IIRC this has been proposed before, this is just some new input.
The defence review could decide that Britain needs to retain the expeditionary capability that comes with having at least one aircraft carrier, but cannot afford the JSF. In that case it would be entirely possible, and politically advantageous if Britain wants a new entente cordiale, to buy the French Rafale jet. The Rafale is much cheaper than the JSF and compatible with our proposed carriers if they are built for catapult-assisted take-off. The Rafale has a service life until 2040.
Personally, I doubt it. If indeed the F-35 is to be axed, the last option would be long hated french made airframes. A more likely choice would be a naval version of either the Gripen or the Typhoon.
But just for argument’s shake, In essence, a british Rafale might have been a possibility only if just the airframe itself was bought, empty. Everything from the engines, radar, avionics and weapons would have to be originated from either the US or the UK.
I believe a “britonised” version of the Mirage IV was actually offered once but rejected over american F-111, also rejected later on.
Still, I cannot but think that right now such a possibility is impossible.
By: 90inFIRST - 28th March 2010 at 20:55
Dont look at it like its a conventional strike carrier, the fighters are there in a defensive role to keep american carrier fighters at arms length untill she can launch her 12 Granit antiship missiles to make a nimitz have a bad day(or not). They dont give a **** what payload the SU 33 have as long as they can stay up long enough for a decent CAP. They may look at it differently now but that was the original idea hence the Heavy aircraft carrying cruiser tag. Dont forget the 200 anti aircraft missiles and 8 CIWS. Shes much more like the RNs through deck anti submarine cruisers in concept (RN anti sub, Kuts anti aircraft carrier).
By: TooCool_12f - 28th March 2010 at 18:20
now yes, but when their carriers were built, it was the only option 🙂
By: swerve - 28th March 2010 at 16:24
An obsolete reason now, since any hypothetical future Russian carriers won’t be built in Ukraine.
By: TooCool_12f - 28th March 2010 at 15:30
Iv never understood why the Russians didnt put cats on their CV. They arent the most complicated things in the world after all, and the bennifit the would add would more than compensate for their development costs……
for a very simple reason:
because they’re not aircraft carriers “officially”… turkey forbids crossing its territorial waters to aircraft carriers (Montreux Convention), so, unless russia wants to start a war with turkey, they’re stuck in the black sea if they make “aircraft carriers”
As they are labelled “heavy aircraft carrying cruisers”… the russians manage to get around the interdiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
as for the f-18 or the rafale, yeah, they’d probably be able to take off, but not with some significant load
By: hawkdriver05 - 28th March 2010 at 13:40
Iv never understood why the Russians didnt put cats on their CV. They arent the most complicated things in the world after all, and the bennifit the would add would more than compensate for their development costs……
By: flanker30 - 28th March 2010 at 12:01
Saw a Youtube video of the Su-33 launching off the ski jump on Kuznetsov. Just wondering if the Rafale or Super Hornet could do that too, or is the Harrier the only western aircraft with that ability? The current intention is that the new UK carries will not have catapults.
By: hawkdriver05 - 28th March 2010 at 00:59
Could both the Rafale M and the F/A-18E/F launch using the ramp rather than a steam catapult?
Why would you want to do that? If you are going to invest the money to build a platform big enough to operate those types………how much more could cats possibly add to it?
By: flanker30 - 27th March 2010 at 23:01
Could both the Rafale M and the F/A-18E/F launch using the ramp rather than a steam catapult?
By: Taygibay - 25th March 2010 at 17:19
Hey, toocool,
I have a little something for you :
http://ahulane.com/images/Patchs/silhouettes/grandCat/rafale/rafale17.jpg
🙂
By: TooCool_12f - 24th March 2010 at 08:25
well, it has some similarities…
but there’s ont big difference: in the 60’s, there were still many aircraft manufacturers capable of building a new aircraft in a reasonable period, and how many are there today?
with aircraft service time lenghtened to several decades, the manufacturers left are only a handful (regrouped into 2-3 societies, basically, and some made no fighters for decades)
By: hawkdriver05 - 23rd March 2010 at 23:28
Reminds me of when the navy dumped the turkey called F-111B and developed the superb F-14.
By: TooCool_12f - 23rd March 2010 at 15:40
All that effort and throw it away?
The US buy a foriegn plane? And people think us (UK) buying FRench is a strange concept…!!!!!!!
actually, the way it goes, cancelling the F-35 should result in using developed techs for improving other aircraft, while, at the same time, make an RFP for a “affordable” striker… something in the line of the F-16 (only better, of course) which would be cheap (compared to competition), on the schedule and have good performance because it uses stuff that’s available, not reinvent everything and pretend it will be affordable
By: Taygibay - 23rd March 2010 at 14:31
LOL, Phelgan!
All sorts of strange things being uttered these days :
http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2010/03/index.html
Scroll down the page for an analysis on the F-35’s
possible termination of sorts.
Thought-provoking at least!:D
By: Phelgan - 23rd March 2010 at 12:57
The whole F-35 abortion should be canned! The navy should start with a clean sheet of paper and figure out exactly what it needs. The AF could probably make do with lic. production of Typhoon.
All that effort and throw it away?
The US buy a foriegn plane? And people think us (UK) buying FRench is a strange concept…!!!!!!!
By: hawkdriver05 - 21st March 2010 at 20:08
The whole F-35 abortion should be canned! The navy should start with a clean sheet of paper and figure out exactly what it needs. The AF could probably make do with lic. production of Typhoon.
By: Colombamike - 21st March 2010 at 19:37
Critics: Time to bail on Navy JSF
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/navy_hornet_jsf_032110w/
😀
By: hawkdriver05 - 16th March 2010 at 23:00
Hawkdriver, we get what you mean, it’s just you are arguing that you ‘know’ something that is subject to a lot of external factors between now and the ships entering service.
You have made your thoughts, opinions and views on this subject very well known to everyone on this thread, perhaps it’s time to let the matter rest.
Unicorn
Thanks for bringing it back up after 10 days. But, please, tell me after 15 to 20 years of steady cuts……what has changed in London that there will be a massive increase the FAA?
By: Colombamike - 16th March 2010 at 12:53
Even much more worse than a only voice 😉
Maybe a withdrawal from the Danish side…:D
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2010/03/15/112521.htm
By: Taygibay - 16th March 2010 at 11:32
And one more…
voice added to the chorus :
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5843501/a-case-for-scrapping-the-joint-strike-fighter.thtml
Good day all.
By: Unicorn - 16th March 2010 at 11:05
Hawkdriver, we get what you mean, it’s just you are arguing that you ‘know’ something that is subject to a lot of external factors between now and the ships entering service.
You have made your thoughts, opinions and views on this subject very well known to everyone on this thread, perhaps it’s time to let the matter rest.
Unicorn
Sign In
February 5, 2010 at 5:43 pm
