Date Posted: 2007-09-12 04:04:32.
Subject: Dassault Rafale vs JAS 39 Gripen vs F-18 Hornet ??
Name: heretic
Message: Anyway, in a 1v1 wvr the gripen proved equal to the f18's of finland(gripenpilots claimed they were slightly superior at most altitudes but they would say that, woudnt they? anyway, depends on rules of the excersises), bwr the gripen proved devastatingly superior. I expect the rafaele will repeat that and then some. Does this mean that the raf is no1, gripen no2 and f18 no3? Hell no! They have different roles and functions and pricetags and 1v1 should result in a courtmartial for the criminally incompetent pilot putting himself in such a position anyway.

The gripen was built to a very specific design specification of being small, defensive fighter that conformed to the swedish defencedoctrine(stol, ease of maintenence, ruggedness etc) mainly anti airsuperiority, some antiground, more antishipping. As such its a very neat design with its own tactical capabilities and great lifecycle cost and outstanding airhours per maintenencehour. Somewhat short legs and limited payload make it a poor powerprojection aircraft however. SAAF is what I understand planning on always setting up forward bases when they employ it on expeditions. Maybe they can 'hack' good powerprojection out of the gripen with its stol and ruggedness(africa is big so slightly longer legs wouldnt solve the problem). Still wont be much of a mudmover.

The rafaele seems designed to be more of a generalised kickass fighter that is meant to be somewhat cheaper than the typhoon etc. Wether this is successfull or not is not for me to say. Its still kindof new, aint it?

F18, dont know too much about it but seems to be less comparable than the other two with twin engines and vastly greater size. I just generally find it hard to believe the US would build a sucky aircraft and keep investing in it.

Date Posted: 2007-09-12 03:42:47.
Subject: What military could beat USA
Name: heretic
Message: The NVA springs to mind..

Seriously, the question is flawed because the term DEFEAT is ambigious. To deny the military objectives of the USA could be defined as defeat. And then if the politicians are silly when setting up objectives it can prove quite easy to defeat the us. Example, IDF in Lebanon last? summer?. Or the US in Iraq. When the people that define victory dont think things through, defeat is quite likely, no matter your capabilities, imho.