U.K. to block any sale of JAS-39s to Argentina

[The Nihilistic view]

Well apart from in 1827, 1890, 1915, 1930, 1982, 1989, 2001 and 2014. But apart from those 8 times Argentina has always been able to pay it's debt and never defaulted.

Pre-1982 can be dismissed, all nations have defaulted several times.
1989 - Hyperinflation caused by American shitty policies
2001 - Idiotic politicians
2014 - Argentina did not default technically

Fiscally, Argentina is healthy.

So defaulting 4 times in just over 30 years is fiscally healthy? Fuck me I would love to see what you call moderately unhealthy. 15 defaults? 20 defaults? A default every year perhaps.

[Calimera II]

Pre-1982 can be dismissed, all nations have defaulted several times.
1989 - Hyperinflation caused by American shitty policies
2001 - Idiotic politicians
2014 - Argentina did not default technically

Fiscally, Argentina is healthy.

So defaulting 4 times in just over 30 years is fiscally healthy? Fuck me I would love to see what you call moderately unhealthy. 15 defaults? 20 defaults? A default every year perhaps.

Ehmm, why are you telling me this bullshit? Argentina can afford those planes and is currently fiscally healthy.

[Imperializt Russia]

So...
Your claim that Argentina has never defaulted is demonstrably false.

I was talking about 2014..

A timeframe (which was not stated) wholly incompatible with the term "never".

[Risottia]

When equipped with the AMRAAM missile, the F-22 should more often than not be able to detect, track, engage and kill almost any other combat fighter aircraft before it can attempt likewise.

Actually, the AMRAAM kind of defies the very concept the F-22 was built around, which is low signature.

Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM.

So, to attack a maneuvering target with a decent hit chance, the AMRAAM must receive mid-course updates from the F-22... which means the F-22 must keep its radar on and tracking the target. Which basically means that the F-22 becomes a flying lighthouse for any opposing fighter or missile equipped with passive radar scanners.

And the Eurofighter took half a decade to receive air-to-ground targeting capabilities.
Your point?

My point being that the Eurofighter isn't afraid of rain.

[WestRedMaple]

So...
Your claim that Argentina has never defaulted is demonstrably false.

I was talking about 2014..

So, when you used the words always and never, you just didn't understand them? Or are you just caught making things up and trying to backtrack now?

[Calimera II]

I was talking about 2014..

So, when you used the words always and never, you just didn't understand them? Or are you just caught making things up and trying to backtrack now?

It was pretty clear we were talking about 2014.

[The Nihilistic view]

When equipped with the AMRAAM missile, the F-22 should more often than not be able to detect, track, engage and kill almost any other combat fighter aircraft before it can attempt likewise.

Actually, the AMRAAM kind of defies the very concept the F-22 was built around, which is low signature.

Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM.

So, to attack a maneuvering target with a decent hit chance, the AMRAAM must receive mid-course updates from the F-22... which means the F-22 must keep its radar on and tracking the target. Which basically means that the F-22 becomes a flying lighthouse for any opposing fighter or missile equipped with passive radar scanners.

And the Eurofighter took half a decade to receive air-to-ground targeting capabilities.
Your point?

My point being that the Eurofighter isn't afraid of rain.

Passive radar is something the Typhoon does rather well IIRC.

Surely the US must be developing a missile that does not require any updates.

[The Nihilistic view]

So, when you used the words always and never, you just didn't understand them? Or are you just caught making things up and trying to backtrack now?

It was pretty clear we were talking about 2014.

Which is the year of an Argentinian default.

[Imperializt Russia]

When equipped with the AMRAAM missile, the F-22 should more often than not be able to detect, track, engage and kill almost any other combat fighter aircraft before it can attempt likewise.

Actually, the AMRAAM kind of defies the very concept the F-22 was built around, which is low signature.

Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM.

So, to attack a maneuvering target with a decent hit chance, the AMRAAM must receive mid-course updates from the F-22... which means the F-22 must keep its radar on and tracking the target. Which basically means that the F-22 becomes a flying lighthouse for any opposing fighter or missile equipped with passive radar scanners.

And the Eurofighter took half a decade to receive air-to-ground targeting capabilities.
Your point?

My point being that the Eurofighter isn't afraid of rain.

I guess that's why the AMRAAM is pretty much the primary air-to-air weapon of the F-22 then.
All of those BVR kills were conducted before the turn of the century.

The improved AIM-120C variants weren't in production until 2003 (C-7) and AIM-120D came even later. With the exception of two, those attacks are all single-launches. Multiple launches drastically improve the kill probability - Russian aircraft feature controls to salvo-fire air to air missiles for exactly this reason (of course this leads to an issue in how you count it up - one can easily claim that three launches and one hit [engaging a MiG-29 in March '99] resulting in a kill is "only" 33%, but having launched three missiles increased your ability to kill the target. Demonstrated by having done so. The latter case, how I suspect it's been commonly tallied, is referring more to a question of hit probability - not kill probability. The unquestionably more important statistic).

Additionally if you want to strike a target, you have to find it first. I guess they're just using the force for that.
Russian and derived aircraft have nifty IRSTs, which RAND claims could spot F-22s from almost 30nmi nose-on. The AMRAAM itself has a huge thermal plume, which could give fifty nautical miles' (90km) warning to an alert pilot.
http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/200 ... iefing.pdf

"Thirteen missiles for six kills", now that I've re-read that table on p25, is highly misleading.
Thirteen missiles were fired for ten kills, of which six were at BVR and one was a friendly-fire incident.
To reasonably arrive at a "kill probability" (more likely hit probability) for BVR, all WVR launches should be discounted.

[WestRedMaple]

So, when you used the words always and never, you just didn't understand them? Or are you just caught making things up and trying to backtrack now?

It was pretty clear we were talking about 2014.

No, you were not....unless you're claiming to honestly not have a clue what always and never mean. I highly doubt that.

[Calimera II]

It was pretty clear we were talking about 2014.

No, you were not....unless you're claiming to honestly not have a clue what always and never mean. I highly doubt that.

Uhm, I think I know slightly better what I was talking about than you.

[Calimera II]

It was pretty clear we were talking about 2014.

Which is the year of an Argentinian default.

No, in August we didn't defaulted.

[WestRedMaple]

No, you were not....unless you're claiming to honestly not have a clue what always and never mean. I highly doubt that.

Uhm, I think I know slightly better what I was talking about than you.

We all know what you posted.

Either you actually meant always and never (in which case you're just backtracking because of how blatantly wrong you were) or you used them without even knowing what they meant.

I asked you about that, but you refuse to admit which is true.

There is no honestly denying that Argentina has not been paying its debts

[Calimera II]

Uhm, I think I know slightly better what I was talking about than you.

We all know what you posted.

Either you actually meant always and never (in which case you're just backtracking because of how blatantly wrong you were) or you used them without even knowing what they meant.

I asked you about that, but you refuse to admit which is true.

There is no honestly denying that Argentina has not been paying its debts

I used never in the timespan of 2014. You seem to be very frustrated about it.. After all, that's not what this thread is about.

[The Nihilistic view]

Which is the year of an Argentinian default.

No, in August we didn't defaulted.

Quite right, Argentina defaulted in July.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

The U.K. will do no such thing, England will though. England calls the shots but does not represent us all. I don't think Argentina can afford them at this time so they shouldn't buy them for a bit, but I see no reason to block the sale other than English imperialism and racism.

[Calimera II]

No, in August we didn't defaulted.

Quite right, Argentina defaulted in July.

Don't be a smartass. The "default" was on 31 July very, very late in the night.

[The Nihilistic view]

The U.K. will do no such thing, England will though. England calls the shots but does not represent us all. I don't think Argentina can afford them at this time so they shouldn't buy them for a bit, but I see no reason to block the sale other than English imperialism and racism.

Yes because the British Armed forces and the Falkland Islands only contain English people, obviously this ban is designed to just protect the English.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

We all know what you posted.

Either you actually meant always and never (in which case you're just backtracking because of how blatantly wrong you were) or you used them without even knowing what they meant.

I asked you about that, but you refuse to admit which is true.

There is no honestly denying that Argentina has not been paying its debts

I used never in the timespan of 2014.

That'll be where you went wrong then; using 'never' to mean something other than 'never'.

You seem to be very frustrated about it.. After all, that's not what this thread is about.

Bruh.

[Calimera II]

The U.K. will do no such thing, England will though. England calls the shots but does not represent us all. I don't think Argentina can afford them at this time so they shouldn't buy them for a bit, but I see no reason to block the sale other than English imperialism and racism.

Yes because the British Armed forces and the Falkland Islands only contain English people, obviously this ban is designed to just protect the English.

Yes because umg Kirchner the ebil witch will attack the Falklandzzs!11! Militarizeeee da atlantic!!!

Uhm no.

[WestRedMaple]

We all know what you posted.

Either you actually meant always and never (in which case you're just backtracking because of how blatantly wrong you were) or you used them without even knowing what they meant.

I asked you about that, but you refuse to admit which is true.

There is no honestly denying that Argentina has not been paying its debts

I used never in the timespan of 2014. You seem to be very frustrated about it.. After all, that's not what this thread is about.

The undeniable fact is that you actually posted no such thing.

That, as well as Argentina's latest default, show good reason not to trust Argentina financially.

The fact is that Argentina has yet to pay up what it already owes.

[Calimera II]

I used never in the timespan of 2014. You seem to be very frustrated about it.. After all, that's not what this thread is about.

The undeniable fact is that you actually posted no such thing.

That, as well as Argentina's latest default, show good reason not to trust Argentina financially.

The fact is that Argentina has yet to pay up what it already owes.

Glad that the G20 and the world (with the exception of the UK and some other countries) actually support the Argentinian claim.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

Yes because the British Armed forces and the Falkland Islands only contain English people, obviously this ban is designed to just protect the English.

Yes because umg Kirchner the ebil witch will attack the Falklandzzs!11! Militarizeeee da atlantic!!!

Uhm no.

And that is a response to the quoted post, how?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes because the British Armed forces and the Falkland Islands only contain English people, obviously this ban is designed to just protect the English.

Yes because umg Kirchner the ebil witch will attack the Falklandzzs!11! Militarizeeee da atlantic!!!

Uhm no.

Too late.

[WestRedMaple]

Quite right, Argentina defaulted in July.

Don't be a smartass. The "default" was on 31 July very, very late in the night.

YOU'RE the one, in response to the accurate statement about Argentina's default, pointed out that it didn't default in August.....as if that would somehow be different than defaulting in a different month.

Argentina didn't default in January either. So what?