Looking at a press release on France UK cooperation for defence, this covered exped forces, amphibious, asw/ mcm, future submarines and uas.

Perhaps the compromise is for Dassault to lead on the Aviation side as you suggested (for the reasons you gave), whilst a uk company takes the lead on the ASW side, as this is an area where britain is cutting edge (for historical reasons we wont mention).

The RN is one of the premier ASW forces out there, lets keep it that way.

: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.

I 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

so I think a case could be made eitherway.

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, final assembly to be where its cheapest or most convinient.

Requirements laid out and No political input, work allocation on merit ala F35 rather than Orders based like Tiffy / A400m
(these will be in Toulouse please)

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.

Ps I agree that airbus couldnt organise a **** up in a brewery,
i was shocked to discover that applied to Airbus Germany as well

New excerpts published by Le Matin
http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12498.pdf

http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/qu-ueli-maurer-oublie-propos-gripen/story/16595092

Now if that paper thinks it has been used as a stalking horse by whoever leaked the documents, they could well make someones life miserable.

Personally I am happy to accept that the Swiss selected the best aircraft for them.
Ive no doubt many (pilots) would have preffered Rafale or even Typhoon but Grippen will suffice,

Libya proved that to be true. Swiss evaluation proved that to be true. Afghanistan proved that to be true. Rafale is proving everyday that is the actual truth. So unless you can provide “evidence” of the contrary, it’s a bad idea to point fingers when one is in a weak spot.

Afghanistan is irrelevant for what must be the millionth time Typhoon hasnt gone to afghanistan becahse there are not enough aircraft in service

As Typhoon carried out the tasks reqquired of it (despite crew spares issues which are budget related not aircraft), I do not undertstand where it failed.

Competitions and evaluations do not prove a best aircraft but a most suitable one.

Maybe, but everything that has been said about Rafale has been proved wrong. Weaker engine = wrong, weaker radar = wrong, weaker performances = wrong.

I dont think it is disputed by anyone (except you) that Typhoon has better Kinematics at altitude. rafale is better by all accounts lower down.

It is entirely likely Typhoon has or will have a superior radar, certainly the AESA on a rotating assembly will have advantages, and I know people dont like to hear this but Bigger radars are more sensitive leading to better range and discrimination.

As to the current fit I dont personally know

The requirement for sustaining speed at Mach 2 and above was dropped at the end of the Cold War, because the purpose of such a capability was no longer around.

Yet suprercruise is important to everybody it seems

The current more powerful engine of the Typhoon is powering an heavier airframe to a lower range, and lower payload. And did you have a good look at the RAF website ? What use is a more powerful engine if the Typhoon in the end is limited (for whatever reason) at the same speed as the Rafale ?

Every single “advantages” of the Typhoon have been proved wrong or lacking in substance.

I dont think muchis proven either way,

That only leave the argument of the obsolescent FSO, but so far no potential export customer complained about it…

So first the Typhoon was always supposed to be multi-role and to replace Jaguar and Tornado, but now suddenly you change your mind ? How smart.
The Typhoon capabilities are flawed due to the Eurofighter’s nation lack of cohesion, Germany even wanted a even more simplified version with a single engine at some point…

OK WE WILL TRY THIS AGAIN SLOWELY NOBODY HAS CHANGED THERE MIND NOTE THE WORDS PRIORITY.
THE TYPHOON WAS TO REPLACE TORNADO F3 PHANTOM AND JAGUAR .
A2A WAS THE PRIORITY SO A2G INTEGRATION WAS SECONDARY ( it was further delayed by funding cuts)
Rafale replaced Jaguar before mirage so A2G integration was more urgent.

And here we go again. So sad, so needy… Really, well if that can make you happy… As if the Typhoon wasn’t already putting quite a bit of weight further eroding whatever speed advantages it never had…

Just more of your drivel

Typhoon perform as a Rafale A. Wait until you get the real figure of the added weight due to “useful” load, and come back to us. Oh and about pilot workload I guess you conveniently missed the Swiss report… BTW there is nothing in the P1E that the Rafale isn’t already doing since F2.

More drivel

The helmet is on the technology side the only real argument for the Typhoon. Operationally though it’s still a unproven quality. Last time I went on the Thales website they were marketing both the PIRATE and the FSO…

Stupid controversies such as yours do not add to the debate…

I dont Know if your trying to wind up Jackinocko, Troll Generally or whether you really are just a completely ignorant ****wit who cannot absorb a civil rational response so will continue spouting the same tired cliches and drivel.

You also seem to be somewhat anglophobic.

To all others i apologise for the tone but the same facts have been explained to MILDAVE repeatedly and its getting tedious reading his continuos Typhoon / UK are crap comments.

As you will see looking at previous posts I believe both are very good aircraft both have advantages.

Balanced bit

MMI is subjective

Costs well who knows I can believe unit costs lower on rafale, I can believe Development cost the UK less.

I believe that the required upgrades will come (AESA + A2G) because they are or will be required by the RAF
I suspect the RAF will have to pay for them themselves as the other partners arent interested. which will probably offset the shared development nicely.

[QUOTE=eagle1;1859064
Also the typhoon does not replace the tornado while the rafale is meant to replace all types in service for the french armed forces. So one should add the F35 costs in a way.[/QUOTE]

But if Typhoon was replacing Tornado you would have more airframes to spread the development cost over – swings and roundabouts.

I do not find it unfeasible that developing the typhoon cost the uk less than rafale cost france. But at the same time the rafale could have a lower unit cost particuarly where exports are concerned – duplication of assembly line efforts can only reduce the benifits of economies of scale.

Typhoon was conceived in the 1980s during the Cold War, mainly for use as an air-to-air fighter and the aircraft is highly capable in this role.

Note mainly for A2A note solely or only

We all acknowledge that A2A was the optimisation

But the operational environment has changed significantly, making the ground attack role more important and so the Department is upgrading Typhoon to become a fully multi-role aircraft which can conduct both air-to-air and ground attack missions.

Stood alonne this paragraph does imply that A2G was an afterthought

Taken together it implies that the A2G became more of a priority so the RAF wanted to bring funding forwards.
Page 11

Quote:
Typhoon was conceived in the 1980s during the Cold War as a collaborative project with Germany, Italy and Spain. Primarily intended to operate as an air-to-air fighter, around 70 Typhoons are already in service, as at December 2010, and are mainly used for this role, protecting the air space around the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands. As Figure 2 on page 14 shows, sufficient Typhoons are now routinely available to meet these tasks and undertake the required pilot training. Our consultants assessed the relative quality of the current Typhoon aircraft compared to other air-to-air combat aircraft. Their analysis shows that Typhoon compares well with its peers in its air defence roles

Again primarily as an A2A fighter, but this isnt denied.

Nowhere does it say that typhoon was designed foe A2A only, perhaps a small translation issue.

It’s useless to discuss with Jakoniko.

It’s written at least 4 times in the NAO repport that the total program cost will be 37bn£ and the 20bn on is the planed one which doesn’t include T3 improvements (AESA, obsolescence, A2G, etc), nor even the ‘austere’ A2G capabilities (or very austere ones then…)

It’s written once that the EF was designed as a pure A2A cold war interceptor and the multirole capabilities were added afterward.

If the above is written then it suggests,is implied in some circles that the NAO is not an impartial group and is often either badly informed or ignores inconvinient truths.

Once again for the audiance for emphasis

[COLOR=”Red”]TYPHOON WAS DESIGNED TO REPLACE JAGUAR IN RAF SERVICE

JAGUAR IS A GROUND ATTACK AIRCRAFT,

TYPHOON WAS DESIGNED AS A MULTI ROLE AIRCRAFT FROM THE START[/COLOR]

Note typhoon was not designed to conduct Interdiction penetration / deep strike pick term that was tonkas job.

I dont mean to be snippy but certain groups with a vested interest have (somewhat succsesfully) pushed the myth that the typhoon is a cold war a2a interceptor being foisted on our country by the evil RAF/ BAE (pick newspaper pick day). that is hogging all the funds as the raf try to make it relevant just so they can whiz around in the latest toy.

Insert CVF, Heavy Armour and apply same argument to the relevent service

It does amuse me hearing how we have paid millions for tanks that have sat in germany doing nothing since the end of the cold war, have no relevance in modern warfare and yet hide bound generals are so stuck in there ways they wont scrap them, conviniently forgetting the Gulf Kosavo the Gulf (again) Afghanistan (ok not UK).

There are many criticisms that can be levelled at the typhoon program, but very few of those relate to the aircraft.

P1E was signed off in 2007 when Eurofighter finally understood that they needed an multirole aircraft and they decided (finally) to implement the CP-210 modifications to provide the Typhoon with AtG capabilities which lead to the T2 standard.

Edit to add

No No and No again Typhoon was allways planned to be a multi role aircraft it was to replace Tornado and JAGUAR (you know the SEPECAT strike aircraft) in RAF service, A2G was not an afterthought, yes the aircraft was more optimised for A2A and yes the A2A side was a much more presssing requirement.

Every discussion sees the myth that the Typhoon was never designed for A2G trotted out. That A2G is still (very) limited is cos no ****** wants to pay for it not because it was a decision made to keep it relevent post cold war (Note to Lewis Page)

In 2006 the RAF wanted to deploy the Typhoon in Afghanistan and decided they couldn’t wait on Eurofighter to get AtG capabilities so they implemented CP-193 which was to be an “austere” AtG capability introducing early the CP-210 modifications that later became known as P1E in the T2 Typhoon.

Those modifications proven to be so “austere” that the Typhoon was never deployed in Afghanistan. Later in Libya it didn’t impress either.

Hells teeth for what must be the millionth time on this board Typhoon was not deployed in afganistan because there where not enough airframes and crews to support QRA falklands and afghanistan.

There were no problems with typhoon over Libya, problems involving crew and spare shortages are not a reflection of the aircrafts abilities, they are a reflection of funding issues however

So currently the RAF has Tranche 1 Block 5 with P1E and Tranche 2 Block 8 with P1E (most recent as of 2011). Tranche 1 cannot be upgraded to Tranche 2 due to physical differences. So if you still wonder were the money has gone, it has gone into making a new aircraft that would be able to be multi-role (similarly to M-2000C and M-2000-5f mk2 in fact.)

Physical differences between blocks isnt uncommen, Tranch 1 could be upgraded iy just isnt financially viable.

In both Tranches, P1E refers to the “austere” AtG capability while the blocks refer to software upgrades (obsolescences mostly and the capability to actually use the “austere” AtG mode).

So according to you I’m supposed to be impress by the P1E (“austere” AtG) which (again according to you) wasn’t even part of the development forecasts ?! Well let’s celebrate !!

And now Eurofighter is telling us we need to wait 7 years to see the ”austere” capability become full ? Lol I just can’t laugh loud enough !

They must have such a party at Eurofighter, I’m almost jealous not to have been invited !

Delays (ignoring glitches) and lack of A2G development are nothing to do with Eurofighter and or Typhoon and everything to do withlack of interest from pretty much all partners hence the RAF specific Austere capabilities

Let’s be serious for a moment. Typhoon of today is a joke. Its public price is 6 million less than Rafale for capabilities that any early variant of the M2k or F16 could provide. It is only saving face thanks to a more modern airframe and a huge PR service.

I cannot comment on price but the rest of the paragraph is a Spurious and Ignorant comment .

I understand you dislike the typhoon but must the boards be full of petty X is better than Y and X is Crap because I say so, not directed entirely at youreself.

Both Typhoon and Rafale are Good aircraft both have advantages and dis advantages, neither is either the best thing since sliced bread or worst thing ever.

Nobody denies that the Rafale is further ahead in development, but lets not pretend that this is because the Typhoon itself is flawed.