Fighters, fighters, and some bombers? Air combat: past, present, future.

Why did the Rafale suddenly prosper these past five years.;

a. The French added ancillary systems that make it competitive with the F-15 and F-16 launch platforms for strike. These capabilities can substitute for cheaper and BETTER systems that US strike planes carry. The customers who can and will buy the Rafale are those who are either US enemies or who are not allowed to buy the US tech.

One thing to understand about the Rafale and the Super Hornet; the claim that the Rafale is superior is "contextual". The overall match is that the two planes are about equal as launch platforms. The systems that the two planes use are of different purpose and equity (Rafale's radar / air to air missiles combo is distinctly inferior and will always be so due to power throughput and elements size differences, the targeting aids and effectors are nearly equal as pods are pods and types of guided bombs are guided bombs whether Chinese or American.).

The other thing is that the French government has made adaptations in its government supported tech base to get around the US sourced tech the French use for their radar and missile guidance system employed in the Rafale. This is understandable. In arms sales, the US had and has imposed limits as to who can buy the Rafale for much the same reasons it has limited the types of F-35 and F-15 and F-16 offered. That comes down to proprietary soft and hardware cybernetics (Avionics.). Dassault has struggled to catch up with the hardware side. They always had good software interface.

So good on them for their progress and sales. They have taken a long hard road to finally outperform the Sukhois and Jengdus.

The short answer is the B-24 Liberator at high altitude. The Lancaster was designed to efficiently fight at about 5,000 (16,000 ft) to 6,000 meters (19,700 ft.). That was a doctrine and technology choice. So... we compare apples and oranges. The Lancaster worked best as a night area bombardment platform from medium altitude.

More on the Lancaster...



This is a terror weapon. It was designed to conduct a terror bombing campaign and to ignore that factor is to ignore the truth about why this bomber was built the way it was. It was an efficient bomb delivery vehicle for area bombing.

The vertical stabilizer / rudder explanation is a very good one. Stability (lateral) in flight is paramount for a bomber. The dihedral is a corrective measure that is important for predictable bomb runs.

The turret layout is somewhat curious, and I tend to be on the strip out everything except the tail-stinger position with that being a 20 mm cannon.. The Germans could stand off from the British crap armament and shoot the British bomber in the bomb-bay. The results of German Night Music could be expressed as "loss of aircraft, crew and mission".  It should be noted that the British killed vs wounded vs prisoners ratios were not as good as the American bombers. 70% KIA of crew losses was not too good. 

Augsburg... If the USAAF had Schweinfurt, then the Lancaster slaughter at Ausburg is often ignored. It was a very small raid. Note the light bomb loads compared to the B-17s that flew similar type missions. The Germans gingerly probed until they figured out the Lancasters' defects. Four of six splashed. Seven of twelve Lancaster were finally slaughtered. 57% losses. The factory target was unaffected. 20% of the few bombs dropped were duds. All in all this was a LOUSY daylight bomber.        

The "book" on these aircraft is that they are "Russian"; decent until they see combat, and then they are "clay pigeons".

The maturation of USAAF and RAF bombing effectiveness was in 1945. The RAF continued to be ineffective night area bombardment types in their main campaign. The Transportation and Oil knockout was mainly USAAF.

Not that the British could not have tried daylight precision strike. They chose not too, and THAT is why they cut no ice in the knockout.

Oil was a strategic choke point. Who hit the German synthetic fuel plants successfully, again?

Chinese naval aviation. The bird farms.



The Type 003 is a weird version of a CATOBAR. Tt is equipped with electromagnetic throw rails to catapult aircraft.

The speculation is that the PLAN is trying to fight the USN for global naval supremacy. Force on force to fight... where? That depends on how the Chinese intend to deliver weapon effects. My guess is that the speculations about the support forces; AWACS, air-tanking, and robot drones; is mirror mimic of standard USNAS doctrined air groups.

The speculation of an EMAL on an LHA is kind of ridiculous. This is impractical as to scale-size of takeoff run and trap and ignores why CATOBARs use angled decks.

This is one of the reasons I still take Millenium 7 with a great deal of salt ... and orange juice.

I still think the Chinese should not be considered as mirroring the American navy. It is more like they are fumbling their way toward a naval "tactical" doctrine as the US did in the 1890s.

It would be interesting to see how the South China Sea "island forts" and current aircraft carrier program evolves. If the Hainan base fortress and the island forts start to sprout shore mounted hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) launchers, then we could see an emergent and successful surface transit South China Sea denial setup. The aircraft carriers would not be so much an attempt to replay the Imperial Japanese Navy in that respect, as it would be a legacy "show the flag" and "here we are", now what are you going to do about it" imposed "gunboat diplomacy" and out of home waters intimidation force. It is conceivable the Chinese could show up in traditional USN operating areas and either challenge or supplant "presence". THIS would have economic effects as in peacetime, second world and third world politicians would look off their coasts to see whose aircraft carrier would be encouraging "opium trade".

Remember who the evil minds are who are planning the PLAN and possibly WHY they go down a path that makes no future warfare sense. It is not for a replay of Midway. It is for "psychological peacetime warfare" and "century of shame" revenge symbolic reasons.

And if it comes down to it, the USN should asymmetrically respond accordingly. We remember our history, too. How did most aircraft carriers and ships in general DIE?