The RCS of the “Super” Hornet is not low enough to make a difference – it will be detected by all threats before it gets within weapons range – and that is the bottom line with regards low observables.

It makes a difference in regard to jamming. Think signal-to-noise ratio.

It really looks as if the strong Euro is at least partially at fault for what appears to be latest failed export attempt for the Rafale.

Is it any wonder that Sarkozy has been so critical of the European Central Bank? The ECB is at the root of much of the unemployment currently seen in France. Who would have though a decade ago that currency union would have hurt the French economy so much?

That’s a very odd opinion on a strong currency. Yes, it might hinder this particular export deal, but in general having a strong currency is a very enviable position to be in.

Exactly what I have been advocating here for a long time. Capability wise and technology wise none of the MMRCA candidates offer anything that the the MKI does not. The entire program should have never been launched and the extra required aircraft split between more MKI and LCA orders.

I wouldn’t undervalue the offsets and technology transfer. The MMRCA tender helps India develop its own military aerospace industry in size, skill and knowledge, which should provide a better base for future indigenous products. I would think of this tender as an opportunity to quickly catch up on 4th gen fighter design and production.

The website of the Austrian MoD claims the Typhoons top speed to be M2.35 instead of the generally cited M2+.

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml

2.495 km/h at 10.975 m height = M2.346

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/machu.html

Ok, lets assume for a second that they don’t require three tanks. What makes them think that ten years from now a prospective buyer wouldn’t want to be able to fit a LDP and three fuel tanks? Then they’d need to pay for the integration of the LDP on the MRAAM hardpoint. Pretty silly if you ask me.

Nic

And if nobody comes along to require it they put up with the integration costs for nothing. Pretty silly if you ask me.

If doctrine, operating procedures, mission profiles and fuel estimates stipulate two tanks to be enough for expected tasks, then that’s that I guess.

Of course more fuel is nice, but anything more and better is nice. More thrust is nice, better fuel consumption is nice, more radar range is nice, more bombs are nice. But the question still remains of what is required.

I’d much rather see them put the money towards CFTs instead of wasting it on hardpoint juggling with tanks and LDP.

I doubt Venezuala or Iran cares about F-22s. Like I said, China is about the only one I can think of off hand that would. (Since we’re talking specifically about more F-22s)

I’m not sure, but I guess that’s a point nobody can really answer definitely. I would imagine there is some feedback towards all of them being more interested in ordering Russian jets or SAMs.
If I expected us to go into a fight and both of us have knives, I might be wishing for a better weapon but might accept the parity. If we go into a fight and you have two knives or a sword or a gun, and I still only have a knife, the pressure to upgrade seems higher to me.

If the people controlling the purse stings didn’t have their heads up their a$$es I would agree. But these are the same people who are telling the USAF to come up with ~$2billion for an engine they’ve expressly stated they neither want nor need because they want to keep the voters in their districts happy. So no, buying what the USAF has said they require would not be a waste. Keep in mind the reason for the 381. It’s got to replace something like 685 F-15s (no that doesn’t include the Es). They need a squadron to go with each of the 10 expeditionary forces. Units for training, units in heavy maintenance/modifications/updates/testing and so forth, units for attrition. Basically they need the 381 so they can have 240 deployable, combat coded F-22s.

Well, the people voted, but getting into the F-35 engine deal would derail this topic even further. Out of real interest: How did congress (or whoever else came up with it) come to the conclusion that 183 units would be enough? Did they pluck that number out of thin air, or are there advisory boards they fall back onto? What was the reasoning behind that number?

Any press release that isn’t a 3rd hand interpretation specifically states the ONLY way there will be any form of cooperation is if the US does NOT deploy either ABMs or ABM radars in Europe.

I would argue that it’s each country’s sovereign decision to negotiate letting the US install ABM sites in their country, but I have to say that I find the idea of any single power installing missile sites internationally in a widespread manner somewhat disconcerting. It feels like there is the potential for some kind of proliferation creep, where we suddenly end up with a network of single-nation ABM sites all over the world.
As for the use of the ABM site, this would have to be discussed as well. For one, the capabilities of North Korean and Iranian missiles are severely doubted by some experts, while others also doubt the effectiveness of the ABM missile shield.
Some speculated that the US effort for the Polish/Czech sites was motivated by the want to drive a wedge into the EU, which promptly showed at following EU negotiations, where mainly Poland and the Czech Republic blocked proposals and didn’t behave very conciliatory and it took some strong-arming to have them sort out their priorities.

As I’ve said before elsewhere if some South American nation had it in their heads to develope ICBMs (and had a credible ability to do so- such as Iran has demonstrated) and had indicated that Russia needs to go and were also trying to develope nukes I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the US decided to help them. In fact most likely the deal they’d offer would be so sweet Russia would look like total idiots to refuse. Why? The more cooperation the better you know what the other guy is doing. Offering to let us stay defenseless is hardly an offer of cooperation. What we’re doing with Japan is cooperation. What we’re doing with Israel is cooperation. What would be a REAL offer? Let us deploy the ABMs (they are defensive weapons after all) and radar. Then defend the base with their all-singing S-400s and we’ll defend Moscow with our ABMs. Link the radars together, use common software frontends and so forth. Have mixed crews operating the ABMs and S-400s. Tie it altogether so the S-400 crews and the ABMs crews can all see the same picture coming in through all the sensors.

I am all for cooperation, because in my opinion it’s the only long-term positive-sum strategy. But I’m afraid the US did not exactly show itself to be a fan of multilateral actions in recent years. With the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld connection it’s always been very polarizing “You are either with us or against us” and “We’ll just do it alone” posturing. For a while even the UN was considered a waste of time and effort by Washington because it was too slow and ineffective and nothing was ever agreed upon there (ignoring the veto statistics which paint an interesting picture).
My faith in multilateral action with the current US administration is rather weak and I don’t think they would have taken it anywhere close to what you describe.

What they’re offering is essentially “don’t do anything to defend yourselves and pray we’ll tell you when you’re about to get nuked- not that it matters since you won’t be able to shoot them down anyway.” Yeah, nice deal.

I think their thinking was rather “Do what you want to defend yourself, but don’t put up your missiles in front of us.”
It’s not the Cold War anymore, but I still wouldn’t want to see Russia put up any kind of missiles at Cuba on there own again either, no matter the reason.

Admittedly, I don’t know the technical framework of radar range, ABM range and interception timing to draw the appropriate circles for suitable stations, so would it be possible to run a truly shared missile/radar site with some other militarily more sophisticated Western European country? UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy? Perhaps something under NATO command?

Not at all. Not sure why you’d think I believe that.

Figures.

Here it is, split up:
Russia projecting power supposedly should make it easier for the US forces to order equipment, according to you. (Easer to order/finance F-22s.)
The US projecting power then doesn’t do the same for some other states, some of them Russian customers?

I think the Bear flights are a desperate attempt not to appear impotent on Putin’s part. However if he flies them down the East Coast it likely would make getting more F-22s funded easier.

But wouldn’t it then be stupid to spend money on F-22s without reason? Buying things you don’t need doesn’t sound that clever, does it? If he’s no threat, why waste millions on him not being a threat?
Would you really want to buy those additional F-22 for the reason of Putin’s flight if you consider them empty posturing. Wouldn’t that be a fantastic waste of the tax payer’s money?

As for countries reacting to that I think the only country who might care at all would be China. Personally I don’t think Putin thinks those ABMs are any threat at all to Russia however politically it might appear a bit of a black eye if he were to do nothing. However the reaction he’s chosen just comes across like a childish tantrum.

You mean his reaction to offer operating a common ABM site? Yes, yes, cooperation is incredibly childish.

And that’s the reason this is a really dumb move by Putin. Buzz around inside Russia and nobody cares (if they even notice), do a flight down the US East coast and the US buys more F-22s. So please, I’m beggin’ ya Putina, send some down the East Coast.

Is it really that dumb?

1. Bears buzz the US East coast.
2. US stocks up on weapons, here: F-22.
3. Russia still not at risk of being invaded anytime soon or going to war with NATO/US. Other countries are and might perceive this threat to be growing with the US’ military might growing even more.
4. These other countries spend more on defence. Where do these countries listed on the US sh**list usually buy?
6. Russia sells planes, tanks, ships, weapons, licenses and maintenance to newly/increasingly interested parties that are willing to spend more on defence than before.

Summing up that’s:

1. Buzz USA.
2. Sell more equipment.
3. Profit!!!

Pendulums don’t just swing one way.