In the Grand scheme of things does it matter

1) the Rafale is probably still cheaper

2) It appears from various commentators that the Rafale was allways the preffered choice based on commonality of spares/ equipment and armaments with the mirage – (please no trolling regarding X being vastly superiour to y)

3) It appears from various commentators that politically rafale was preffered.

Now assuming 2&3 are accurate then the competition was allways Dassaults to lose. In effect Dassault, if the OP is correct has merely lost profits. I cant see a change in aircraft selection happening so re running the competition will just cost everyone more money.

p.S insert grippen in place of Rafale and apply to Swiss competition

Interesting to read that WE.177’s were taken down to the Falklands as part of the task force, BUT they never crossed into any of the islands territorial waters or into specific nuclear free zones….I wonder if the Vulcan would have been used to deliver one…..

The nuclear depth charges were not taken down as part of the task force, but some escorts that joined the task force were carrying them as this was common during the cold war.

These weapons were off loaded onto invincible ( despite “rumours” from a few labour MPs and certain sections of the media that sheffield was sunk because the nukes were leaking) from there they were either off loaded at ascencion or remained on invincible depending which claim you believe more credible.

There was NO plan to use nuclear weapons during the Falklands conflict regardless of what a former french president claimed.

A much needed (and deserved) win for Dassault.

They must have finally changed the negotiating team after the UAE debacle.

Nope. The original F-18 has had ASRAAM integrated, but not F-18E. Different radar, other differences: needs to start from scratch. The RAAF bought AIM-9X to go with its new F-18Es, rather than pay for integration of ASRAAM on a couple of dozen aircraft.

Yes it appears one forgot the first rule and made an assumption

Super Hornet doesn’t have ASRAAM integrated, Hornet does.

I think Super Hornet would be the more likely and popular choice within the FAA and RAF for that matter. Its a proven mature platform and they can be made available on short notice. As for integrating ASRAAM on Super Hornet it comes down to a cost based equation of integration vs adoption of AIM-9X. Then again an austere ASRAAM integration wouldn’t cost much, it can use the same pylons and wiring as Sidewinder. It has a Sidewinder emulation mode for aircraft lacking the code and hardware for a full integration of the missile.

I stand corrected I thought it had been for the RAAF, I see they went with sidewinder for the super hornets,

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18662

Well unlikely to happen but the rafale has the advantage of being compatible with the meteor and storm shadow.

True but then the F18 has economies of scale in its favour and has had ASRAAM integrated. AMRAAM could continue in service on the F18 with meteor only integrated on the Typhoon.
Both would need to integrate brimsone. how different are Scalp & Stormshadow.

Tough Call but Id go with F18 if only to avoid “TYPHOON so good its main operator had to buy Rafale” sales pitches not to mention trolling

So the initial problem was the nose, right now, its the canard, the angle of aproach and marinisation… By the end of this talk we are going to end on the paint.

look at my origional post and i did state its another reason in my second post i listed others

1º “I refer you to mine and others comments regarding A of A”
Because that particular problem was not adressed by industry far back has 2001, when two diferent designs were proposed by Eurofighter GMBH to the Marina Militare to use in the NUM. One of those designs ended up in the latest Eurofighter world with the Indian colors. Have a good look at that design, there are two engines with TVC on the back end of it.

So the problem has a proposed solution, it is still additional work effort and cost

2º “There is a proposed suggestion as i stated to blow air accross the deck to reduce the A of A so asto improve landing visibility because the Canards impair landing visibility, this soloution would not be proposed if it wasnt required and it wouldnt be required if there wasnt an issue QED typhoon has restrictions on forward visibility on landing”

There´s?!! That´s something i would love to see! Can you show it?
I might be wrong but i have the idea that this particular “proposal” was made by someone who completely misunderstooding the “Navalised Typhoon PDF”.

Im pretty sure it was BAE themselves – if icome across it again i will link it. it isnt something you forget reading.

3º “Yes very good 2 rough field capable aircraft (so the gear is much tougher already) that dont catapult launch thus removing this stress.

It is probable the aft fuselage has been beefed up for the tail hook.

Arrested landings are very stressful on the airframe and the surrounding structure has to be very robust and thus equally heavy in the typhoon this would be dead weight so it has not got this structural strength.

See the f35 thread for the problems it would cause if they have to relocate the tailhook.”

Off course that it would weight more, and the aircraft would have to be beefed up but even if you had two entire tons to that particular airframe you would still end up with better statistics on TW and weight loading than that of a SU33.
And the woos with the F-35 C tailhook have nothing to do in here, unlike Dave there´s ample space in the Typhoon to maintain a decent distance between the landing gear and the tailhook.

The F35 issues are relevant in as much as that beefing up the structure has a significant affect on flight charecteristics, this in turn leads to further testing and delays and more significantly costs. The same applies to Typhoon. I perhaps wasnt as clear as i thought i was

4º “That should have stated if required, however again you are flat out wrong harrier had to be marinised to become Sea harrier (magnesium removed from exposed structure)
WAH 64 has been subject to an awfull lot of corrosion prevention and treatment to marinise it.”

I am flatly right. Marinisation has been done to an awfull lot of airframes, aircrafts and helicopters and there´s nothing to prevent that being done on the Typhoon. That was precisely my point.

You appeared to have stated that marinisation wasnt required, I pointed out it was. Perhaps chalk point 4 down to a missunderstanding,
I think we can both agree that marinisation can be achieved but it is additional change and costs.

Also the naval typhoon is now getting to have less and less in common with the land based Typhoon, if commonality is the driver were starting to lose.

5º “Anybody in a position of authority who seriously advocates a Naval Typhoon should be shot at dawn and there head placed on a spike over traitors gate, because for the damage such a project would achieve to the defence budget that is what their actions would amount to.”

Completely agree, after spending more than two billion pouns on “Dave” the British MOD would have to be run by someone wearing a tin hat to seriously consider that one…

I[COLOR=”darkgreen”] think its only mooted if the F35 falls through, in which case Rafale or F18 are the obvious contenders.

[/COLOR]Perhaps I should make it clear I am sure that with enough time and money none of the issues i have raised are insurmountable and that Typhoon could be turned into a carrier capable aircraft.

However with all things considered I dont think it should be done.

1. It depends on what you start with. Gripen is already half way there, & there doesn’t seem to be any fundamental obstacle to converting it. Several types have been successfully converted in the past.

2. Agreed.

I was perhaps being a bit unfair to SAAB.

Although Grippen was designed as rough field capable IIRC.

I cant think of any good land to sea conversions off the top of my head, so could you chuck a few examples in, not that i douby youre word its just im sure i should be able to think of some and at the moment i can only think of seafire. In its early marks i would say it wasnt but much later aircraft were more impressive.

(Whilst google is my friend it wont necasserily distinguish between converted and a good conversion)

regards