Originally posted by I.P.Freely
What the Fu*k are you talking about?
If you are going to quote me, do it correctly:

sorry, I wanted to write “Who said the RAfale was much better ?”

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
The ability of Rafale versus F-15K wasn’t that significant, if Rafale’s performance was exponentially greater than F-15K’s, there wouldn’t be any question of which plane to pick. But since the difference wasn’t that significant it wasn’t a deciding factor.

Plain stupid.
No more, no less.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
No I did not say that, so if you are going to use an that as an argument, find out who said it, before opening your mouth and try to use it against someone.

So, the Rafale have the same range-payload than the F-15 is it that ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
That is funny line coming from you!!! We know you’ve got difficulties, since you have difficulty reading and understanding I suggest you stop posting,.

Little boy, I know what a “couple” is.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
Again you are being delusional.
ROKAF have a plane that will deliver it’s weapons VS imaginary plane that even it’s own government refuses to purchase unless Dassult makes improvement. .

Obviously you don’t know anything about the devellopment of the Rafale.
After all, Korean pilots who flew on it know.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely Give me some AMRAAM, They’ll knock those NKorean tin cans out of the sky before they know what hit them..

The great korean ally refuse to sell these AMRAAM

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
Planes and the RADAR they carry can be used over and over again. But the missiles and smart bombs they carry are one time use ONLY and unless they are just for show, they will need to replace them if they decides to use them, so yeah cost of weapon does matter. Am I going slow enough for you to understand?

As long as we can’t give the correct figures for both planes, radar and weapons, I don”t know andyou don’t know too.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
And they can acquire them for their other plane, which are compatible with American weapons. How many time do you have to be told this.
HELLO ARE YOU EMPTY UP THERE IN YOUR HEAD!!!

Recent history show that it’s crap.
Spain, Switzerland and Australia replace their mirage by F-18.
Australia choose the M1A1 to replace their Leopard1.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
Boeing already tested SLAM-ER on F-15E. Do some research

Tests only ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
Besides, I’m not the retard that just wrote “the problem was the couple, not the weapons”
Care to explain what you are trying to say? Because that statement makes no sense whatsoever. And only problem with my English is that your are reading it and butchering it.

Hu ?
You don’t know that with two complex but reliable systems may be a total failure when put together ?
I don’t see why I should waste my time with you.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

Obviously, Rafale wasn’t that much better than F-15K’s capability

You spoke of “that much better” ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
The question you should be asking is why isn’t this 4th generation fighter that much better than 30 year old platform.

You said that Range/payload was very important for SK so, you acn easily imagine that on all other caracteristics, the rafale was much better than the F-15.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
French wasn’t including the weapons either, so what is your point.

HAve you got difficulties with english ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
At least with US they have access to them.

Sure, France wanted to sell a plane without weapons.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

And what about JSOW, JDAM and other Latest laser guided bombs and GPS guided bombs.

Yep great weapons.
The F-15 need that to gain some conpensation vs the Rafale 😀

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

If the Americans are going to use them, the cost per missiles/bomb goes down. So it will be cheaper to buy them. The french military industry can’t guarantee that.

Yep, the french military industry can’t guarantee the price of american missiles.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

Can the French guarantee the same technology at that cost? I would say NO. Why don’t you mention that?

Depend if the USA screw the program by themselves or not but it’s right that french missiles for example are often more expensive than american or russian equivalent.

To summerize, the plane is cheaper, the radar is WAYYYYYYYY cheaper but missiles are too expensive ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
And SLAMER unproven, what does that mean? US tested it already! US NAVY is deploying them!

The us navy use F-15 ?
Yes, you’ve got problem with english, the problem was the couple, not the weapons.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

or by the way what do the French have that is already proven or have similar capability? Answer is NONE.

The question is “what was the french equivalent for Korea ?”
The AASM.
About the unproven, of course it was a joke but I knew that you would like it.

BTW it seems that you don’t understand (like most american posters) waht proven mean.

BTW, what weapons used during Clinton eara missed 48 targets out of 49 in Iraq ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely
What about JDAM, they only cost $18K can French provide that kind of weapon system at similar cost?

The AASM should be in that range IIRC

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

the research/development is done, no extra cost involved. No tremendous extra cost to intergrate them in to the Air Force since USAF and ROKAF uses same equipment.

But it’s a weapons made for the ameriican doctrine, don’t forget it.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

The list goes on and on and on. Why can’t you accept that fact? Why do you choose to ignore this?

The subject was F-15 and Rafale.

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

And guess what, What you guys did here is something a car salesman would do, offer you cheaper upfront cost, then when you get the sale, you rape them because you got them where you want them, and charge whatever you want

In fact, it’s the last F-15 user who will get rape (just like every last user of a product), but why do you choose to ignore this ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

So stop dismissing the US industry connection as something trivial. That is most important part of the deal. Access to the latest and the greatest technology. With minimum cost to the government.

Of course that ‘s very important.
But I can’t see why the french offer was so much behind american one.
BTW “F-15” and “minimum cost” put together in the same sentence ?

Originally posted by I.P.Freely

I know you got your nationalistic feelings hurt by the decision and you feel cheated, but it wasn’t just the merit of the plane, it was the overall package. Accept it as fact and part of the deal, even if you find it hard to swallow.

1) My nationalistic feelings are well, don’t worry about them.
2) Yes, obviously it was a cheat
3) “merit of the plane ?” But your wholepost about the merit of ammunitions. Isn’t it a bit inconsistent ?

Originally posted by phrozenflame
they dont even need those 😉

Right, the F-15 can handle all threats, ask it in the “What fighter for Singapore” thread. 😀

Originally posted by Sauron
So it’s quite clear, the current Rafale dosn’t currently meet the requirements. More development is required. Fair enough.

Just like the F-35 or F-22, so I think that the USAF shouldn’t buy them.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Srbin
Well because Greece will be friendlier with 4 other countries rather than one. Yes France is pretty reliable etc but there is nothing wrong with the Typhoon.

sorry, it sounds plain naïve.
They are all in UE.

Ok, the rafale wasn’t supposed at first to carry the Exocet but the ANF (anti navire du futur/ Future anti ship).

So the integration of the exocet have been really late but I can’t see why the RAfale can’t use two exocets

Originally posted by Srbin
Politically the Typhoon is better, but militarily they are equal.

I still don’t understand why politically.

but the Rafale remains cheaper 😀

Re: Read this please

Originally posted by Twilight2002
1. Greece has already commited itself to intensive research and analysis of the Eurofighter Typhoon. This is expensive.

Not only nobody heard about that “intensive research” but a competition wouldn’t be really expensive, at least, not when you want to buy 60 very expensive rafale or EF2000

Originally posted by Twilight2002

2. Greece has more to gain, diplomatically, from choosing Eurofighter as her mainstay fighter – since this will boost her ties with at least 5 other alligned Air Forces who will be using the same aircraft. France is the ONLY user of Rafale.

Your argument would have makes sense if, instead of Greece it was India, Brazil or china. France, UK, Germany, spain, Italy and Greece are in the UE

Originally posted by Twilight2002

3. Typhoon is more likely to be cleared for use with American-made air-surface weaponry, since relations between France and the USA are cooling rapidly, and a user of the Rafale may supply sensitive data to the French Government in return for spare parts, support etc. Key weapons may likely include Brimstone, SLAM-ER and LOCAAS, as well the FAARGM (update of HARM).
Greece is very likely to be looking at Brimstone already.

We’ve got different things here.
1) the French-American relationship is pretty bad because of (mostly) the neo-cons. So, hold your breath until November to see if it would still be true.
2) Don’t worry, a Typhoon user may supply sensitive infos to UK, Germany and all too. I think that if you missed that problem, the pentagone haven’t.

Originally posted by Twilight2002

4. Rafale is likely to be similar in price or more expensive than the Tranche-2 being offered to Greece, particularly when French manufacturers will monopolise the sale of spare parts, software and repair equipment.

http://www.radiocockpit.com/2000_06_25_arc.htm
Discount of 10% 😀

Originally posted by Twilight2002

5. Greece does NOT need to worsen its relations with the United States, and supporting France and expanding her military influence at a time of diplomatic difficulty is a bad thing to do.

That’s the same argument in point 3

Originally posted by Twilight2002

6. France has a truly horrendous policy of interfering with Greek-Cypriot military relations, having repeatedly blocked transfer or sale of AMX-30B2’s, Mirage-F1’s, Combattant-2’s and other French-originated equipment. In this respect, she has done herself absolutely NO FAVOURS in attempting to benefit her standing with Greece on the sale of further equipment.

I find it a bit strange, but keep in mind that France has different policies with Greece or Cyprus.

Originally posted by Twilight2002

7. French diplomatic standing with Turkey is questionably good, whereas Turkey has inflicted friction on Britain (one of the key makers of Eurofighter) by refsuing base and airspace access to coalition forces during the Iraq war over the last year.

You couldn’t be more wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/102803.stm

And that’s rare enough to point it, I do agree with distiller.
Does Greece need Rafale or Typhoon ?