Amiga500Research should be done in common, but then each country should be allowed to go its own way.
I’m thinking about creating centre of excellences in different area, then provide the technologies to the countries that participated financially and then allow national companies to built whatever they need.
Your thinking along the lines of the Soviet model with (the likes of) TsAGI providing fundamental knowledge and data to the manufacturers who then take these building blocks from TRL5/6 to a specific application?
Probably not a bad model to follow to be honest. It served the Soviets quite well.
Amiga500The RAF allways intended (with good reason) to operate a 2/3 type fast jet fleet, The Rafale is not a good fit for a Tornado replacement when looking to the future, the F35 will be a better choice-
The Rafale is better able to stop-gap, complement and replace the Tornado on an as-needs basis than the Typhoon.
Lets face it, future first day RAF attacks will be based on the likes of storm shadow (which is something that won’t fit into the Just So F**ked’s teeny weapons bay!).
Why put a very expense fighter and pilot into harms way when a cheaper stand-off munition will do the job just as well?
Depending on how this UCAV program performs, it may well become the bulk replacement for Tornado.
Catobar was a major reason for the split and to be fair neither the RN ever expected to be CATOBAR again, that requirement is less than 12 months old, but had the projects stayed together it may have been convinient if only until the F35 comes online.
Not expecting is not a good reason to ensure the capability cannot be added (unless it would entail significant compromise, which, judging by the Rafale performance, it would not).
The Rafale is already a better carrier aircraft than the F-35. Simple due to any F-35 engine problem = loss of airframe. The need to meet the STOVL requirements (forcing single engine) killed the F-35 before it ever set foot on a carrier deck.
Its all about requirements – get them right, your set. Get them wrong, you’ll never recover.
The French got it right, the UK and US got it wrong and are still getting it wrong.
The Typhoons problems do not relate to poor requirements but poor managment and funding, and it will fulfil the specified requirements.
Yes, strictly speaking they aren’t the Typhoon’s problems, but the RAF’s problems.
The Typhoon will do what it was supposed to do very well. But what it was supposed to do is not actually what it is needed to do now.
Amiga500You don’t get my point, the requirements were never for a full-blown multi role fighter
That is my point.
They always should have been in the requirements.
The French seen that and didn’t accept compromises to it – that is why I’d want them in charge and not the UK MoD/RAF/BAe.
What does the EF-T do better than the Rafale? Not much by very little.
What does the Rafale do better than the Eurofighter? Quite a bit by either default or a proverbial cricket score.
Amiga500I didn’t realise the Eurofighter was designed to replace every aircraft in the UK inventory but had just failed to do so…
Thats the point!
It wasn’t designed to even consider it due to the poor design requirements.
so to say that the UK/BAE can’t design something when told what they mean isn’t exactly a great argument.
Oh, I’ve no doubt they could produce a good design.
However, in the long run, it would almost certainly prove less flexible than what Dassault would come up with.
Amiga500More xenophobic comments… This isn’t a surprise!
How can they be xenophobic when I’m a UK national? :confused:
Amiga500As I said, if France is in control of the airframe then they define the capabilities of the aircraft
… and that is exactly why I want the French leading the design!
Look at the current mess the RAF finds itself in.
– Needed to replace, or rather find a substitute for the capabilities offered by, the Jaguar.
– Need to replace Tornado GR4 in the near future.
– Need to acquire naval CATOBAR capability.
The Eurofighter has difficulty fulfilling both these due to poor design requirements – oh, but look, the Rafale can perform both roles very well.
If the UK had built the Rafale instead of the Eurofighter, we’d have already saved ourselves a bucketload of money and problems in interim upgrades to GR4s and in throwing funds at a money pit (F-35).
You are too stubborn to realise the French are significantly better at gazing through the crystal ball than us. Hopefully those running this UAV program aren’t as shortsighted.
Amiga500The airframe essentially defines the capabilities of the aircraft, what sensors will be integrated ect.
You have that the wrong way round.
The capabilities* define the airframe. 🙂
You want long range, then fuel fraction goes up. You want high speed, then greater adherence to Mach-Area and a higher swept and thinner wing is favoured.
*really, the capabilities at this point are requirements – something the French are very good at getting right and something the British are hopeless at getting right.
Considering we are discussing equal partnerships, each side should have 50% effective control.
Your like a politician, hung up on prestige and being in charge!
So if France had airframe control, Britain should have subsystems control.
Each sub-system supplier (be it BAe/Rolls/Snecma/Thales/Dassault/etc) should have control over their own sub-system – but the one pulling it together should be Dassault (imo).
Amiga500I disagree The UK may not have produced a fighter but they have all the production and design expertise eg BAE are cutting edge for aerodynamics and stealth, RR engines
I have no doubt the disparate capabilities exist.
However, Dassault are the only ones to have recently combined the whole bunch into one aircraft – hence they should be leading.
Various specific bits and pieces can (and should) be split between UK and French design houses depending on their expertise – but I maintain that Dassault would be much better leaders than BAe.
What I think should happen is a new joint ownership company is formed (MBDA esk)
BAE and Dassault Joint Staff the deign offices component production well see who builds what and where and go from there
That is a logical proposal… if politics can be kept out.
Ps I agree that airbus couldnt organise a **** up in a brewery,
i was shocked to discover that applied to Airbus Germany as well
Too much paperwork and too many bullsh!tters within Airbus these days. All the good engineers they have are being drowned by the assh0les.
Amiga500I’m an engineer too, so jog on!
Being a project buffoon doesn’t count.
Right now, your sounding like one (or worse, an awful engineer incapable of thinking!).
You want to do what is best for France, evidently!
Blinded by patriotism. You are like those irritating yankees that cannot see beyond the end of their own nose.
If France takes the lead, the majority of the “best” work will get done by French engineers and the scraps will go to the British.
Going over to the realm of xenophobia now are we? I assume you vote UK independence party and read the Daily Mail regularly? Damn Johnny Foreigner might do some things better than us.
If both countries are pumping in X and Y% of the budget, then they will by agreement be splitting workshares of roughly X and Y%.
You would expect the usual players to get involved.
Dassault
Thales (who have offices in both the UK and France)
Snecma
Rolls Royce
BAe
GKN
Work would be divvied up to who can best do it. If that means the French get a slightly greater proportion of the more interesting work while the UK get a bit more mundane work, so be it.
A shared information agreement is all that is required to ensure that no-one country can hoard knowledge in any specific area.
Amiga500LOL at the usual arrogance from the French. Their lofty opinions of their own importance and abilities never fails to entertain :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: @ the usual stupidity.
What side of the channel do you think I’m from?
Dassault should lead as they are the ones who have most recently fully designed a fighter. The French are also much better at generating the overall requirements that will be needed – this is key to building any project on solid foundations.
If you want to play political bull****, go ahead. I’m an engineer – I want to do what works best. Dassault leading would work much better than BAe leading.
Amiga500France want to protect its remaining industry at all cost, the UK has less problem with buying US. Dassault will likely continue to lobby in order to have the program lead (which also mean greater share in export contract), and you can be sure BAE won’t go for it.
BAe will go for it if the options are
(1) Accept Dassault control and get quite a bit of R&D money.
(2) Reject Dassault control and get no R&D money and no product to sell down the line.
In the end, I can’t see the UK’s defence policy been US free, and I can’t see France accepting interference. So only money will tell. If the crisis continue they will have no other choice but to cooperate. If not then… Remember France joined twice the Eurofighter program before leaving definitely.
I think many of the MoD and politicans will look at Rafale, look at Eurofighter, look at the carriers… cringe at the F-35… and think
“crap, the French were right all along, might be worth listening to them more in future”.
Amiga500<<>>
I know 🙂
RS-71 syndrome!
Amiga500I’m very disappointed to see cooperation.
I know what you are saying, to an extent I agree.
Airframes should be custom to each nation’s requirements. Like the F-35 should have been three separate airframes (say, F-35, F-37 and F-39) for each arm of the military and the STOVL airframe could be as basterdised as needed while the other two could have been exactly what the air force and navy wanted.
However, common fundamental systems, like radar, RWR, MAWS, onboard computing etc, can be developed together to both bring joint expertise and spread development costs.
At the end of the day, (for example) a radar back end is a radar back end – both nations could easily agree to pay for identical radar modes, as they will at the very least be looking 95% common modes anyway. A well designed system would allow the front end to be customised in terms of T/R modules, allowing proper integration to the airframe.
Amiga500That was in 1998. It’s now 2012. The price will have gone up.
Does the block 60 cost not around $80 mil? (which IMO is overpriced for what your getting)
For the Rafale your looking at $90/100 mil? (+ maintenance difference)
So 4/5ths the aircraft?
Amiga500where you get this idea that M2K/F-16E are cheap?.
F-16E/M2K-9 1998 prices are closed to $65m fly away. today they are much closer to Rafale/EF prices.
2/3rds the price of a Rafale/EF-T?
So your getting 2/3rds (or a bit more) the aircraft.
Sign In
