MildaveThe story date back to 2004… I’m not sure if it has ever been proved… France has been working along with Israel in order to upgrade many electronics systems for soviet-era fighter jet around the world starting with Russia, so it’s not “difficult to believe” that Saddam could have use his “oil influence” to get one or two upgrades coming his way. But according to this other site it may just be intox (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/foxbat.htm).
“Why We Keep Digging.
Amazing What You Find When You Dig Long Enough! NewsMax.com has obtained exclusive photos of a buried Iraqi jet
fighter being recovered by U.S. Air Force troops. The Iraqi jet, an advanced Russian MiG-25 Foxbat, was found buried in
the sand after an informant tipped off U.S. troops.
The MiG was dug out of a massive sand dune near the Al Taqqadum airfield by U.S. Air Force recovery teams. The MiG
was reportedly one of over two dozen Iraqi jets buried in the sand, like hidden treasure, waiting to be > recovered at a later date.
Contrary to what some in the major media have reported, not all the jets found were from the Gulf War era.
The Russian-made MiG-25 Foxbat being recovered by U.S. Air Force troops in the photos is an advanced reconnaissance
version never before seen in the West and is equipped with sophisticated electronic warfare devices.
U.S. Air Force recovery teams had to use large earth-moving equipment to uncover the MiG, which is over 70 feet long and weighs
nearly 25 tons.
The Foxbat is known to be one of Iraq’s top jet fighters. The advanced electronic reconnaissance version found by the U.S. Air Force
is currently in service with the Russian air force. The MiG is capable of flying at speeds of over 2,000 miles an hour, or three times the
speed of sound, and at altitudes of over 75,000 feet.
The recovery of the advanced MiG fighter is considered to be an intelligence coup by the U.S. Air Force. The Foxbat may also be
equipped with advanced Russian and French made electronics that were sold to Iraq during the 1990s in violation of a U.N. ban on
arms sales to Baghdad.
The buried aircraft at Al Taqqadum were covered in camouflage netting, sealed and, in many cases, had their wings removed before being
buried more than 10 feet beneath the Iraqi desert.”
MildaveI wish but unfortunatly I do not speak german 😮
MildaveFalse comparison.
A-10 was created for a specific kind of air to ground warfare, i.e. low-level CAS. It was built around the gun, & designed to be survivable in high-intensity trashfire & against MANPADs. That does NOT make it better at destroying ground targets in general. The ability to destroy ground targets in general, outside the narrow parameters of the A-10 design (i.e. optimised for strafing Soviet armour in Central Europe), is a function of weapons carried & sensors, as long as you have the range to reach the target area, & the endurance to locate the targets.
I’m sure that an F-15E is much better at long-range delivery of stand-off weapons than an A-10.
And I’m sure a cessna with a storm shadow can do a better job than a f22, f15 and A-10 all together…:rolleyes:
MildaveThe F15 is a good air superiority fighter and the A-10 is good at destroying ground target because they have been created for these specific tasks.
You may put bombs on a F15 and AtA missile on a A-10, but in the end, the F15 wont be better than the A-10 at AtG, and the A-10 wont be better than the F15 at AtA combat…
The Typhoon was created to be a air superiority fighter, and during the MMRCA trials was the only one to demonstrate true supercruise capability according to the IAF.
As such interception and air supremacy are going to be its primary role.
The rafale was created from the beginning to be a swing role aircraft, good everywhere whithout necessarily having a edge somewhere.
The rafale was created to fullfil demanding missions like:
– Protection : interception of enemy aircrafts and other aerial threats…
– Prevention : aerial reccon…
– Projection : air supremacy, deep-strike, precision bombing…
– Nuclear deterrence : well self explanatory…
Now as far as air superiority is concerned, the F15 wasn’t kept in service because it was a better platform than the F14, but because it was cheaper to operate and had better avionics.
The rafale and Typhoon are “close” in terms of aero-dynamics performances (It is my opinion that we have more or less reached the limit envelop of piloted flight with the 4.5 generation fighters). We can assume that their avionics are more or less on parity with each other. India, China and Pakistan all have AWACS platforms, and both figters are going to be detected by these long before they get in range of each other. Both are equipped with good AtA weapons, and I doubt if the meteor is going to wonder whether or not you have TVE.
For every other missions that are not air superiority, the typhoon is at a clear disadvantage. Its engine will suffer and consume a lot more fuel at low altitude than the secma, will fly to fast for CAS (unless the pilot tries the parachute:rolleyes:) although almost every jet have the same problem…
I will only believe the fary tale about the aircraft carrier variant able to take off with full load (yet no catapult at all…) when I see it.
And since I don’t see the US Force offering F16 SEAD to the AdlA as a escort for a nuclear deep-strike mission, I assume the rafale self defense system is among one of the best in the world specially against GtA threat (Would be stupid to develop a expensive brand new missile whitout a aircraft capable and credible to deliver it).
Then you have the cost. I’ve been to lasy to look for germany’s, Italy’s and Spain’s figure, but as far as the UK is concerned £20 billion is a lot for only 160 planes (and yes that’s factual). 75% overcost is a rape and someone should be in front of a court for that. Now the same clowns who said the Typhoon would be costing 75% less that what it is costing now say that supporting the aircraft will only cost about £13 billion up to 2030… well I guess we will have to wait and see…
Finally the IAF already has the MKI + Pakfa for air superiority, and M2000 + Tejas for interception, and I don’t think the Typhoon can fill the gap as a workhorse. You need a plane capable to do it all, and so far only the rafale has proved itself as such.
Mildavepolitical discussion in Denmark on high cost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XyBY2l44P2k#at=113
F-16s are nice and all, but they are high performance machines designed to fight against strong enemies, they’re horribly inefficient as bomb-trucks against 3rd rate armies
another reason why the West should not spend (all) of its money on super-high performance and expensive platforms like the F-35. most of it should go to something like UAVs who can do the same job better at 10% of the cost, and are actually useful in peace time (border patrol, SAR, security, fire detection…)
Well Kadafi just have to wait for nato to run out of money… That’s damn expensive !
Mildave@ Scorpion82 : at least £37 billion by 2018 is the figure I find in every audit I was able to read done in the uk. If you have any other sources I would glad to read them. And of course we are talking about the cost of the program since it was launched. However I never saw any sources saying it was to be the cost until the end of the program. The aircraft is suppose to remain operational for at least 30 years so nobody knows exactly how much will cost mid life upgrade and so on.
@ Sintra : Exact numbers are difficult to find and depend wheather you include development cost or not. The bristish MoD has decided to classified the actual cost of the Typhoon in order to help export but recent audit are talking about £200 milion including R&D and about £90 to £125 milion without. (Of course if anyone managed to get the exact figure I would be glad to see them thanks in advance…)
Here is a exemple of how to be dishonnest. The report said 2018 is when the Typhoon is expected to be “fully” able in A/G. I never said that the Typhoon wasn’t able to do some A/G “now”… But it isn’t able to do so “fully” which mean you won’t see any Typhoons dropping bombs on the first day of conflict anyday soon. Now I would be very glad to see any info that says otherwise rather than more empty claims.
MildaveThen how come JaboG 31 has traded it’s Tornadoes for Tiffies ?
From what I understand they wont be fully operational until 2012.
The Typhoon wont be fully A/G capable until at least 2018 (http://www.defencetalk.com/british-costs-soaring-for-eurofighter-jets-audit-32532/), so the JaboG 31 will probably have bombs but no plane to fire them from.
£37 Billion is the cost expected to reach that level by 2018 (http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=1887) and since the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain are reducing their orders the price is expected to rise for each Typhoons…
I haven’t been able to find out how many bomber the german currently have available in case of emergency. But as far as the UK is concerned, last time I checked, they were 2… with spare part problems
MildavePeople have a tendancy to exagerate things…
If the predators and cies are not invisible to radar and can be detected despite not having to worry about jet exhaust, then a rafale is certainly not “invisible”…
However we can assume that in some way it can perform like the F16 SEAD and “blind” a radar in some mesure in order to surprise or confuse a adversary.
Now keep in mind that only the UK is pushing for a multi-role Typhoon, with Germany very timid behind and Spain, Italy almost silent, with the fact that a multi-role Typhoon is only usefull right now for BAE system in order to keep its rank as n’1 arm exporter and you realise why the rafale which from the begining was thought as a unique platform for many missions is more versatile.
Now if it was down to cost only the rafale at ~$80 would already have won against the ~$125 and rising fast Typhoon.
MildaveIt’s about physics and logic, not counter-intuition.
We’ve also seen another source that claims that Rafale has (full load vs full load) 1% RCS (IIRC) of SH too, upthread*.
Assuming that approximations for Typhoon and SH RCSs are correct to within an order of magnitude, and for the statements to cohere, then Rafale + (external, non-LO) load has an RCS < the (external, non-LO) load alone, were that load simply hovering without pylons and plane, forward facing, in mid air: Rafale has an enormous negative-RCS! that extends out over its load.
So, at this point, it’s not worth being too concerned with passive-LO (shaping, materials and Emcon), since that can only take you down to zero RCS (if even that’s theoretically possible), and Rafale’s RCS-reduction is much, much better than a mere zero RCS (though the passive stuff supplements).
So we’re talking SPECTRA must use extremely mature and advanced active cancellation then? It must be so far advanced that the other major European tech and industrial giants (even combined, back when there was money) can’t compete… but there are no problems in giving this awe-inspiring technological edge to India, UAE etc….:confused:
Why isn’t everybody (including the RN and Japan, say) queueing up to buy the bare minimum number of Rafales that they can get away with to gain the tech-transfer of this uber-tech?:confused:
[All genuine questions, not being snide – I’ve been a bit out of touch re aerospace for a while….]
*So a full load SH has 10x the RCS of an AtA loaded Typhoon, and a Rafale with AtA load has a total RCS of about the same as, or less than, one of the smaller AAMs it’s carrying….:confused:
The reaction of the US when they lose is a proof that the Rafale isn’t necessarily not exporting because it is a bad airplane but because not so many countries have the gutt to buy a “good airplane” rather than a “relationship”… Maybe french MoD should put the rafale on meetic:D…
As far as stealth or LO are concerned… Honnestly who knows ? Why would those informations been classified if we could find out just by looking at some pictures and at some disputable documents on Internet ?
MildaveHi,
I’m just coming back to say hello and share a little moment of hapiness… Europeans are still able to build planes after all !!!:):diablo:
MildaveCooperating with Saab might have some advantages but the fact that Saab need a lot of help from other country like US, or UK may restrict their ability to transfer technologies to India, more so if US, UK… pressure Saab in order to promote their own planes.
I read somewhere that India prefer two engines over one engine aircraft, and while Rafale or F18 might be good platform specially for risk reduction should the navy require a filling gap fighter, only politics will decide which fighter wins. With the SU30MKI having the air superiority role, and LCA + upgraded Mirage 2000 for interdiction and interception, the MMRCA focus is on strike capabilities. Because of a lack of reliability of their ballistic and cruise missiles, a a/c capable to penetrate Pak or even China defense is a must have, and in order to decrease vulnerability, it must have good range to operate from bases that Pak cannot strike. F16 even a more advanced variant would still be to close in capabilities than the Pak F16, and can the Gripen IN be trusted to be survivable against JF17 and F16 50 ?
Beside in case of war not only will India have to worry about Sweden politics (aiframe), but also US(engine), and maybe even UK (radar).
Can the Gripen offer so much in terms of technologies, economical and political benefits worth angering much bigger partners of India like France, US and UK ?
Have you ever heard India training with Sweden air force ? Have you ever heard Sweden sending a fleet in the pacific to train with India’ s navy or aeronautic ?
The countries part of the Typhoon consortium have all very strong ties with the US, with US bases on their soil. And I don’t see a day when they will continue supplying India with weapons and assistance should the US put a embargo on India again.
So you either buy Russian, or you buy US, or if you want the better of both world you buy Rafale.
MildaveGiven the gain in capabilities provided by Typhoon and future F35, 6 squadrons are more than enough. We’ve been living so long in a Cold War mindset that we have forgotten what it is not to be constantly at each other throats.
The truth is European countries can no longer afford such expensive equipments, certainly not the UK which has specialized itself making very expensive hardwares in order to fight dust and decay in very menacing and dangerous hangars.
Each of our submarines can destroy this world 10 times over, which state would be stupid enough to attack us ? NONE.
What we need is better intelligence agencies working with special forces to take care of terrorist groups, that cannot be destroy by any amount of Typhoons, Rafales, F35s, Death stars etc.
We need to invest in social policies that are going to make this world better by helping people, not killing them.
The secret to win a invasion has been known since the begining of times. Kill most of the population, enslave the rest, then settle your own people into their land. Exept today ressources are in the form of oil and other raw ressources, no longer in agriculture. I see no or very little Iraqui or Afghani enterprises taking care of reconstructing their own country, or producing oils etc.
Kill thousand of people in one day, and you are doing a genocide, kill thousand of people over 10 years and you are making democracy! Well seems to me like nobody is eager to help Sommali with their democracy… Pathetic
Mildaveand why is a base in gulf relevent to any Chinese aviation industrial capability 😮
or geopolitical arms buying arrangement of mid-eastern oil states? 😮is this the end-state of denial? going onto a completely different plane of discussion? 😮
Nope they usually buy the best available and don’t really care about politics as long as its come with long term commitment and stability.
An fighter jet represent the best abilities of your industries. The best your overall industry is, the best your military tech is going to be. Since you people just want to look at a nice looking picture and jumps up and down getting all exited about it, I ask your logic to interrogate the facts and tell you: is China industry capable as of today to superceed US industry and build a plane that is going to scare a F22 pilots into staying at home.
If your answer despite all your best jugment is yes then you should perharps move to China, and if you can plug you computer to a reliable power supply maybe once you have figured out how to find google and then aviation forum you can tell me how is the life over there !:dev2:
MildaveDevelop a new long range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber, which will be designed using proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity.
WOW!! new build B-52s in 2040!!!!!:D
:D:D awesome !! :D:D
MildaveBecause its more like 4+ sites, or the whole mission will not be a long lasting effect. Its probably more that 4-5 sites that Iranians made sure are potent to their nuclear program. They are not stupid. They are not going to make two targets only for Israel.
now how many aircraft is needed to destroy lets say 4 sites spread over Iran?
1 or 2 cruise missiles for each sites, you get 8 F15’s and 1 or 2 F16’s for jamming (Max 20 planes, else you just get the enemy’s radars crowded).
100 aircrafts ??? And how would they protect their air space during that time ?
Sign In
