Gun Grape

Thats because the US Military are pretty much a "Buy American" org.

About the only service that gets to buy foreign is the Corps. Because we are so small and slip under the scope.

The UH-72 is for the National guard for homeland security missions. They will be built in the States

gunnut

US military does buy foreign goods. However most of the time they are built here in the states.

The big items are: T-45 Goshawk, a modified BAe Hawk; M-9 pistol, Berreta 92FS; M-249 SAW, FN Minimi.

Of course there are low volume purchases from foreign vendors to fulfill niche needs.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Gun Grape

The M-9 is the 92FS and the Saw is the Minimi. All three that you mentioned are built in the US. T-45 still has some foreign parts (engines/aft fuselage)
but the rest and final assembly takes place in the US.

The HK M-23, SMAW and MP-5 are also used. But the vast majority of military gear is US made.

I think the last Big ticket item that was 100% foreign made was the AV-8A.

Jimmy

I think those were the examples he was giving. IE, that the M-9 is the American-made 92FS (which isnt very accurate), and the SAW is the American-made Minimi (same situation, I think).

Dago

Same old argument, of this-vs-that, without taking into consideration the variety of variables that could arise within the said environment. With fairy-tale hypotheticals that would never become reality. However, with it being the French and there proliferation of weapon systems to remote outposts, that may not be entirely true.

With that being said, a new Aerodynamic doesn't make it lethal. Situational awareness and the ability to spot him before he spots you, however, does. As so, being in the information age, and it being heavily "Network-centric", the USAF is in a league of it's own. Due, primarily, since the concept of Network-centric warfare evolved out of USAF doctrine.

AESA/ AMRAMM/ AWACS/ ELINT/ ECM = One dead little Rafale.


Ask your self, which bird would you trust your mother being in? The Rafale or the Hornet? Gotta go with the Hornet here. Granted. It may be easier to land a Rafale. Assuming you make it back.

jaehkimx

We are only comparing BARCAP role for carriers. No task force can afford to have planes just dedicated to one role. We started to get rid of that notion after Midway. The F14s were an anachronism for the ugly American with one enemy, the CCCP. Today, we need aircraft that can deal with PRC SU33s as well as an Al Quaida rubber boat.

Also, the F-18 comes with pilot training in CONUS, US defense aid, low interest loans, global followup maintenance (need a replacement engine like yesterday - lets see the nearest Nimitz class is at the nearest coastline), and young US aviators who will bring their planes right there to the fight because you don't get top buy F18s unless you're an ally. What do Dassault and the French offer? Free French lessons so you can understand the damn technical folks......well thats about it.

Northalius

hello, you keep bringing up shape of Rafale being stealthier than the F-18 Super Hornet, but I don't see it.

1) Look at the air intakes on the F-18 Super Hornet. Now look at the air intakes on the F-22. See any big difference? Nope. Compare those to the Rafales air intakes.

2) The F-18 Super Hornets' verticle stabilizers are slanted at about 45 degree angle, and thus radar from the side will not bounce directly back to its source. The Rafales vertical stabilizer is at 90 degree angle, and thus will shine up brighter on enemy radar.

Boeing made their own stealth tech. demonstrator (Bird of Prey), and had their hands in the F-22 program. That's a LOT more than what Dassault has under its belt, I can assure you that.

I'd say all these points together, would put the F-18 Super Hornet above the Rafale in BVR engagement. That stealth, on top of the SH's AESA radar = Rafale doesn't have a chance in hell against the F-18 SH.

Aby The Liberal

I'd choose Rafale, one because it is French, two because it is a 4.5-5 generation fighter, third because it looks good and fourth because I have seen what it can do.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Ucar

Sitting on the tarmac at an air show in Seoul probably ?

Now we have all seen what an F-18 can do in real life over the skies of Serbia, Iraq...etc.

Combat proven design and improvements vs. good looks, being French, first hand experience of what it can do... very objective comparison.

VarSity

F-18 all the way. Its proven in combat, and I wouldn't want anything French, as any Tom Dick and Harry can buy it, know its specs inside and out and learn how to fight you. The F-18 is only supplied to the US's allies.

Also the wound is still raw cos the frogs jumped ship on the Typhoon

Executer

I say F-18.

starwarsgeek12

yeah, the french do seem to be obsessed with the whole delta wing thing, have they ever developed a jet without a delta? because i have yet 2 see one. anyways, i think that the F-18 is goo dat the A2G role, via it's bigger payload and many hardpoints, but the rafael would excel at the A2A role, by way of it's delta-wing profile, lighter weight overall, and smaller airframe...

wabpilot

Alpha Jet, Ouragan, Mystere B.2, Mystere IV, Mirage F.1, Paris Jet, Falcon/Mystre 10, 20, 50, 2000, Mercury, Airbus A300 and up.

Right now, the F-18A, C, D, E & F are superior attack types. They are just much more mature, being cleared for many more weapons. However, when the Rafale Block 10 versions go into service, the gap will narrow significantly. The F-18, all versions, is unstable, making it very maneuverable. So too is the Rafale Block 05. The F-18E/F with AESA has a better radar than the Rafale. If the AMSAR active array program yields a radar in service, again, the gap will definitely narrow. Right now, I put the F-18F ahead of the Rafale Block 05. By the time the Block 15 enters service if it has AMSAR radar, it will be very close to the F-18F. I like the Rafale M and N's small footprint it is ten feet shorter than the F-18F. Further the Rafale's wingspan is the same as the F-18F/F's folded. Maintenance wise, the Rafale represents a major improvement over the Super Etendard and Mirage III. A Rafale can be turned and ready for another sortie in twenty minutes. That is the same as the F-18E/F. It is hard to underestimate the value of that kind of maintenance.

braindead

Are the F-18C/D still in production ?
Wabpilot , could you tell me why have some nations chosen F-18 over F-16 (Canada, Australia , Spain, Swiss , Finland) ? What I mean is why have specifically Swiss & Finns chosen 18 and not 16 , which is supposed to be cheaper , have roughly equal range , 1 engine less to maintain and can carry even bigger warload (I could be wrong here although)?
If I remember correctly , both countries chose aircraft around 1991-4 , prices back then were around 24m.$ - 16 and 36m. $ -18 , but I could be wrong ? Is the airframe ruggedness the factor ? Or the 2-engine giving more redundancy ( OK , Finland is pretty big and sparsely populated , but Swiss is quite limited in airspace) .

__________________
....