devlopped the concept of an mbt in the 30's)
And the french tactics were verry outdated (eventhough the general De Gaulle had the right ideas)

File: image.jpg (111KB, 450x517px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 450x517px

>>34470080
F-4 confirmed for better than Rafale

You're an idiot

>>34470984
>inb4 Russian optics made of empty soda bottles

>>34470724

Yes and? This changes nothing about my point.

>>34470925
>$91k per flight hour

That's fucking sad, I had no idea it was so high

>>34470830
desu baka senpai tranche 2 and above eurofighters should have just been renamed to something else to differentiate them from the tranche 1's. They are that different planes.

>>34470925
Fixed costs divided by a tiny fleet size with low flight hours is what makes those kind of absurd per flight hour numbers, all non-austrian operators fly those planes with something like 1/10th of that cost

>>34470765

Why?

>>34471030
Because US shit is procured in larger numbers, making it cheaper.

It is also the most combat tested.

>>34470830
>Austria
>spends 0.6% of GDP for defense
>2 billions total
>spends 1.5 billions for personnel
>too poor to afford air force
>gets shilled into buying Typhoon
>government gets cold feet because elections
>"please make it cheaper!"
>gets used T1 Typhoons from Germany instead of new T2
>can't do what it was supposed to do
>ballooning upgrade costs
>"we're dumping the Typhoon now"
>considers getting Gripen C/D instead
>can't get rid of air force or get assistance from Italy or Germany because of muh neutrality

>>34470370
>none of the operators

Except Italy and Britain want it but Germany and Spain keep blocking the program to lower costs.

So Britain and Italy are independently producing the CAS unit and Germany is extremely salty over it because they aren't remotely involved.

>>34469709
>France was also the first country to have stealth designs for their destroyers.
Wot?

You do realize the first Burkes were commissioned in 1991, right? And that certain aspects of the Tico class (1983) were conscious implementation of VLO concepts, right?

The Horizon class may be one of the best and most complete implementations of VLO concepts outside of maybe the Zumwalt class, but it was certainly not the first. Pretty much every naval historian on the planet recognizes the Burke class as the first design-wide destroyer build with constant cognizance of radar return characteristics.

>>34470428
>they still deploy the Tornado

Purely as cost effective methods for the primary intended role of a ground attack platform?

I don't see WHY you'd use the Eurofighter over the Tornado when the Tornado is still serviceable in that role.

>>34469609
>ridiculously good
>the only country using it are France and that's about it
>meanwhile everyone and their mother flies American jets and most of the non-French Yuro countries use the Yurofighter or Gripen

>>34469974
>it's almost like a CAS/carrier fighter built to replace the A-10 and F-14
What kind of retardation is this? The F-35 was only ever designed to replace the legacy F-18 fleet (F/A-18A/B/C/D), the F-16 fleet and the AV-8B fleet. The fact that it is taking over the mission of the A-10 incidentally is a trend which has seen PGM-equipped tactical and strategic aircraft take over low and slow iron slingers since Desert Storm, no more. I have no clue where you got the idea the F-35 was supposed to replace the F-14; that USN project was the Naval ATF to eventually build a navalized F-22, and it was abandoned in 1992.

>>34471040

That's entirely subjective and a ridiculous argument. You can't make such a broad generalisation based off economies of scale.

You haven't even considered or know what the requirements are for the French.

How does the Rafale rank against the Eurofighter, Grippen, Super hornet and F-35?

>>34471102
>F-35 costs less than the Rafale
It's generally accurate m8

>>34471103

That's such a broad question given the number of variants between them all.

>>34471063
The Eurofighter with its Delta-Canard design and designed to operate as energy fighter in transonic regime is in fact a quite sucky ground attack aircraft.

Spain and Germany under the Airbus umbralla are developing a new platform for a reason.

>>34471117
No not really.

>>34470535
To be fair, it is an extremely solid 4+/4.5 gen fighter, and a good air superiority match for anything in the air which isn't an F-22 or F-35.

It's not a bad aircraft, and I'm really not sure how the Eurofighter or Rafale could have turned out differently considering the resource levels those projects had available for development.

You can't really blame them for being just behind the 5th gen curve when the bleeding edge tactical military aviation game requires such massive, massive resources and time commitments to stay on the crest of. The US, after all, has had in service manned VLO aircraft since 1983. That's a hell of a large head start on everyone else.

t. Burger

>>34471117

Not answering the point.

0/10 trolle harder

File: 1486427544369.jpg (269KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1024x683px

>>34470749
>tfw they actually remembered to put a good BVR weapons system on your Eurocanard instead of 50km semi-active trash missiles

feels good man

>>34471128
> given the number of variants between them all.
non carrier, mainly for interception variants.
planes lister are the candidates in the Finnish HX program to replace the aging legacy hornets.

>>34471170
http://www.defmin.fi/en/administrative_branch/strategic_capability_projects/hx_fighter_program

>>34470619
It's a matter of total resources available. The EU as a whole could theoretically compete with the US in terms of allocated resources for R&D and procurement, but no one country in the EU can come even close.

Modern military aviation has become so sophisticated and expensive that it really requires that sort of large resource and time commitment to be successful at the forefront. So the options are to be either just behind the curve with solid but more support-oriented options in a large-scale conventional NATO conflict scenario, or everyone in the EU bands together and produces a bleeding edge option.

The resource gap will only widen as the technology gets more sophisticated with 6th gen, so expect to see the countries trying to go it alone lament as their military aviation industries whither.

>>34471158
>it's a broad generalization to say that when you make more of something, they cost less

I don't understand your issue with this.

>>34471132

Because it's an air superiority fighter first.

Germany wants a new CAS aircraft because it wants the contracts.

They could just buy out new Tornados with modern engines and systems and be perfectly serviceable but then they'd have to share with Britain and after the past 2 years of shitbox destruction that Britain has forced on them by blocking an illegal Boxer contract and adoption of an Austro-Spaniard design for their new medium vehicles as well as the refusal to upgrade to Rheinmetall guns on the Challenger 2s, outside of EU shenanigans, means Germany is left crying in a corner and they refuse to work with the UK anymore.

>>34471213

That's not the actual issue and I suspect you are being facetious about it, that the premise of that something *will* be cheaper because economies of scale.

>>34471102
>That's entirely subjective and a ridiculous argument. You can't make such a broad generalisation based off economies of scale.
It's neither subjective or ridiculous. In both 3rd gen and 4th gen tactical fighters on the international market, US designed fighters sold much, much more, were in service longer and generally incurred lower O&S costs than French solutions. Any comparison involving the F-4 or F-16 bear this out, regardless of actual military performance (which, once again, favors US-build tactical platforms).

>You haven't even considered or know what the requirements are for the French.
This is the only valid argument.

However, in the future, it seems obvious that if the choice is between having a 5th or 6th gen tactical fighter immediately which is not quite perfect for requirements or a 4.5 gen and eventually 5th gen fighter which is tailor made to requirements years and years later, the military decision is clear. The only reason to wait, not work with the US and be part of development and subsidize your indigenous industry is to maintain industrial capability. This is an important strategic concern, but will be increasingly difficult as time goes on. The trend from about 1970 onward is seeing smaller industrial/R&D bases going it alone go under as more and more resources are required to build cutting edge military aviation systems.

The future of French military aviation industry only has two paths: figure out how to work with the entire EU or figure out how to work with America.

>>34471231
Why do you force people to read that nonsense?

>>34470830

Want high end fighters, better be prepared to pay high end costs. Same thing woulda happened with any high end 4th gen for them outside of specific low cost options like Gripen or F-16.

>>34470925
>>34471019

Thats not a universal statement on flight hour cost. Austria's entire air force is incredibly fucked and inefficient at a core level, massively inflating their flight hour costs due to their poor fuel purchase quantities, buying spares individually rather than in bulk and some incredibly stupid personnel costings to support it.

The UK's fleet for example, costs nothing like that because they're properly supporting it. RAF Typhoons flew 19,650 hours in 2015/16, and their total fleet cost for upkeep was only £91.1M. Even if that was ENTIRELY flight hour cost, that comes to far far less than your numbers.

>>34471243
I'm sorry if you thought I meant cheaper than competing aircraft, I meant cheaper than if the same (or similar) aircraft was made in less numbers.


You could make something better than the F-22 for less price per unit, as long as you made enough of them. Look at the tens of millions they've cut off the F-35 unit price by ramping up production. Americans can make better equipment for cheaper, since they generally make a lot.

>>34471243
>that the premise of that something *will* be cheaper because economies of scale.
Given equal quality of goods and manufacturing methods, yes, that is absolutely true. This is borne out in this case considering the fact that the F-35A is a 5th gen aircraft with higher systems density and applied technology level than the 4.5 gen Rafale, yet is already cheaper mainly due to the manufacturing volume and streamlined process planning due to high future volume.

>>34470830
HAHAHAHA

And there was that one Eurofighter shill calling me nuts for telling him exactly that.

>>34470560
Thank god someone finally fixed this.

File: janes-graph_700.jpg (154KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 700x525px

>>34470925

You're comparing different rates. The UK normally states their "full" cost, not the marginal cost (which excludes second tier elements). It's like comparing program and fly-away costs.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121106/text/121106w0001.htm#121106117000040

"Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average hourly cost was of flying the Typhoon fighter (a) with and (b) without fuel costs. [126215]

Mr Dunne [holding answer 1 November 2012]: The standard marginal flying hour cost for a Typhoon is £3,875, including the cost of fuel. Excluding fuel costs the figure reduces to approximately £2,670."

Thats the marginal "core" costs. Which is very comparable to other aircraft.

Janes estimates the "full" Typhoon cost is around $18,000 per flight hour. See pic related. The crazy $70,000 number is both from outdated IOC and from Austria being fucking retarded in how they run their air force.

Rafale is just a mirage with two engines and the mirage is a pathetic copy of mig-21

>>34471055
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fayette-class_frigate

>>34471042
>too poor to afford air force

Austria is one of the richest countries in the EU. The government simply doesn't have the will to spend a reasonable amount of money on defence - and being surrounded by NATO countries doesn't make it necessary.

> can't get rid of air force or get assistance from Italy or Germany because of muh neutrality

That's simply wrong. Shared air defence with the Swiss, Germans or Italians was considered but most foreign airbases are simply too far away to be of use. Fighters in Austria are mostly used for air policing and therefore the planes need to be at strategic locations.

>>34471366
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fayette-class_frigate
First, the initial post said destroyers, not frigates. Secondly, the first of those was still commissioned 5 years after the first Burke was. Either way, it's still completely false.

>>34471356
These graphs never make any damn sense. The simple fact of the matter is that it's almost impossible to make a cross-country/cross-service comparison on O&S costs.

There's way too much data, some of which isn't publicly available, and it's far, far too complex and wrapped up in unrelated budget line items.

Even within the UK and US governments, different accounting/management offices produce wildly different O&S cost numbers for the same aircraft fleet in the same year. These graphics should be taken with very large grains of salt.

In fact, the F-35 will probably be the very first fighter fleet in the world where actual maintenance man-hours and parts supply costs can be relatively easily nailed down, due to the unified ALIS logistics/maintenance system covering the entire fleet in detail on a centralized system.

File: 1410465441030.png (121KB, 250x418px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 250x418px

>>34470425
The MICA seems to only have a range of 25-45nm. What in the fuck is the French logic here? I mean that is absolutely pathetic.

File: d-06-mirage-4000.jpg (78KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x600px

>>34469609
Years and years of experience, France used to make some of the craziest planes, they made the first VTOL aircraft

>>34471360
Delete this

File: d5c.jpg (68KB, 600x737px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x737px

>>34470988
nice shoop
that looks like a typhoon you retard

>>34471404
>Austria is one of the richest countries in the EU.
Per capita only

>>34470830
Heh, it is not a day too soon for the Austrians to trash the dumpster fire that was their Eurofighters.
Eurofighter GMBH took Austria to the cleaners and scammed the everloving fuck out of them with bribes, hidden cost, muddled contracts and the like.
In the end they got a plane incapable of night flight or carrying more than one IRIS-T missile.
Gripen or some old F-16 would have been infinitely better since they would have been able to afford to fly those and actually put AIM-120s on them to boot.

>>34470560
Why red on BVR on duck?

MICA is definitely BVR missile.

>>34471151

Not to mention, the F-35 has already sucked up the commitment to a multi-role 5th gen fighter for US allies. There are already more agreed sales of F-35s to non-US air forces than there have been Rafales & Eurofighters built in total combined.

>>34471962
While it's true that Eurofighter bribed officials to get the contract (which is not that unusual for military procurement) it's the fault of the secretary of defence that the plane has no IRST or mid-range missiles.
The idiot was tasked to cut corners on the already signed contract and negotiated a far worse deal and plane.

>>34469735
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

>>34472165
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
Palestine not Israel.

>>34470063
>the split from Eurofighter project was largely a consequence of this and not just project disagreements

Nope, it was because France wanted a marine version of the plane, and the Eurofighter project was not designed for that.

>>34472003
MICA might be BVR but see>>34471468
It's absolutely pathetic and not understandable.

>>34472016
AFAIK, the latest non-US buy numbers:
>UK 138
>Italy 90
>Netherlands 37
>Australia 72
>Denmark 27
>Norway 52
>Turkey 116
>Israel 40
>Japan 42

For a total of 614 currently planned non-US buys. The current trend suggests these numbers will only grow (more buys from some of the above, especially Israel, plus eventual buys from others like a Spanish F-35B for their LHAs, Poland, Belgium and Germany among others).

Provisional/non-confirmed planned buys:
>Canada 65
>Singapore 12
>South Korea 40

So that's another 117 on the table possibly for a grand total immediate upper limit of 731. There have been, to date, 159 Rafales and 508 Typhoons built for a total of 667. Especially after the Paris Air Show, I think it's safe to say that export F-35s will outnumber both Rafales and Typhoons in the near future.

Add in the 2,443 total F-35s the US is buying for 3,174 total F-35s extant, and there will be:
>5 F-35s in existence for every Su-27 variant ever produced (1812 total, many of them upgraded rather than new air frames)
>3 F-35s for every 5 F-4s ever produced, all variants (the most produced western fighter of the modern era)
>2 F-35s for every 1 F-15 ever produced, all variants
>2 F-35s for every 1 MiG-29 every produced, all variants
etc.
There's gonna be a shit ton of them out there, and they're not going to go away any time soon. The production advantage on parts and support will be enormous compared to any other emerging 5th gen option in the future.

File: indoch13.jpg (129KB, 760x1050px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 760x1050px

>>34470766
>Oh yeah, Vietnam too.
Indochine please.

>>34472252
>>5 F-35s in existence for every Su-27 variant ever produced (1812 total, many of them upgraded rather than new air frames)
Sorry, this should read:
>5 F-35s for every 3 Su-27s
typo.

File: wallpapers-rafale-dassault-aircraft.jpg (379KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 2560x1440px

>>34471068
>meanwhile everyone and their mother flies American jets
What is lobbying...
And yeah other yuro countries use the planes they build, what a surprise.

>>34472199
>His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

>>34472345
>Palestine
not isreal

>>34472345
>prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
dude

>>34472345
> being a retard
>The Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine involved paramilitary actions carried out by Jewish underground groups against the British forces and officials in Mandatory Palestine between 1939 and 1948. The tensions between Jewish militant underground organizations and the British mandatory authorities rose from 1938 and intensified with the publication of the White Paper of 1939, which outlined new government policies which placed further restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases and declared the intention of giving independence to Palestine, with an Arab majority, within ten years. Though World War II brought relative calm, the tensions again escalated into an armed struggle towards the end of the war, when it became clear that the Axis Powers were close to defeat. The conflict lasted until the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948.

File: IMG_4842.png (23KB, 595x160px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 595x160px

>>34471360
>mirage is a pathetic copy of mig21

File: THE-COMBAT-STATISTICS-FOR-ALL-THE-AIRCRAFT-CURRENTLY-IN-USE-Air-to-air-kills-–-Air-to-air-losses-–-Losses-to-ground-fire.png (2MB, 2473x4847px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2473x4847px

>>34472515
Well... Neither the Mirage 2000 or the Mirage F.1 have been particularly dominant in actual combat.

>>34470830

Austrian here. Back in the early 00s, the whole "eurofighter" issue was a heated debate as to why we needed such expensive planes.

Almost 17 years later, the news still regularly brings up how expensive and how retarded it was to getting such expensive and essentially useless planes.

The truth is that Austria is much like Switzerland in the sense that any real invasion plan is a fallback plan to the mountains. Air superiority wont change with 10 Typhoons.

>>34472703
And then the rest of NATO swoops in and bails you out.

>>34472896
If the Russians are already in Austria then NATO has bigger problems than swooping in.

>>34472703
This right here is the perfect picture of what is wrong with half the NATO members in Europe. Bitch and moan, piss and screech about the US/UK/whoever all damn day whilst having zero actual plan or capability to defend yourselves other than:
>open rolodex
>call Uncle Sam

At this point, I'd vote for an amendment to the NATO charter to rescind automatic mutual protection mobilization for countries contributing less than 1.5% GDP to their militaries within NATO. That'd fix this issue in a right fucking hurry.

>>34473025
>inb4 austria not NATO member

Yes, I know. It's even worse with them, as they know we'll end up having to defend them anyway. Parasitic shitbags.

File: 1488450787624.jpg (48KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x666px

>>34469720
>Britain split from NATO

we don't want that rancid rainy communist crime infested shit hole island with no natural resources or strategic value in NATO anyway.

And what are they gonna do if they get attacked? Show people their ugly fucking teeth? Their shriveled old wretched creature of a monarch? An ugly fucking clock tower?

>>34473281
>no strategic value
I don't even know where to start.

File: 87fc4bcbc22a454919aaf96e5235c9f9--belfast-northern-ireland.jpg (61KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 736x552px

>>34473281
> communist
only commies don't like the queen,

Besides the point they're very rich in natrual resources, its just not economic to extract them, why extract wolframite at $40,000 a tone when yo can get it from russia for a tenth of that price

>>34473281
Way to shit on one of the very few NATO members actually pulling their weight in military spending, asshat.

>>34473281
>$2.8t GDP
>Queen's personal wealth is actually ~ £340 million, 302nd in Britain
>The Crown Estate is an asset that purely produces money for the national Treasury, as King George III set up that all lands belonging to the Crown would be as such, with some of that diverted into maintaining the official residences of the Royal Family mostly as a figurehead element

Where the hell is that £17t figure even coming from? That's almost $3t more than the entire GDP of the USA.

File: antonio9shhh.jpg (10KB, 263x270px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 263x270px

>>34472680
>Western Saharan War, Morocco lost 7 (seven!!) Mirage F1 against Bronze Age camel riders
And you dare blame the plane.

>>34473780
Considering the performance the Iranians were able to get out of gimped F-14As, I don't think it's unreasonable for an export fighter to have a good result in at least one conflict over its service life.

The Mirage F.1 put in, at best, mediocre performance in the conflicts it was involved in, and got absolutely handled when flown by the Iraqis against Iran, even though Iran's actually operational air force was about 1/3rd the size of Iraq's.

>>34473896
Western Sahara shepherds have no air force, some rusted RPGs at best. Losing jet fighters in such a conflict is unjustifiable.

>>34474003
>some rusted RPGs at best
They received several dozen SA-7 (9K32 and 9k32M) systems starting from 1978, with which they shot down not only Mirage F.1s but F-5s and several civilian airliners.

30 seconds on google would have told you this.

Do you know that rafal will also have meteor missile?

>>34471068
>>the only country using it are France and that's about it

Wrong! Other country bought the rafale like India

File: HWkS2Z.jpg (3MB, 3543x2362px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3543x2362px

>>34469609
>Ridiculously good plane
>Can't do a Pugachev 's cobra

Pick one

>>34474181
Not even a fan of the Rafale, but that's a retarded statement. What the fuck does a bullshit low delta-V maneuver for airshows (which the Su-27 family can't even do without being stripped down for airshows, certainly not with a combat load) have to do with a successful air superiority fighter?

Why is the eternal Vatnik always so stupid?

>>34474091
>several civilian airliners
Africa was a mistake.

>>34474217
Well, massive and continuing Soviet/Russian arms sales to the least stable areas certainly doesn't help.

File: NGO.jpg (78KB, 656x369px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 656x369px

>>34474248

>>34473281
is this what the average americuck thinks?

Jesus christ how embarrassing

>>34469709
And Britain was the first country to put torsion bar suspension on their tanks. Your point being?

The RN can put out two carriers at any amount of time whenever they want across the globe. The 2 QE's both have a larger aircraft capacity than the CDG, and larger sortie rate. Not to mention, they won't be sitting in drydock for years on end, like the CDG does. And again, mentioned in the previous Windows XP thread, L I T E R A L L Y every NATO nation still uses Win. XP on their ships. The USN, RN, French, Spanish, German.

France hasn't even got the ability to transport troops by plane. They had to borrow planes from the RAF just to get their soldiers to a deployment lol.

>>34474479
>They had to borrow planes from the RAF just to get their soldiers to a deployment lol.
Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone in NATO has to hitch a ride on USAF transports or ship shit in USN MSC hulls at some point.

>>34474479
>>34474511
I mean, next to the US logistics dick, everyone else in the world looks like a button on a fur coat. That's kind of a given.

File: Rafale France Sept 2014.jpg (169KB, 2500x1664px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 2500x1664px

As others may have mentioned, the Rafale, while quite capable, has three major sticking points.

1) It lacks a proper EM guided medium range air-to-air missile.

2) It's avionics limit the armaments it can carry. Many non-French weapons are off-limits to the Rafale.

3) Its quite expensive on a per unit basis.

>>34471360
"In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Mirage fleet engaged solely in air-to-air operations. ACIG.org claims that at least 26 Mirages and Neshers were lost in air-to-air combat during the war.[18][19][20][unreliable source?] Contrary to these claims, formal Israeli sources claim only five Israeli Air Force aircraft were shot down in air-to-air duels.[21] 106 Syrian and Egyptian aircraft were claimed shot down by Israeli Mirage IIICJ planes, and another 140 aircraft were claimed by the Nesher derivative.[17] Giora Epstein, "ace of aces" of modern, supersonic fighter jets and of the Israeli Air Force, won all his victories in Mirage IIICJ and Nesher types.[22]"

>28/1 kill ratio against migs
>Shitty copy.

>>34474874
Did shit against a subsonic sea harrier

>>34469635
>have BAe design a plane
Yeah right.
Dassault Aviation, the most prolific aircraft designer in Europe. The aircraft manufacturer with the most experience with canards and delta wings, needed some bongs and krauts to design a plane.

>/k/ a tragical place

>>34469692
the problem with brits is that ww2 cut their balls just like it did to France. Except France was forced to realise it because nazis were running in the streets yelling SCHNELL RAUS JUDEN FUHRER.
The US will never respect a country giving them their asses and asking for protection. Americans like competition, not little dogs.
Which is why I believe the brits should really really put their shit together and start again being the great designers they were before being cucked hard by their belief into the "special relationship".
For the "special" part refers more to special olympics than to something different and precious.

>>34474560
Mica was confirmed with a 70km combat range when Taiwan tested it in 97. COMBAT range. Read this twice. what's the actual combat range of an Amraam B/C ? No, not the MAX range, the combat range. Well it's a bit less. Not twice less like some fuckhead once said. Mica is smaller and packs less explosives, but is also way lighter (112kg) than an Amraam (152kg). Also, the french MoD now lists the Mica EM as a "100km range class weapon". Translate this for proof. Maybe that's bullshit, I don't know.

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/technologies/armement/air-air/armement-air-air

So yeah Mica Em/IR is still a good short-medium range platform coming with Em/Ir guidance with the same body. In 2023 comes the Mica NG with a dual impulse engine and newer electronics, within the same enveloppe. And there's the Meteor for VLR in 2018

avionics do not limit anything. It's a matter of integration. Want to integrate a R77 on Rafale ? Pay for it, boom done.

The Rafale C F3 costs 74 millions € flyaway to France before taxes. A F-16 block 50 costs 70 millions in the same conditions.

>>34475811
>Mica was confirmed with a 70km combat range when Taiwan tested it in 97. COMBAT range. Read this twice. what's the actual combat range of an Amraam B/C ? No, not the MAX range, the combat range. Well it's a bit less. Not twice less like some fuckhead once said. Mica is smaller and packs less explosives, but is also way lighter (112kg) than an Amraam (152kg). Also, the french MoD now lists the Mica EM as a "100km range class weapon". Translate this for proof. Maybe that's bullshit, I don't know.
I think you're confusing km and nmi. The max range of the latest AMRAAM, the AIM-120D, is more than 97nmi, or over 160km. Even the AIM-120C-5 was over 100km.

>>34475811
>The Rafale C F3 costs 74 millions € flyaway to France before taxes
That was for the Rafale B in 2013, and any export buys have been much, much more expensive. In 2016 adjusted dollars, that's 86.92 million dollars. The French governement gets them for a cheap flyaway price because of the massive subsidies they pay to Dassault on the back end.

I have no clue where you got that number for a Block 50/52 F-16C, but the last USAF buy for that aircraft in 1998 was at 18.8 million dollars flyaway, which is 27.68 million in 2016 adjusted dollars.

File: blueangels.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34471042
didn't think anyone could be worse than Canada or New Zealand, bravo Austria

>>34473281
Bruh that island might be a shitfest full of people who've never brushed their teeth in 3 decades, but it's strategic gold and as such, the bongs are indispensable to NATO.

>>34472252
What's the US's motivation for selling the F-35 anyway?

They spend all of this time developing what is the most advanced fighter in the world which represents such a paradigm shift that military officials are calling it the last manned fighter, and then they sell it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that will take it? We immediately sell away our impunity?

The fuck?

>>34476624

>anxiety.webm

>>34476906
>We immediately sell away our impunity?
First, no. There are practically no other countries on the planet with the material science and other specialties to fully copy the F-35, much less get it into production. The F135 alone is a massive, massive hurdle. It's not 1965 when we could disassemble defected MiGs for a week and have them completely sussed out. Material science is and will be for the foreseeable future the biggest hurdle for copy cats.

Secondly, the tactical and logistical advantage of having not only your own military but almost all your allies using the same or similar airframes is immeasurable. I mean, it is to logistics as a force multiplier what AWACS is to air superiority as a force multiplier. Tactically, it means 95% of the comms, tactical control, sensor data sharing and weapons integration headaches between allies operating together in an AO go away overnight.

Thirdly, in the even of a really big conventional conflict kick off, it means the US can directly act as the world's production house again in an even more streamlined way. It means complete production redundancy and backup for all allied partners, anywhere in the world, no matter the situation. That's a huge strategic plus.

>>34476906
Monkey models bro, monkey models

We are selling neutered planes we 100% know we can knock out of the sky if it came to it.

Also, we selling it to allies only. Sure, we know the kikes will sell some to anyone with money, sure, but we can knock those out of the sky no problem.

>>34476624
Having gotten my PPL, I'll never understand how this is possible.

>>34469963
yea its pretty retarded.

>>34477033
Brass balls. Really big brass balls. If you look at their BOHICA seats, you'll find they have to cut them out like a toilet seat so they can sit comfortably.

>>34469709
>Meanwhile UK building two DIESEL aircraft carriers running on windows XP with fucking ramps. And for what lel.

I will just assume you are a simpleton with no real knowledge of Military procurement or technology.

>>34477033
Close formation is actually somewhat easy when you get used to it, just because each tiny movement is easy to see rather than tactical formations where judging line of site and judging turn timing is difficult to get right. The Blue Angels type of close is on another level, but pretty much every fighter pilot could do it with training. They recruit based on personality, charisma, and how well they get along with the other pilots in the team, not about how well you do close formation. Close formation is a rare thing for fighters that have radars because you generally fly radar trail formations in bad weather instead of trying to stay super close to each other to see the other guy in clouds.

Getting a PPL is just the very tip of what you can do in aviation.

>>34477253
>he said just the tip
>captcha was a banana

>>34471231
>illegal Boxer contract
do you know what happened?
Boxer was knocked out of the contract first for being shit, and couldn't meet the criteria for being made in britain. Reinmetal MAN proceeded to blackmail and bribe to try and get back in competition. Britain usually blacklists companies immediately, but couldn't as the british government was procuring MAN trucks by the thousand

ASCOD won because it could be built in britain and be adapted for the CT40 warrior 2 turret

Reinmetal kept banging on about how good the L55 was with DM53, so the brits gave them a CR2 to fiddle round with, and performed well when they fucked around with missiles.
then they found out that at 2km the DM53 only offers +20mm penetration, whilst the CHARM3 actuality had better penetration less than 1700 something meters (because after this the penetrator begins to decelerate) and due mass had greater penetration in arcing trajectories
They also found the L55s accuracy wanting
but reinmetal began to hide the results of the test, but BAE, DE&S and the army, kept Test logs on them and turned them in

the funniest thing was BAE worked out they could only keep 8 rounds in tank as it was one piece ammo

>>34478495
>dat fanfiction

>>34474511
Not the British. Britain and the US are the only nations in NATO capable of pulling their own weight with their logistical footprint.

>>34476972
If anything kicked off on a large enough scale where production capacity would have any effect on the outcome, the war would be over before factories were spun up. Anything like ww1 or 2 would either be halted by nuclear intervention or diplomatic intervention. The wars of the future will be fought with assets that are available once it begins.

>>34478808
>wars today are so long as back in the middle age
>production capacities not relevant anymore

baka

>>34478808
Generally, I would agree with this. However, by 2020 the single plant in Fort Worth will be shitting out an F-35 every other day:
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/05/f-35-production-set-quadruple-massive-factory-retools/128120/

Consider the Gulf War - build up during Desert Shield happened over 6 months, plus another month and change for the air war before boots crossed the border. In production numbers, that's another 119 total F-35s produced. That is a very not insignificant number, and only from one of the plants.

File: 1418120795094.jpg (94KB, 733x507px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 733x507px

>>34473281

100% americuck

success breeds jealousy kiddo, after all we bred you.

>>34471712
There were no Typhoons in Frisian flag 2008 you mong.

>>34475811
>The Rafale C F3 costs 74 millions € flyaway to France
India paid something like $250million for theirs, all included.
Compare that to the $238 million for each of Japan's F-35 and $130 million for Brazils Gripen E.
The rafale is retarded expensive.

>>34479067
>using bullshit numbers

>>34479103
>http://m.ndtv.com/india-news/india-signs-rs-58-000-crore-deal-for-36-rafale-fighter-jets-with-france-1465495
>Rs.58,000 crore ~ $9000000000
>36 planes
You do the math, frog.

>>34479162
Comparisons of that kind is always dumb.

From your source alone

>India will also get spares and weaponry, including the Meteor missile, considered among the most advanced in the world.

>There is an accompanying offset clause through which France will invest 30 per cent of the 7.8 billion Euros in India's military aeronautics-related research programmes and 20 percent into local production of Rafale components.

-

>The acquisition of this weapon is likely to be game changer in South Asia. Neither Pakistan nor China, India's traditional military adversaries, possess a weapon of the same class. "Rafale is a potent weapon which will add to the capability of IAF," Defence Minister Mr Parrikar said.

Makes me laugh. China is already close of exceeding the 36 fighters with the J-20 alone before India gets the first Rafale.

>>34474143

A downgraded version of it yes.

>>34475811

The manufacturer of the weapon themselves doesn't claim it can go more than 50km. And it's a small missile, it's going to lose energy very early. It's an SRAAM with a bit of a boost to it. Nothing more.

Of course that doesn't stop the MUH SPECTRA NO OTHER PLANE Rafalefags.

>Want to integrate a R77 on Rafale ? Pay for it, boom done.

Like literally every other fucking modern airplane out there. The point is it DOESN'T integrate it.

It's highly amusing seeing you turn up in every thread. Either with your MUH SPECTRA bullshit or your enormous paragraphs trying every bit you can to shit on the Bongs in the most overblown statements I've seen. So much salt.

Same reason you all throw shit at us in the US. Someone else gets the fancy toys (big carriers, 5th gen fighters) and all the yappy dogs start getting barky because they don't get them.

>>34479103

it's not just that one source. Rafale costs a fuckton, mostly because it's all coming from one manufacturing line that only hade a handful per year and supporting such a small fleet (it's one of the worst selling 4th gens out there, so it doesn't have mass manufacturing helping it)

http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2014/jul/25/Why-Rafale-is-a-Big-Mistake-639675.html

"For 36 Rafales the acquisition cost, according to Brazilian media, was $8.2 billion plus an additional $4 billion for short-period maintenance contracts, amounting to nearly $340 million per aircraft in this package and roughly $209 million as the price tag for a single Rafale without maintenance support. "

>$209m WITHOUT support costs

"During the Congress party’s rule the Indian government did not blink at the prospective bill for the Rafale, which more than doubled from $10 billion in 2009 to some $22 billion today, and which figure realistically will exceed $30 billion, or $238 million per aircraft, at a minimum."

It's not the flyaway that cripples Rafale's cost.

It's the support, parts and requirement to push the manufacturing line up instead of just buying off the line itself.

>>34479186
>Comparisons of that kind is always dumb
They are not all that good to show the true expense of a plane but there are Rafalefags out there who seriously believe that their memebird is cheaper than the Gripen E.
Brazil paid roughly half of what India spent and they got the same amount of planes.

File: cut.gif (30KB, 780x522px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 780x522px

>>34478895
There was no artist either, this drawing is clearly a Typhoon.

>>34479296

>Frogs reduced to M-MUH FAKE NEWS because an F-4 btfo a plane they can't accept people not constantly saying is the best ever

It's almost like in training these things happen. Note how many frogs constantly scream about how Rafale beats F-22.

I never thought Rafalefag trying to shout NO SPECTRA about F-35 had a lower level

The F-4s were Germans by the way and the pilots are now flying Eurofighters.

Why should they trashtalk them?

File: rafale-vs-typhoon.jpg (19KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x374px

>>34479376
>sperging this hard
I was just talking about a little drawing you know...

File: 627997mi1210bz5vj1.jpg (133KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 800x600px

>>34473780
They were against dozens of at that time best SAM missiles, more like S-300s of that time.

And their mirages didn't have missile warning devices or flares, they had to just tey to outmaneuver the missiles

>>34479532
>at that time best SAM missiles, more like S-300s of that time.
Erm, no. SA-7s were great for what they are in 1978, but in the end they're still just shoulder fired systems. A serious threat to aircraft, especially low flying aircraft, but nothing close to what a full SAM battery represents.

So is the plane good or not?

>>34481875
The plane itself is a very solid 4.5 gen fighter. The logistics and support behind it, and the economics of procurement for it, are problematic compared to other options.

If it were at the very top of the current tech level in air warfare, this might not be a problem. However, very expensive PLUS a generation/half a generation behind means that it's a back-bench option.

>>34481875
It was the best aircraft when introduced

>>34481945
This is fair. At least, for the four years it had until the F-22 was in service in 2005. That's a lot of resources and money toward a project that only brought 4 years of advantage.

>>34481961
>F-22
>can't even do half the jobs of the Rafale

>>34481989
>>can't even do half the jobs of the Rafale
Air superiority above all else. As the F-22 is the undisputed master of air superiority, I find it difficult to believe that you think the Rafale would somehow be superior when there's no way it could possibly access ground attack areas against the F-22.

It matters exactly jack shit how many other missions the Rafale can do when it falls behind in air superiority. No access means no bacon, jack.

>>34481961
Now tell France where they could have bought F-22 aircraft and how they could have started them from their aircraft carrier.

>>34482016
I didn't say it wasn't the best option for France at that time. I simply pointed out that the unqualified statement here >>34481945 was, while true, somewhat incomplete.

>>34482013
Well, the operational history of the F-22 is sure stunning compared to the European canard aircraft.

>>34482022
There is no aircraft in service which would be able to fulfil all roles of the Rafale on that level of performance.
That's the reality.

>>34479162
>forgetting everything else included in the contract, especially tech transfert, building of an indian production facility, and small stuff like that...
>being abnormaly dumb
>loving every second of it
>posting anyway
this was a quality shitpost, thanks for your autism.

>>34482037
The F-35 is more than capable of fulfilling all the roles of the Rafale at an equal or higher level. In fact, the latest Eurofighters are either close to or beyond the Rafale in average capability across the board. Even the F-18E/F is an arguable peer at this point, especially when you add in the Growler capabilities.

>inb4 cheese-scented autistic shrieking

>>34482068
The F-35 was sure a thing 20 years ago! Even ignoring that the F-35C isn't even in service - not even talking about the lack of crucial features of the early block aircraft.

>>34482084
>The F-35 was sure a thing 20 years ago
You said, and I quote: >>34482037
>There is no aircraft in service
The word "IS" being operative here. I'm not sure if you speak English as a first language, but that's what we like to call the "present tense". There was no indication in your assertion that you were restricting the terms of your general statement to 2001 when the Rafale was introduced.

>not even talking about the lack of crucial features of the early block aircraft.
Those are already upgraded to current 3i and eventually 3F levels. That's the beauty of modular, software defined control laws for everything from kinematics to datalink.

>>34473281
>no natural resources or strategic value in NATO anyway
>no strategic value

What value is an unsinkable aircraft carrier with a garrison of 100.000 dudes looking at the beaches when the russian zerg has overunned continental europe ?

>>34482068
Eurofighter can't operate from a carrier. Also it can't carry nukes.
The other anon said "able to fulfil all roles of the Rafale", not "does some stuff better"...
F35 is maybe in service but has no combat record.
Rafale is truly a good shit.

File: SUCKS TO BE YOU.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>34482214
>F35 is maybe in service but has no combat record.
>Rafale is truly a good shit.
Until now, what has the Rafale combat record consisted of? Uncontested ground strike missions in permissive airspace; these are missions which literally any aircraft in allied service can complete well. Are you really suggesting the F-35A would currently be unable to complete the same mission profiles?

>Eurofighter can't operate from a carrier. Also it can't carry nukes.
This is a fair but relatively irrelevant point. Also, you're continuing to ignore the F-18E/F/G, which is at the very least a close peer across the board, costs much, much less and actually has a very robust EW variant in service.

The only aircraft which would have been close of fulfilling all roles of the Rafale at that time would be the Super Hornet, which is inferior to the Rafale.

>>34482257
>Are you really suggesting the F-35A would currently be unable to complete the same mission profiles?
No, I said it didn't for now.

>Also, you're continuing to ignore the F-18E/F/G
I'm not "continuing", I didn't say anything about the F18 because you're probably right.

All in all the fact is that Rafale is a proven good shit. More multirole than Eurofighter, more effective (because more used) than F35, more modern than F18.
Not the tip top of the art, but a really good shit.

>>34474889
>good weapon
>competent hands
>results

>good weapon
>incompetent hands
>...

>>34482461
thanks anon. sad to see such a simple statement can't be aknowledged by /k/unts and /k/retins.

>>34482257
>Until now, what has the Rafale combat record consisted of? Uncontested ground strike missions in permissive airspace; these are missions which literally any aircraft in allied service can complete well. Are you really suggesting the F-35A would currently be unable to complete the same mission profiles?

It can't start from an aircraft carrier or short road runways.

>This is a fair but relatively irrelevant point. Also, you're continuing to ignore the F-18E/F/G, which is at the very least a close peer across the board, costs much, much less and actually has a very robust EW variant in service.

None of your listed F-18 aircraft can fulfil the range of missions as the Rafale.

>>34483243
>It can't start from an aircraft carrier or short road runways.
Uh... F-35B? And later next year, F-35C? The F-35B is far, far more capable at short runway operations than the Rafale, at any rate.

>None of your listed F-18 aircraft can fulfil the range of missions as the Rafale.
Name a mission profile the Rafale can complete which the F-18E/F/G categorically cannot. Meanwhile, have several missions which the F-18G can complete which the Rafale cannot:
>large scale SEAD/DEAD in heavily defended non-permissive airspace, including IADS/A2AD corridor suppression and degradation
>EW coverage including jamming, decoy and spoofing mission sets
>remote cyber ops
>MALD-J guidance and control
etc.

File: 1499127031691.jpg (93KB, 528x528px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 528x528px

>>34469869
Absolutely retarded image. Anyone who shits on the f-35 yet doesn't have at least an aeronautical degree I just don't take them seriously. Also the fact is a lot of it's stuff is classified.

File: suxuj-27.jpg (42KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x450px

>>34470998
>Russian optics made of empty soda bottles
War. War never changes.

>>34483303
>Name a mission profile the Rafale can complete which the F-18E/F/G categorically cannot. Meanwhile, have several missions which the F-18G
Kinda obtuse to use a highly specialized variant for comparison, which probably is not very versatile beyond its intended role.

>>34483560
>Kinda obtuse to use a highly specialized variant for comparison, which probably is not very versatile beyond its intended role.
No more obtuse than arguing the Rafale is categorically superior to the Eurofighter because the Eurofighter does not have a navalized version.

>>34481945

Super Hornet was already flying when it was introduced, so it wasn't the best then. (While it flies better, the Hornets radar, EWAR and munitions selection put it a FUCKTON above the Rafale on first introduction.)

Also because the Super Hornet can carry more than a single ASM and could already do BVR.

>>34483611
Except the navalized version is functionnally identical beyond that, which is not the case of the F-18G which is made to fill entirely different missions

>>34483611
Well, objectively in this case one is better than the other.

>>34476624
Gotta love the Blues. A buddy of my dad's, who was with them when they flew A-4s, received a tail cap from one of the jets as a going away present. It had a curious smudge of paint and was labelled "from a close friend."

>>34484061
I should clarify, the friend of my dad's was on the team, not my dad.

>>34483941

Planes don't operate alone. The Super Hornet and Growler system provides a massive boost over what the equivilent amount of Rafales would.

>>34483941
And yet, it's still a super hornet. Your argument was that nothing else could do all the missions a Rafale could do. I gave you a clear example of an aircraft that could, and then some, while having a much cheaper flyaway price.

File: ob_ca1051.jpg (72KB, 1024x662px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1024x662px

>>34484135
Rafale is meant to be one air force = one plane. I don't know if it's a smart doctrine but until this day it works and there's no equivalent.

>>34484568
Are there any airforces that exclusively operate the Rafale as their sole fighter aircraft?

Quit being retarded.

>>34484568
>there's no equivalent.
The F-35 eventually will be, with the sole exception of air superiority top cover in the form of the F-22 and possibly a naval interceptor/air superiority option.

>I don't know if it's a smart doctrine
Considering the massive development cost and timeline for building a competitive modern fighter, it's practically the only economically possible doctrine, especially for countries not called America or China.

>>34476624
thanks for the panic attack.

>>34484782
Your boners give you panic attacks? What are you, another Clockwork Orange patient?

>>34484644
Quit being autistic, it's in process in France, they just won't trash their Mirage 2000 for fun.

>>34469726

Shouldn't you be /k/eking in Raqqa, senpai? Sitting in your underwear shitposting isn't saving ISIS.

>>34470889

There's a shooting war on NATO's eastern border, and doubts about Turkeys future as a NATO partner. That's four potential sources of instability right there.

The more parsimonious answer is that either the euros assume America/Britain will fix everything and their air forces are mostly symbolic, or that the gripen will be more useful in actual combat conditions.

(Or they have something better coming Real Soon Now and the gripen is a stopgap. Unlikely. )

>>34484568

And the Super Hornet and Growler are one plane just as much as the Rafale and Rafale M are.

It sounds like you're just trying to set up some invented "superiority" thing to claim as "good" for the Rafale, really. "But it's the ONLY plane that can do all these tasks!"

Yeah, so can the Super Hornet, and better. Big fucking deal, we had this shit years before the Rafale even got into service.

It doesn't have some super special unique ability just because it's a multirole. There's dozens of aircraft like that out there. Hell there are planes that do MORE roles than it out there, given it cannot into BVR.

>>34473405
>>34473435
>>34474417
>>34478866

What's funny is you guys thinking he's American. With a Communist memepic.

Russians and Arabs' and Persians would love to split up NATO, and the EU would love to break up the Special Relationship bromance. I've yet to meet even the most isolationist alt righter who doesn't make an exception for staying tight with the Brits.

I don't find any of your statements particularly credible.

1.5 trillion buddy. That's the statistic I remember. It just seems like job welfare.

>>34469869
>its better because its mine

>>34474874

In fairness, Epstein won most of his kills when he took on that Egyptian fighter regiment singlehandedly. They were flying... MiGs. 21s in fact if I'm recalling correctly.

(He's also the ace of aces of all combat jets, not just supersonic or "modern" ones. Also he vastly preferred the F-16.)

you're spending 200-300 billion a year on this thing. Thats half the entire defense budget. Everybody says its a lemon.

Nobody said the F-16 was a lemon. Nobody said the F-15 was a lemon. But everybody and their mother says this thing is a piece of junk. Are you going to own up to your skunkworks and blatant fraud and money embezzlement or are we going to keep pretending like Lockheed did their job?

>>34469609
wow this is the best Rafale thread EVER!

>>34485382
I think the management of Lockheed should be brought up on charges.

>>34485382
sorry, thats the f-35, i forgot this was about the croissaunt

>>34476973
>"We"

And are "we" making glorious benefit?

>>34485342
>1.5 trillion buddy. That's the statistic I remember. It just seems like job welfare.
For the vast majority of all tactical aircraft for the largest air force, naval air force and amphibious air force in the world all at once amortized over 50+ total years. Considering that number is less than 10% of total GDP for the US for 2016 alone and it guarantees air dominance for the next 40+ years, that sounds like a mighty cheap price.

>>34482116
>There was no indication
When you reply to a reply it's best to read the relevant posts in the thread. If you had read even one more previous post you would see why the one who looks stupid right now is actually you.

>>34485382

That's not half of the defense budget, who told you that?

>>34485382
>Everybody says its a lemon.
Not the people who fly it, are briefed on the classified performance characteristics of it or the ones who maintain it.

The only people claiming it's a lemon are morons like Sprey who haven't been involved in procurement since the late 1970's, journalists looking for something sensational to write and the people that might end up having to fight this thing.

>you're spending 200-300 billion a year
Where the hell'd you get those numbers? Not even close.

>>34485432
none of that is true. We spent 1.5 trillion dollars for a gross of F-35's. We already had over a thousand F-16's in service.

Instead of updating the electronics, replacing old planes and creating new modules for a serviceable work horse, you threw together a cheap plastic piece of junk that can't outfly its predecessor.

>>34485278
Why the fuck would Bongs even stay allied with the Amerishits? It's a very one-sided relationship, and the whole world laughs at this. Aren't the English even in the least bit bothered that they've been become a virtual pet state of the US?

>>34485478
>We spent 1.5 trillion dollars for a gross of F-35's.
We haven't even spent 1/5th of that on the F-35 program yet. Are you just Aussieposting right now? Go actually read something about the shit you're talking about.

>>34470080
>>34470097
He means the video of the exercise where the Rafale pilot managed to get a gun kill because the F22 pilot wasn't paying enough attention. The Rafale pilot even said the only reason he was able to get that kill is because the F22 mistakenly maneuvered into his envelope.

File: 1324799110887.jpg (47KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 250x250px

>>34485478
>one F-35 costs $10 billion

>>34485432
You said VTOL
you deliver STOL

You said triple turbines
You deliver single turbine

You said same or more hardpoints
You deliver less hardpoints

You said it would be stealth
Its not stealth.

Lockheed hasn't kept a single promise its made regarding the F-35.

>>34485482

See what I mean?

>>34485478
>Instead of updating the electronics, replacing old planes and creating new modules for a serviceable work horse
Now I know you're a complete retard. There's literally no more room to jam any more shit into an F-16, and the entire fleet is so advanced in hours you'd be talking about a complete replacement over the next 20 years.

How the fuck does it make any sense to you to keep using a 40+ year old design, considering all the advances in technology we've experienced in just the last decade? The phone in your pocket has an order of magnitude more total processing power than the original F-16 had in all the systems on the airframe, for christ sake.

File: 1430582518717.jpg (76KB, 393x315px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 393x315px

>>34485500
>There are certain countries in this world with GDPs below $4 trillion

File: F-35 shitting all over your lawn.jpg (486KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 800x1200px

>>34485509
>You said VTOL
Nope. Never did.

>You said triple turbines
Literally wot?

>You deliver less hardpoints
Nope. It has just as many or more than the aircraft it is replacing. Pic related.

>Its not stealth.
Who the fuck says?

Provide a single source for this bullshit.

>>34485500
research costs are always defrayed in the budget, they are not included in the production costs.

>>34485478
>>34485509
Oh. It's this complete retard again. I guess the ride really never ends...

>>34485542

I think the hardpoints bullshit gets passed around because it reduces stealth.

It's one of those things the DoD needs to actually get around to solving.

>>34485555

One gross of F-35s does not cost $10 billion each.

We are going to buy around 2000 of these things at least, all variants included.

File: kongo-autism.png (990KB, 1440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1440x1440px

>>34485515
>There's literally no more room to jam any more shit into an F-16, and the entire fleet is so advanced in hours you'd be talking about a complete replacement over the next 20 years.
The fighter of theseus.

>>34485542
Jeesus Christ, there is no way you are not a paid shill. Nobody can possibly be that misinformed.

I've been following the design since its inception. Congress literally had to pull the VTOL and Triple Turbine because they had been in development for nearly half a decade without a single unit being put into production, not even a prototype

>>34485382
>you're spending 200-300 billion a year on this thing
>>34485342
>1.5 trillion buddy
>>34485478
>We spent 1.5 trillion dollars for a gross of F-35'
wew lad. Just wew.

Here's a complete breakdown of projected F-35 program costs across all variants out to 2050, estimate current as of Dec. 2016:
>$55.1B for RDT&E.
>$319.1B for procurement,
>$4.8B for MILCON
>$1123.8B for operations & sustainment

To date, at grand total of just under $400B total has been spent on the program.

Get your shit straight, buddy.

>>34485573
>We are going to buy around 2000 of these things at least, all variants included.

Have fun selling out your country.

>>34485586

Do you have a source besides screaming shill?

>>34485591
what an amazing source you have there.

Mines the Washington Post.
You can dig through the archives if you like.

>>34485573
>I think the hardpoints bullshit gets passed around because it reduces stealth.
>It's one of those things the DoD needs to actually get around to solving.
There's no real solution. No matter how stealthy your pylons or weapons are, the second you start hanging shit on the outside of the aircraft, it dramatically increases overall signature.

However, this is what we call a performance ceiling problem. It's a basic limitation of EM physics ALL aircraft face, and an externally loaded F-35 or F-22 will still be significantly less observable than a similarly loaded F-16 or F-15.

It's solved by simple tactics. Non-permissible airspace? Send them in slick with only internal loads until the IADS/A2AD systems have been reduced. Permissive airspace? Send them in loaded for bear.

Either way, just on internal loadout, an F-35A still carries just as many bombs and AMRAAMs as a strike loaded F-16, and with 1.5 times the combat radius worth of fuel. The only thing missing are AIM-9X heaters, but that's what the F-22s are for.

>>34485623
the f16 has 12 hardpoints, all external.

the f35 has 8, 6 external and 2 internal.

>>34485586
I notice a distinct lack of citation in your post. Please, once again, post any kind of source that the F-35 was supposed to be VTOL. Because that shit is absolutely hilarious.

PROTIP: If it exists, it'll be in the program requirement documents from back in 2001.

File: 1323659305157.png (260KB, 467x506px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 467x506px

>>34485612

Sorry, no, we're not.

I'm sorry you think an expensive jet is going to sink and entire country or something, maybe if you could come up with a more convincing argument that $10bil/airplane then people would believe you.

the f-35 is a huge embezzlement scheme.

Lockheed execs get paid outrageous amounts of money which they use to fuel the black budget and senators get paid paid huge kickbacks to keep the pork project in motion.

Everybody on the hill knows about it, they all just fucking laugh like the thieving bastards they all are.

File: F-16_Fighting_Falcon.jpg (714KB, 2792x1627px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 2792x1627px

>>34485622
>still no source
>still insisting on retardation even though he was given specific program budget estimate numbers
You should really get back on your meds.

>>34485641
>the f16 has 12 hardpoints, all external.
Pic related. Count with me. You can even use your fingers. 8 wing pylons. Plus the centerline pylon you can't see in the pic. That's 9 total.

The F-35A has 4 hardpoints internally (soon to be six depending on loadout), plus 6 detachable wing pylons, for a minimum total of 10. See >>34485542

Kindly go fuck yourself.

>>34485652
I don't think its going to sink the country, I think its going to get us all killed when we find out that our ECM gear was bought at a Chinese K-Mart and we are getting blown out of the air by SAM sites that have 50 years of rust on them.

I think the Russians and the Chinese are going to see this as an opportunity to press their luck and make a play for disputed territories and oil rights.

I think between the criminal negligence shown by the defense industry and the outright criminality of our senate, instead of reducing our defense budget by 15- 20 percent we are going to be stuck paying for this lemon until the end of time.

If you support the F35 project you are a traitor to your country. Lockheed execs should be brought up on treason.

>>34485641
>>34485683
Not to mention the fact that if you loaded up an F-16 with 6 Paveways, two sidewinders and two AMRAAMs like in >>34485542, it'd barely have enough fuel for a 150nmi combat radius mission with a tailwind. Meanwhile, the F-35 in the pic above would have over 400nmi combat radius with that loadout.

>>34485683
Nice top down view.
Also, pretty sure that's not the f-16's front profile.

>>34485716
What the literal fuck are you on about now? Fine. Fuck it. YOU find a pic of an F-16 with 12 fucking weapons hard points.

Go to bed, Aussie. You're fucking drunk.

>>34485707

I think you're retarded and you're going autist over what amounts to a plane that ended up more expensive than what it should have.

Yes it's a weakness, it doesn't sink the country.

>>34485737
>I think you're retarded and you're going autist
I'm pretty sure he's either a Vatnik LARPing as a "concerned citizen" or a drunk Aussie at this point.

>>34485737

Also I'm drunk and if my post pisses you off, I'm sorry but you're still an autist.

>>34485707
Look at this man and laugh

File: F-35s buried in the ground like malevolent sleeping old ones.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34485716
>not the f-16's front profile.
>not the f-16
>not
Holy fucking kek. My sides.

This fucking autist doesn't even know what an F-16 looks like, one of the most famous fucking fighter jets of the last 40 years, yet he's commenting on the F-35.

Truly, /k/ never disappoints.

>>34485753

Vatnik, French, or ISIS. either way a larper. The clue for me was the bongs. What American talks that way about Britain?

>>34485807
That f-35 model on the screen looks cool as fuck.

>>34485825
>What American talks that way about Britain?
A shitposter

>>34485825
>What American talks that way about Britain?
Well... throwing a little shit in friendly general cheekiness? A lot of us. We're only serious about it on July 4th, though, and then only sort of serious.

>>34485860

Why do we like Britain? It's stupid.

Whatever.

>>34485924
Well, let's start with WWI and WWII. Then continue on to the fact that they're literally the first ones on board and they bring the most toys to the party whenever we have to go halfway around the world and smack the shit out of someone. Finally, we can look at all the joint development work they do with us on everything from nuclear submarine power plants and propulsion to aircraft design to fucking railguns.

Are you 12 years old or something?

>>34485971

Most of that is a product of the special relationship between us and them, not a reason the special relationship exists.

We would get the same results from any other first world country, there is no reason to explicitly pick the UK.

File: NATO mil spending.jpg (65KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 780x439px

>>34486012
>Most of that is a product of the special relationship between us and them, not a reason the special relationship exists.
Continuing excellent relations and mutual benefit more than justifies the continuance of the relationship, then.

>We would get the same results from any other first world country
Yet we don't. Not from the French, who often don't show up to the party, and when they do don't send much/take the low risk jobs/sit around to observe and collect SIGINT on our assets. Not from the Germans, who are generally far stingier and touchier about joint development projects. Etc.

And then there's pic related. Of the major powers in NATO, only the Bongs (and arguably Poles, depending on definition of major power) actually contribute the required 2% of GDP to military expenditures. Everyone else is fucking off.

>>34486121

You do know one of the main reasons Britain still spends on defense is because of said special relationship, right?

Being relevant to America is just part of the cost of said benefits to having the relationship.

If you actually think Britain would be building real fleet carriers instead of just saying "we got nukes who cares? Let NATO take care of the rest" like France if America showed no interest then you're mistaken.

>>34486353
Or... It could just maybe be that the Bongs have the recent experience of the Falklands, a national mandate to maintain a Navy and Air Force capable of defending the home islands, trade routes and interests abroad and, thanks to WWII, a really, really healthy respect for the usefulness of having the naval patrol craft and ASW capability to ensure that no one will ever be able to starve them out.

Get off your conspiracy horse and actually look at their history, defense needs and motivations.

>>34486434

You can bake up whatever history you want from any nation to justify such expenditures. Every other first world nation except Sweden and Switzerland was involved in WW2.

The reason the UK spends on military is because there's a direct payoff, which does not exist for many other countries. Simple as that.

>>34486477
>The reason the UK spends on military is because there's a direct payoff, which does not exist for many other countries. Simple as that.
What, exactly, does the UK get that other countries do not when they invest in defense? You're implying a lot, but you never explicitly state your position.

>>34486489

Aside from easy access to intelligence, a foreign country's political elite, and a military alliance that extends so far it has some facets of a unified state? America would not have offered a career to Britain during the Falklands War if it weren't for the special relationship.

It seems more that you do not know much about the special relationship and how much Britain gets from it.

All this for simply spending appropriately on defense.

>>34486569
>offered a career

what?

>>34486569
>Aside from easy access to intelligence
Which also applies to Japan, RoK, Israel, Germany, ambivalently to the French and many others

>a foreign country's political elite
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean

>a military alliance that extends so far it has some facets of a unified state
You're going to have to define what you mean by this, because it makes absolutely no sense when looking at the level of tactical unification, strategic cooperation, military economic dealings, etc. The two militaries are still very, very much so independent even when operating together in the same AO.

>America would not have offered a career to Britain during the Falklands War
What do you even mean by this?

Honestly, it's extremely obvious at this point that either English isn't your first language and you're LARPing as an American, or you're 12 and have no clue what you're talking about plus underdeveloped language skills. Either way, this discussion is getting less interesting by the second.

>>34486600

https://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0

>>34486569
>America would not have offered a career to Britain during the Falklands War if it weren't for the special relationship.
>America, I need a job
>say no more, Britain. just contact HR. I'll take care of the rest
>thanks, America. How much should I request as my salary in the interview?
>don't worry about that either. I'll take care of that.

>>34486600
>>34486660

Also sorry about the poor choice of autocorrect, obviously meant carrier.

>>34486660
>>34486672
Oh, a 21 year old 18,000 ton LPH just in case they lost a carrier during ops? Yes. It was readied as an emergency measure for the Bongs, and was available for a shit ton of money. What, did you think we weren't going to get ours out of that deal? There's a reason they didn't take it with them when they went down there, and only kept it as a reserve option.

We might have offered the French or Koreans the same in a similar situation if the price was right.

>>34486734

Of course there were reasons they didn't take it, the point of the offer wasn't to augment their forces it was to ensure them that they would still have options given a disaster.

You actually think France or Korea would be offered a carrier if they just paid us money? Wow.

Hey man there's a new Iwo Jima in service right now, you think we could just empty that out and give it to France for a little while cause some islands somewhere? They only got one carrier and could use another if someone hits it with their own anti-ship missiles.

You're not even contesting the effects of the special connection between the UK and US at this point, you're contesting that it even exists.

>>34486822
>You actually think France or Korea would be offered a carrier if they just paid us money? Wow.
Why not? We basically gave the Korean Navy and the Korean military shipbuilding industry the keys to the best IADS in the world plus several other perks and the benefit of our destroyer shipbuilding experience when we sold them the tech to build their Sejong the Great ships for a song. Ditto the Japanese and the Kongo/Atago classes.

That's just one of several dozen examples of countries other than the Bongs getting the benefits of a "special relationship".

>new Iwo Jima in service right now
The one we offered the Bongs had been in commission for 21 years, and was due for decommission in another 11.

>France for a little while cause some islands somewhere
Depends on what it's for. If it's to swat down an uppity power getting adventurous and disturbing a carefully crafted balance on an entire continent without us having to do anything, like say the Falklands, then sure. We'd happily make the offer.

>You're not even contesting the effects of the special connection between the UK and US at this point, you're contesting that it even exists.
We have a close relationship with the Bongs. But we also have a close relationship with other countries. At this point, I think you're mostly just a moron who doesn't understand the context and history of the issues you're talking about, and who reads/listens to/watches way, way too much Infowars and other related retardation.

>>34486822
>You're not even contesting the effects of the special connection between the UK and US at this point, you're contesting that it even exists.
Oh, and why are you so hell bent on pitching a bitch fit over it when the relationship has so clearly been one of mutual benefit for the last century plus?

>>34486971

That's just one of several dozen examples of countries other than the Bongs getting the benefits of a "special relationship".

No, that's a really bad example of handing over a fully built and proven aircraft carrier to an ally -before they even need it- so they can win a war. You got anything substantial?

>The one we offered the Bongs had been in commission for 21 years, and was due for decommission in another 11.

The current one is 17 years old, so what?

>Depends on what it's for.

Hmm, no. I'm just going to say that as is and let you try to prove your claim. We've never shown the kind of commitment you're talking to about to France or Korea, including the Korean and Indochina/Vietnam war (which were fought for other reasons, not for the reasons you're claiming where those countries have equal standing with us as the UK).

The last part of your post is pure retardation, I suggest you actually study some history instead. The special relationship between the UK and US isn't even controversial, it's an extremely obvious fact, both historically and just in a modern politics context. There are no scholarly works that agree with your mistaken worldview.

>>34487018

I never said anything of the sort over that, I said why does it have to be the UK in particular?

>>34487100
>I never said anything of the sort over that, I said why does it have to be the UK in particular?
You've yet to prove it is the UK in particular. Yet you're oddly fixated, pretending to be American and don't write English very well. My, but that is curious.

>We've never shown the kind of commitment you're talking to about to France
Vietnam plus aid during the Algerian wars

>or Korea
Keeping North Korea at bay for 70 years doesn't count? Giving constant and very advantageous military tech exchanges doesn't count?

>(which were fought for other reasons, not for the reasons you're claiming where those countries have equal standing with us as the UK).
Just like we had other reasons to help the UK knock the Argies down a few pegs?

>The special relationship between the UK and US isn't even controversial, it's an extremely obvious fact, both historically and just in a modern politics context. There are no scholarly works that agree with your mistaken worldview.
Then you'll be able to source your assertions very quickly. Go on, produce some actual scholarly works as a source. Be sure to include your assertions above about how muh ebil jooish internation conspiracy is somehow involved.

>>34487190
>Vietnam plus aid during the Algerian wars
>implying the US didnt get involved in Vietnam several years after the French pulled out and certainly not on their behalf
>implying any kind of support during the Algerian war
Stop.

>>34487190
>Vietnam plus aid during the Algerian wars

>Keeping North Korea at bay for 70 years doesn't count? Giving constant and very advantageous military tech exchanges doesn't count?

No, neither of those remotely qualify as compared to what we give to the UK, thanks of asking.

FYI France has already lost by the time we entered Vietnam. Again, you might want to actually research history. They had washed their hands of it and had no part.

>Just like we had other reasons to help the UK knock the Argies down a few pegs?

No as a matter of fact we didn't. I'd love to hear you handwave some reasons as to why we cared about some unimportant islands (other than the fact that some British people lived on them) and why that is at all comparable to America against the Soviet Union at its height.

I'm not even going to respond to the Jewish part, cry some more.

>>34487245
>>implying the US didnt get involved in Vietnam several years after the French pulled out and certainly not on their behalf
The French recieved very hefty support from America in Vietnam from 1950-1954. Learn your history, dipshit.

>>implying any kind of support during the Algerian war
Because the FLN was playing the SovBloc against the French/West, the French received a great deal of quiet support from the US, especially from 1954-1958.

>>34487263
>FYI France has already lost by the time we entered Vietnam
See statement above, RE: 1950-1954. It is supremely ironic that you're the one telling me to read a fucking history book.

>No as a matter of fact we didn't.
Confirmed to be completely ignorant of South American politics and power balance in the early 80's. It's time to stop posting.

The Rafale is good for being a bomb truck that can go deep, flying low in very hostile airspace and deliver a lot of PGMs and still hold its own at least in A2A

>>34487339
This is all true. Outside of the F-15E, F-22 and F-35 it probably has the best combat radius for interdiction.

>>34487292
>The French recieved very hefty support from America in Vietnam from 1950-1954.
>very hefty
More like extremely reluctant and pretty much symbolic support when the US finally realized the vietminh were indeed commies.
The CIA crews that flew over Dien Bien Phu were operating under French colors because they didn't want the US to be involved.
Then the French left. And then the US got involved. But certainly NOT on behalf of the French.

Learn your history, dipshit.

>>34485499
I want you to show me your sources on your shit because that's either bullshit or not from the document you refer too.

However since I'm a cool guy, here is the original material you are reffering to, on page 11 and following. (the typhoon gets shat on in the previous pages but that's not the topic)

>http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/interview-capitaine-romain.pdf
>http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/interview-capitaine-romain.pdf
>http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/interview-capitaine-romain.pdf

use a translator or learn french because I'm not going to do that for you.

You're going to learn that the guy answering the questions never ever, not a single time, said the F-22 was crap or the Rafale superior. He even said the mock-up guns only fight was not representative of a real engagement, while the Rafale had "several occasions to fire an IR missile". But he certainly did not say the F-22 pilot made a mistake which explained the kill.

Just like there were proofs the F-22 wasn't carrying drop tanks either, which was still mentionned by every US troll and their friends. Pics are in the document if you need a proof of it.

To admitt A T-38, F-16, F-18, F15, can get a gun kill on an F-22 when playing cleverly is not hard for a US troll from /k/.

But when you put in a Rafale, arguably more manoeuverable than any of these planes listed above, it becomes a bug in the matrix, a proof the F-22 pilot yawned or something.

This is how ridiculous this debate has become in this shitty thread where US vatnik-tier trolls show their stupidity.

It's time to stop.

This shitshow was already done in 2011 (you were only 5 by then you could not know about it) and it already ended up pretty badly for people like you. as you can read there :
http://indiandefence.com/threads/eurofighter-typhoon-v-s-dassault-rafale-analysis.22158/page-362

I'm not dare2 btw.

>>34476624
I wonder what the radar signature of that formation would be like...?

File: F35_JSF_Issues_Lemon_Turkey.png (697KB, 1024x853px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 1024x853px

>>34485382

>>34490401

It'd probably be less of a thing if Rafalefags weren't literally the most overdefensive, France stronk autists on the entire board when it comes to their plane.

When people act like that, expect people to get tetchy in response.

>>34490590
>if Rafalefags weren't literally the most overdefensive, France stronk autists on the entire board
Not him but the F35 fanboys are unrivaled in the dick waving category.

>>34490793
>Not him but the F35 fanboys are unrivaled in the dick waving category.
Considering the F-35 gets 20 times as much shit on this board compared to the Rafale, that shouldn't be surprising. Especially when so much of the shit said about the F-35 is total fabrication.

>>34485542

L...lewd!

File: predlight.jpg (17KB, 345x195px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 345x195px

>>34490563
>graphic Dec. 2011
>almost all the issues are from 2006 or earlier
>many either non-issues or completely normal development progression

Is this what the haters are down to? Absolutely pathetic.

>>34490590
>It'd probably be less of a thing if blah blah
It'd probably be less of a thing if you stopped spreading lies and inventing testimonies.
Your answer is not on topic.
Not that I expected it anyway.