EELightningThose could all be applied to Rafale too. Rafale will almost certainly work out more expensive, on a per combat sortie basis. By that I mean, when we factor in all costs, then divide by the number of combat sorties we make. With regard to ownership, I presume you are referring to the debate about whether the UK will be given the full source code, which has next to nothing to do with ownership and is entirely an industrial benefits issue. Do you think France will hand over the work for upgrade all Rafales to British industry? If not, then they are just trying to protect future work in much the same way as Lockheed is. If you are going to consider these factors, you must apply them equally to both sides.
Furthermore, remember that Rafale is a big upfront cost, we can’t split our buy into an early and later batch, or reconsider our order and increase it later, or leave buying attrition spares until a later date with the Rafale, we can with F35. This is probably the most important plus side for the F35, it gives us so much flexibility in our procurement.
Fair enough points…
…Still, (call me stubborn) I’d be seriously considering talking with the French about operating the Rafale with them. If the UK/France partnership wasn’t to be, I’d think they’d charge the UK quite a bit if we were to order them, but since we’re, or soon to be partners, I think some sort of deal can be thought up, after all, we’ll be sharing Aircraft Carriers amonst other things so why not front line fighters, too?
This F-35 business, I just do not feel comfortable with it…IMO theres not much of a plus side. But lets see, eh.
EELightningSo your choice is based mainly on your political view of Britain moving away from the US and towards being part of a united European military? But I’m opposed to such an integration, so thats another point in favour of F35 😀
Not really, no. I just don’t like the idea of paying for something thats overpriced and purchasing it in little numbers, plus on top of that, not being able to “actually own” it…Hardly a bad thing to look else where, is it.
EELightningThe Rhinos would be a significantly cheaper, more capable strike fighter option than the Rafales.
More capable or not, it’s debatable at best at the moment. But, F-35 significantly cheaper than the Rafale? Since theres no fixed price for the F-35 at the moment, which is likely to go up once again, I think its safe to say the F-35 will cost more. But lets see what happens in the next few months.
Buying less numbers is in no way a reason to switch to Rafale. In fact, as is explained already, less numbers makes F35 more attractive, as we can benefit from US support structures, whereas with France we will have to pay a rather fair share of those structures.
Numbers wouldn’t be the only reason why I’d change. I’d rather go with something which we can have in common with France, i.e. Rafale, support, operating, maintenance, training for pilots, ground crew etc. Support structure? Well, since we’ll be sharing most of our tech and what not, I hardly think it’d be that much of an issue to worry about. Theres no harm in looking into the decision to purchase the Rafale, it’d be well worth the effort in having a chat with France and see what they have to say. Why not.
IMO the Rafale will be quite a beast in the A/G role and personally, I think the RN FAA would be quite happy with the Rafale.
Its hardly serious and you can bet that Lockheed Martin will work out the problems. It’s called “Politics” and Gates will be long gone by time the 2 years is up.
You’ve got a lot of optimism I’ll give you that…
Just because Gates will be long gone by time the 2 years is up, doesn’t mean anyone else will take his place and think; “lets keep the ‘B’ variant”. And all will be like a pretty rose. They might share the same thoughts as Gates and influence the matter…
The simple fact of the matter is, at the moment the ‘B’, to be honest, is in the sh*t! What he’s done is, has given LM a two year life line to get things sorted out (something I’m surprised Gates has done if I’m honest). If not, we’re going to take it for a walk to the woods, put a bullet in its head and give it a shallow grave.
If LM can sort out the F-35B in two years, I’d mightily surprised and again, I’m surprised Gates has given LM a chance.
If I had my way on the F-35 program, I’d just cancel the ‘B’ right away. IMO theres one variant too many and thats this, “thorn in the side”, just make do with the ‘A’ and ‘C’, keep it simple.
EELightningTyphoon, Rafale, Gripen NG are not and never will be fully 5th generation fighter because their platform is not and there are no amount of upgrade that will change that. Silent Eagle or Silent Hornet will no more be 5th Gen anyday soon. IMO Pak-Fa and J-20 are going to be a little better than a possible Silent Hornet: close to 5th Gen.
So I still think that once the Super Hornet and F15 receive their RCS reduction packages along with fly by wire, AESA, digital cockpit, missile upgrade etc. They will be in the same class of the T50 and J20.
Where did I put them painkillers?…
EELightningThe price of the F-35 has only ever gone up…..up….WAAAAY UP!
I thought of a joke about it when I just read that…Forgot it now? Ah well probably wasn’t a good one anyway. 😀
Anywho. Last time I checked there was talks of the UK ordering around 40 units? If the price goes up, which it most probably will now, fewer will be ordered for the UK there for not having sufficient numbers to be effective, IMO, they’re not worth paying the price for such little units.
Like I said before, just put an order in for Rafale and have a commonality with the French since we’re going to work with them more often, probably even more with than the US. Keep it simple. More of a commonality, less of a pain in the ****.
EELightningThe F-104 was designed as a multi-role aircraft “from the start”?
Some people have been known to spit coffee on their computer monitors when reading statements like that.
I guess I got that bit wrong then…
…Nice to be put right. The joys.
EELightningHmmm…Watch the price of the F-35 go up….Up, up and away…
The Rafale is looking more and more attractive everytime…
EELightningOn the other hand once again, the Lightning wasn’t as bad as a lot of people made it out to be;
I haven’t read this thread for quite some time, but it seems that quite a spirited debate is going on that now includes the Lightning so I thought I’d add my opinion (however little it’s worth) on the subject:
In my opinion the Lightning wasn’t a bad airplane…just too limited. Of course when you look at what it was designed to do then it might not be fair to judge it by that standard…
On the flip side however, by the 1960’s we finally got to an era where fighter-type aircraft were being asked to take on a greater variety of missions. The F-4 was of course the standout aircraft of the decade in that respect, but many other jets such as the F-104, Mirage III, and even the MiG-21 (in later models) took on the air-to-ground mission with varying degrees of success.
Most of those aircraft, like the Lightning, were not designed for those missions. They were designed as point defense interceptors for operation primarily in day VFR conditions. In the case of the Mirage III and F-104 in particular, these designs proved that they could adapt to this new mission set fairly well and although they weren’t the best air-to-ground aircraft of the time period, they did prove to be an affordable alternative to a bigger aircraft like the Phantom or a more dedicated one like the Thud.
As LightningEE admitted to being partial to the Lightning, I too will admit to being partial to the Starfighter. I think it often gets an unnecessarily bad reputation due to the accident rate, with people seemingly forgetting the large number of operators and aircraft in service (no supersonic aircraft on the West had the production run of the F-104 until the Phantom I believe). Added to this, the new variety of missions that it was tasked with starting with the G model as well as the fact that for many aircrew in the 1960’s, the F-104 was their first supersonic combat aircraft. It flew very differently from its predecessors. (Look at the accident rate of early jets compared with their propeller-driven predecessors.)
The F-104 did have limitations, but I think it truly was the best multi-role aircraft around, aside from the Phantom, until the F-16 came along.
As has been mentioned, a well-flown F-104 was a match for most of the jets in its era, and I think the longevity of its service life speaks a lot for the design.
I’ve certainly never flown either, but I’d wager that an F-104 would be able to take on a Lightning on fairly even terms.
As for equipping your air force with an affordable multi-role fighter for the 1960’s and early 1970’s, then I think the obvious choice is the Starfighter (or the F-5 series).
Given the choice for interception sorties, I’d take the Lightning everytime. Really, that was all it was designed for and still get into WVR fight and be able to pull G’s and still have impressive abilities, even by today standards. Being a Brit put aside; I’d feel more comfortable in the Lightning than I would in the F-104. If I were a pilot that is.
On the A/G environment, I agree that the F-104 was, or supposedly, was more suited with it being a multi-role aircraft, of which was planned from the start. And again, if I was given the choice for A/G sorties, I wouldn’t choose either of these aeroplanes. I’d choose something that performed better, especially at low-level. I’d always go for the likes of the Jaguar, Buccaneer etc.
On the F-4 vs F-104 discussion, it’ll have to be the F-4 every single time, I wouldn’t think twice about it.
Wish I had flown it!
Lightnings give you a hard time? Kidding! 😀 😉
EELightning@Sancho78, what Swerve and Scorpion82 said on the previous page about the dates of Typhoons AESA. And besides, if the delivery of the Typhoon was to start in 2014 and the AESA came into service the year after, I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt India too much to wait a little.
EELightningOff topic again if I might add…
Just thought I’d post this since this thread looks like a bunch of nerds trying to argue over which tech is better at a Star Trek convention! Ever looked up ‘Female’ in a dictionary and…No forget it. 😀
Typhoon with four LGB’s, three tanks and six missiles; not many tight turns but looks smooth as silk and seems to climb quite easy with this load. Impressive!
EELightningYes, i posted it previously. (For what it’s worth, when possible i always try to provide a source, even if it’s in greek. Someone may verify with automatic translation and it’s more correct to give credit to the source than not).
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/media/CO_89_F-104.pdf
If you ask me, if i know how to automatically translate a pdf from greek to english, i can safely tell you that i have no idea. Probably some more ultra-technologic young member will know some program that does that… As a matter of fact, if you find a method, please go into the trouble to PM me, because it could come handy to me too, when i want to translate on the opposite direction. 😀
hanks, Aspis. Sorry I didn’t notice the actual link. 😀 But thanks anyway. 😉
Sorry I don’t know how to do that, my boss (girlfried) knows I think. But shes kind of…Semi-alive on the settee at the moment, and I dare not wake her. lol Failing that, if the text, grammar etc is 100%(ish) correct, you could get a pretty accurate translation by using Google. Just a matter of copy & paiste. The accuracy might sometimes be a little, ‘in-accurate’ but you can get a pretty good idea of what it means. Thats what I usually do anyway. But if I find another better way, I’ll let you know as soon as I can. 😉
EELightning@Schorsch and LoneWolf, as much as I respect your words, I think we might have to agree to disagree, with respect of course. Although I agree with some points you both have made.
The pilot losses for the F-104, no matter how many aircraft were produced, is still alarmingly high. Which just says what kind of aircraft the F-104 was. The articles that Aspis posted and the words I quoted from Commander Ade Orchard RN says quite a bit about the aircraft. Which BTW, Aspis, thanks for those. Do you have a source/link for those articles? I’d quite like to read a bit more into it. Thanks in advance if you can.
Yes, I’m a “fan-boy” of the Lightning and with it and myself being a Brit, I’ll stick up for it but on the on the other, I wouldn’t pretend it’s something it’s not. I agree the F-104 had some better weapons later in life, Sidewinders, more hardpoints etc. At least it as lucky enough to recieve upgrades.
On the other hand once again, the Lightning wasn’t as bad as a lot of people made it out to be;
Shorter range and indurance? Depends on which mark Lightning you want to choose. The F2A variant was considered the best to fly operationally, despite it being an older version. It carried the most internal fuel (10,300lbs) because, unlike the F6 in which some fuel capacity was lost when the gun-pack fitted in the front portion of the ventral fuel tank. The F2A retained the nose mounted cannons. Sqn Ldr Clive Rowley stated; ‘My log book records that I generally flew over 1 and half hours un-refuelled on practice Battle Flight sorties, even with a reheat climb to height, demonstrating that the Lightning, at least the F2A version, was not necessarily as ‘short-legged’ as many seem to think.’
The internal fuel of the F-104 was around 5,800lbs-6,000lbs I believe?
Smaller payload? Yes it did have a smaller payload, two missiles, two guns, but at least it could perform with that load.
Poor radar performance? I’ll quote a few words by Wg Cdr John Ward AFC RAF Ret’d from the same magazine Sqn Ldr Clive Rowley was featured: ‘Ferranti’s AI23/13B/23C radar was, for its time, a truly brilliant design; an I-band monopulse system using a split parabolic dish (two parabolic reflectors joined along a vertical edge) it could, unlike contemporary conical-scan radars, angle track in azimuth (directional bearing) and elevation from a single pulse. The split four-horn feed gave a radar beam made up of four overlapping lobes, ideal for angle tracking while giving good protection from angle deception jammers.’ Seemed to have worked well for Lightning pilots & thought highly of it then, despite it being difficult to operate. Of course later on in the aircrafts service, late 70s & 80s, the likes of its radar, weapons, avionics was outclassed by many others in service, but that was just because the MoD weren’t willing to fund for upgrades & were concentrating more on the likes of the Harrier, Buccaneer & Jaguar, thus leaving the RAF to keeping it up to date the best they could with the limited resources they had, sad but true.
Lack of versatility? Well in the RAF at least, they only used their Lightnings for A/A, after all that’s what it was designed for. It wasn’t designed to be a multi-role aircraft like the F-104 was. Besides the RAF had other types of aircraft for A/G sorties so the Lightning wasn’t needed for this role. Saying that, the Saudi Lightnings, the F53, had capabilities that outstripped the RAF’s single mission policy. A paragraph from Aviation Classics magazine; ‘It was effectively a ground attack version of the standard F6, but rather than being equipped with a pair of missiles, the new mark could carry a multitude of weaponry. The incredibly strong wing of the Lightning lent itself perfectly for the addition of pylons, both above and below. Those below could carry a pair of Matra Type SNEB 68mm rocket pods and a novel use for the over wing pylon incorporated a JL100 pod in front of the overwing tank, which could still carry an additional 50 gallons of fuel.’
‘The pylons could also carry a pair of 1000lb bombs and a parachute-retarded version could additionally be fitted to the overwing pylon. This was delivered by an explosive ejector mechanism to avoid damaging the wing. The standard Red Top fit could be replaced with a with Microcell unguided rocket pack or a day or night reconnaissance tray. Day fit used five 70mm cameras while the night fit used an infrared line scanner which was illuminated by photoflashes carried on the pylons. A pair of 30mm Aden cannons were also fitted into the front of the ventral tank, a design feature that was later modified into the RAF’s own F6s. All this made the F53 an exceptional all round aircraft and the first of 34 aircraft was delivered to the RSAF from July 1968.’
It might had been a bit behind the F-104 as far as A/G was concerned, but far from the “lack of versatility”.
Less reliable? Yes it had a few gremlins lurking about the place, but nowhere near as bad as the F-104.
Export success? True, nowhere near the sales of the F-104, but it doesn’t make it any better than the Lightning. Besides, I take the sales of the F-104 with a pinch of salt, with the Lockheed bribery scandal & all. (I think its best not to get into that particular topic right now).
At the end of the day, the Lightning was, if you like, more loved by the pilots that operated it, which is more than can be said for the F-104.
This is my take on it anyway, I’m not trying to convince anyone that the Lightning was better than the F-104, I just believe it was, if anyone thinks otherwise, that’s fine, I respect that in the same way I respect these two aeroplanes which I’m sure will always have a special place in ones hearts. And like I mentioned earlier, I think we might have to agree to disagree, with respect of course.
Good day to you all.
EELightningYeah you’re right, I was thinking of the German stealth fighter:
But I think those particular ones from BAE are new(ish) images.
EELightning…
If I’m not mistaken, those images are quite new and were released not so long ago. First time I seen them was in the AFM(?) magazine, UK news section.
Maybe this is the next “Eurofighter II” or even something that will replace the US type, F-35, while something else will replace the Typhoon. Like I said before, I think it’s safe to say the F-35 will probably be the last manned US type in European service…
EELightningHere we do not agree. As an interceptor the Lightning did not better the F-104.
As a low level striker the Lightning was useless. The Lightning offered a better dogfight capability and two engine safety for the A2A role only. Both were replaced by the F-4 in the A2A and in the A2G for the F-104.
I think we can both agree to disagree with kind respect, yeah? 🙂
I admit that the Lightning wasn’t the greatest of strikers…At any level, with it only having the very basic of A/G functions, 1000lb bomb, rockets, cannon to name the very few. Although saying that, it was a handy thing at low-level in the A/A environment, Sqn Ldr Clive Rowley saying; “The Gulersloh Lightning pilots became extremely proficient and confident at maneuovring their aircraft aggressively at low-levels, and thought nothing of being inverted at perhaps 1,500ft as they flew ‘lag pursuit’ barrel roles to re-position their aircraft to maintain the tactical advantage.”
Saying that, the RAF didn’t really need the Lightning to perform strike sorties, apart from the Phantom, of which complimented the Lightning canny well in A/A, they had the Harrier, Buccaneer and Jaguar for such roles, especially for low-level sorties.
Sign In
