LindermyerActually even the “hook ups” are not immediately compatible, each weapon requires a customized carriage & ejection system (and the software to program the bomb/missile).
I meant electrical data buses connectors etc although Im sure there is a standard for physical connection also, but perhaps that relates to the Pylon/ejector to aircraft interface.
Designing these, and testing the weapon release under different scenarios (which may indeed lead to some issues, e.g. during the only test firing of the AASM125, it climbed over the plane after its release, a rather nasty surprise) is a very, very expensive affair..
Which Takes us back to my opening statement, if the kit isn’t integrated there is a risk. If its integrated the aircrafts more attractive.
Regards
LindermyerMaking Cosmetic changes, adding newer RAM, and having Internal weapons carriage, does go a long way…Its definately NOT an all aspect stealth fighter like the F-35, but it would help reduce the RCS by a good amount, and perhaps that is good enough for the threat environment the ROKAF is projecting its fighters to operate in. If LO is paramount, then both F-15SE and Typhoon will have to go out…
Above to try and distinguish designs eras I defined F35 is VLO and classed the likes of Typhoon / Rafale as LO I know this usage isn’t strictly correct but I was trying to distinguish between stealthy platforms, those aircraft that integrated some Low observable features and those aircraft built with a minimal nod to this (pretty much anything pre 80s). This is why I considered Typhoon to be more relevant than F15.
I think we will have to disagree re silent Eagle to my mind its putting lipstick on a pig, of course should a customer (privy to the details) be convinced then I will concede I’m wrong.
Regards
LindermyerNon sequitur. You said “no integration of American weapon”, I simply pointed your mistake.
There are no technical issues with integrating US weapons under the Rafale, the plane is fully compliant with the relevant NATO standards.
That means all the hook ups are compatible for carriage , that does not mean there are no issues with using them. The Attributes of a particular platform may have unforeseen and unwanted consequences with a different weapon.
As an example The GR5 ? had an all composite wing during weapons integration it was found that the flex of this caused the 500LB bombs to do some strange things. Not the best example as in this case they modified the wing but I think you can understand my point.
But it is extremely unlikely that the US would allow integration of AIM-120 or other weapons it considers strategic (like cruise missiles).
That is entirely dependant on customer and more cynically if the US wants to scupper others chances so it can sell.
Taiwan bought M2k because they needed a long range AAM and they couldn’t get AMRAAM at the time. UAE bought M2k because they needed a cruise missile strike capability and the US wouldn’t supply them.
The reality is that if you have access to advanced US weapons, there’s hardly any reason to consider the Rafale (or the Eurofighter).
Unless of course you are considering replacing say your old F16 fleet, or Tornados, or Phantoms
And that’s also why Dassault has been trying to block Sagem in its attempts to integrate the AASM to other platforms.
[
And these countries are most likely not going to buy Rafales.
Regards
LindermyerWhat about A2A missiles, AGMs etc?
Not if you already operate the US weapons which many operators do as their primary combat aircraft are American F-16 or F/A-18.
Exactly my point.
P.S Im not really stalking you
LindermyerSome 250-ish F-15C/Ds with reasonable airframe condition will be upgraded to serve at least into late 2020s. Also Es will be upgraded for A2A work.
I think the C/Ds will be replaced by F-35 or scrapped without replacement.
Probably correct but does that not leave USAF short of airframes
I still think the dual seater has an advantage even with technological advances. Work sharing does make life easier for the crew.
I also think lack of two seater is one of F-35s biggest achillies heels.
I think 2 seats is better for a strike aircraft but it seems to be changing, whether that’s a cost measure or technology really is that good now remains to be seen.
F-15 is as legacy as they come. But then so is most of the current crop of jets that aren’t fifth generation jets.
The only reason 4th gen still sells so well is that 5th generation is proving problematic in terms of development, timely service entry and cost effectiveness.
I disagree a little.
1) the whole gens business is hype and where’s the dividing line.
F35 has many innovations and truly is a different generation, the F22 in some ways no more advanced than Typhoon, the stealthy (oh how I hate that expression) bit is really the only 5th Gen thing about the F22.
2) For defensive air defence VLO isn’t necessary. VLO is really only required for strike missions and perhaps offensive air superiority. For this reason late 90s aircraft (ie incorporating LO features) will remain relevant for a long time.
3) Ignoring Silent eagle (because im not convinced) the F15 and similar aged designs which for the sake of argument I’ll call Gen 3, I think these need replacing, older technology but older philosophy’s also..
I would say generally we agree, with a difference of opinion about the relevance of the so called 4th Gen aircraft.
I do not believe adding a body kit to the F15 will render it an LO striker.
In this regard I look at F15 SE like the concept Landrover defender replacement, sleek Fashionable high spec and appeals to the London crowd, but completely ignores its roots Ie Basic simple Functionality, (military and Farming). So Using an Iconic name to sell a Fashion statement, Id rather they let it die.
Like wise F15 excellent Iconic its day is over let it die, don’t turn it into a stealth joke
Regards
LindermyerRegarding BAE, if they were innocent then why they agreed to pay fine as mentioned in the contract. We have also these against Russia also, it is anothe matter if we invoke those or not for good reasons.
I don’t think India need anything badly, there are enough options around. Otherwise, we could have signed on the dotted lines. With this I rest my case for now.
The fine was for supplying defective parts, this is a different issue than the failing to deliver because not ordered or paid for I bought up.
India needs something Badly, MRCA has been pushed back and now the Indian airforce is desperate for new airframes, to run a reselection is going to push the IAF over the edge of a cliff in terms of numbers. The delays are to my knowledge just issues regarding workshare and responsibilities ie politics rather than economics or technical.
Lindermyer— ot Start —
We are looking forward to generous Dassault and French govt to get free planes. May be they could introduce those imagnary fighter to their air force first then giving it to India.
— ot End —If there is no problem with marketing why they are having hard time to sell Gold plated fighter plane as evalutions has shown it is very capable in fact suits best to Indian requirements. I am not saying LCA == Rafale, but mix of LCA and Super 30 can do the job.
It is not just buying planes, as mentioned in RFP. Something, you can learn faster if experts show you how do it for first timers. This time ToT was not give us screw drivers and let us tight the screws. It becomes clear in last couple of years that French are shying away from sharing technology or forming JV with India. That is why, this time GoI is very careful before signing anything. Plus it is clear that Indian economy is slowing down.
I don’t think, India wants any of offensive US items, too many restrictions. French wine is sweet and trusted but costs a leg and arm. So we have to live without it.
Its my understanding that the problem has been Dassault not wanting to be held (financially) responsible for problems / delays arising from the Indian government selected subcontractor – not I feel an unreasonable position.
I remember a huge noise between India and BAE because BAE had failed to ship parts for the Hawks, It transpired BAE wouldn’t ship them because the Indian department responsible hadn’t paid.
Probably a bureaucratic error rather than anything else.
Rafale will be a fine aircraft for India, Dassault is offering a lot of tech transfer, transfer India badly needs in order to boost indigenous development.
LindermyerIf Typhoon had a problem it’s more because they did not have any weapons integrated, not because of the weapons nationality which would be the Rafale problem.
If the US vetoes the integration, then it’s a moot point for the manufacturer to try to integrate it up front.
I guess that if a plane loses to an other one on the case of the price of weapons integration alone, then they actually did not really want the plane that much, considering the % difference in price it will make on the total life cost of the program.I could be wrong, but a lot of RFP are done on hypothetical capabilities with more or less price uncertainty. This does not seem to stop processes, purchases or interest of clients so I don’t see how massive weapons integration would change the dynamics of weapons deal, integration on paper looks just fine to me.
Dassault is not saying they don’t want to integrate, they are saying : we offer you a solution (French package) that does not have problem A, B or C and promise you don’t need to worry about D ( Indian M 2000 as an example) and it is as versatile as other, maybe more in certin areas (they should say less in others but they will not ;)). But if you want other things we will do it for you, you’ll just have to pay for it, the same way you would have paid for it if we had integrated them before and pray that uncle sam is still your friend.
France* has also on occasion massively ramped up support costs of upgrades and weapons resupply knowing the customer has only 1 choice, this has had a bad effect on Frances reputation in some corners.
I agree the real politic can be a problem although France does seem quicker to pull the plug*.
Personally I feel France looks after Frances interests 1st, which as an Englishman I respect and admire in many ways, especially as my country often puts others feelings 1st, on the other hand as a customer, particularly one in a volatile area It may concern me.
Integration of non French weapons may reassure certain potential customers, additionally those nations using or replacing US aircraft will not want to buy French weapons alongside or to replace the existing stocks. Knowing these weapons are integrated makes the aircraft more attractive.
*I say France rather than name a company because I cannot recall if this was driven by the company or the DGA.
** Obviously this is because they are a bunch self serving cheese eating surrender monkeys, whereas the US supports its allies
Or The French support there allies and the US are a bunch of Mercenary Ba%$^ds it depends on who’s talking
LindermyerAs for weapons integration, Dassault always said they are ready and able if needed to integrate US weapons. It would make zero differences in terms of exports if they do it now or if they do it when the client asks, be it European countries or other ones, as said previously it would just empty their pockets for no real reason. But it does not seem unfair to use the platform to sell French weapons on the side, especially if those weapons are pretty well adapted to the plane.
.
I disagree having weapons integrated is a selling point , Typhoon has been marked down if not eliminated owing to lack of weapons integration in some competitions.
If the weapon needs to be integrated there is the risk that A) something will be more complicated than believed (equals expensive)or B The US for example will refuse permission to integrate the weapon on the airframe C) some customers aren’t willing to pay for this so loss of sales (EADS take note) D) From customers perspective this can see you locked into a single source supplier.
I think by integrating up front your product looks more attractive to more people.
LindermyerI know it’s hard for Americans to understand, but some people like to stay on budget. :highly_amused:
I agree.
F-15 is still viable in 10 years and probably will be in 20 years time too. The reason is North Asian fleets are large and 4th generation aircraft will linger for a long time in large numbers, just like 3rd generation aircraft are still used in large numbers.
The USAF is planning on keeping F-15C/D as air superiority aircraft into this period as well.
Those Cs and Ds are knocking on now, how much life do they have left. They will need replacing and it looks like F35 numbers wont do this. IMO the US should licence build a few hundred typhoon, (Rafale would appear in politicians eyes to be another hornet so any attempt wouldn’t pass congress ( hell USAF if you want a Hornet buy the Hornet).
Typhoon however would fit the niche as a good defensive fighter to support the F22/35, allegedly a role it is demonstrating admirably (even ignoring the hyperbole regarding DACT Kills etc see my sig).The Eurofighter and F-15 (and F-14 lest we forget) are similar in that both were air superiority platforms that were then converted to strike role.
No No No and No again Once more for emphasis
Typhoon was always rpt always designed to be a multi role platform. The A2G bit is not something that has been tacked on in order to justify the jet post cold war, regardless of what you read in the Gruniad or the register. The Typhoon was intended to replace the Jaguar (a ground attack aircraft) admittedly with a bias on A2A shaping the aircraft.
It entered service as a single role A2A platform because that was what was desperately needed by all nations, and thanks to a stupid ruling on development that said each phase had to be agreed with all members, development stalled as some nations didn’t require and didn’t want to pay for A2G development ironically this may have cost more in lost sales (probable in the case of Singapore)
and has now been dropped.Sorry if I sound (read??) as a bit testy but this argument and counter argument is almost a weekly occurrence.
My other bugbears being X country said aircraft Y is the better plane (insert country and platform of choice). Therefore aircraft Y is better than aircraft Blah.
No it means aircraft Y is the best choice for the requirements of country X
F-15E/K/SG has a few advantages over Eurofighter in bomb truck role:
1. Greater payload (10,400 kg v 7,500 kg). Agreed
2. Weapons Systems Operator – preferred for strike aircraft. ( agreed but advances mean this is changing)
3. Slightly more combat range Agreed although was surprised at only slightly, I thought it was more significant than that
4. Integration of all US weapons (Eurofighter still doesn’t have this). This may or may not be an issue some are integrated some aren’t the question is which ones does SK require and are they already integrated. Longer term then the introduction of new weapons/ systems that America operates but the UK* doesn’t then yes integration will be cheaper to piggy back off the US.
5 (as far as SK is concerned) Its American
A few possible Typhoon Advantages
More modern design so supportability better
F15 sized Radar in F18 size platform cheaper operating costs for similar capabilities (note above F15 advantages )
Integrated HMS and IRST (Does F15 SE have the latter?)
I agree That the F15 has some advantages Range payload etc , I even stated it was still an excellent aircraft, although im not convinced by silent eagle claims.
My comments were to point out that if you** consider the Typhoon to be a legacy air to Air platform then you cannot conceivably apply this to the F15.
* UK rather than Typhoon as certain other operators are a dead end as far as development goes
** You as a general term not You personally
Regards
LindermyerF15 is the least fitting option. A legacy air-to-air optimized platform is not need, given the North Korean Air Force. The F-35 is the most advanced option, but expensive and comes with a political risk. It must be first strike weapon in the eyes of the north, which would change the balance of power in the conflict. The F-15 is the perfect choice imho. Good enough in air-to-air and able to carry a heavy bomb load in case of North Korean tanks rolling South. 2 engine safety is also not a drawback. The penetration capability should be sufficient.
Fixed that for you.
F15 Was THE fighter of the 80s/90s on everyone’s fantasy fleet list. Now the design is getting long in the tooth, which isn’t to say its not still an excellent aircraft.
I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that an aircraft designed from day 1 to be multi role * and a generation** younger than the “Not a pound for Air to Ground” F15 is the Cold war Air to Air legacy fighter.
That said I think its probably the F35 which will be selected with a follow on batch later regardless of whether or not Typhoon is a better fit just because South Korea will try to be common with the US.
* Yes we all know it had no A2G capability when it arrived but that was more political than anything (ie Germany etc didn’t want to pay)
** Generation in this case encompassing 25 yrs not the 4th 5th 6th gen rubbish.
LindermyerAt the Battle of Jutland in 1916 between the German High seas fleet and the British grand fleet in terms of ships sunk the High sea fleet won the Battle but as it was the high seas fleet that turned away and headed to port and in terms of control of the region the grand fleet won as after the battle the High seas fleet never challenged the grand fleet in the North sea again
In Vietnam the North never stopped challenging the US and ended up winning the war and region despite losing a number of battles
The North Vietnamese had effectively lost by late 1968, the shattering defeat that was TET would have bought them to the negotiating table but for the media backlash which managed to portray a major victory as a spectacular defeat.
After Tet US the US government constantly reduced the military commitment and interfered with the military at every level.
The war ended with draw more than anything, that a few years later war broke out and the South was defeated is not a US defeat. However it stands as a great example of political self denial if nobody saw that coming.
US victory in Vietnam was thrown away by what amounts to a betrayal of the armed forces by the media and US government.
As to Afghanistan The military aim was to smash the Taliban – Job Jobbed.
The Powers that be then decided on nation building, this has been difficult but largely successful once enough troops were committed (same as Iraq winning the war was easy winning the peace much harder.
The main (effective) Combatants in Afghanistan now are foreign not Taleban, Afghanistan will continue to draw these until the west leaves at least (note Libya, Mali, any troubled region in Africa you care to name also draws them irrespective of western involvement.
Expecting the worlds most tribal and war torn nation to be an idyllic pleasure garden is na�ve, claiming that unless it is a NATO failure completely disregards the nature of the country and peoples of Afghanistan.
In the 70s Afghan fought Afghan, in the 80s Afghan fought Soviet, In the 90s Afghan fought Afghan in The 2000,s (Naughtys doesn’t work) Afghans fought NATO. as sure as eggs is eggs in 2020 Afghan will be fighting afghan. Its just the way it is*.
* I’m aware of the many fine Afghan customs and people and in no way is the above intended to be derogatory.
Regards
LindermyerNot the case Lindemyer. The Exocet seeker was fully profiled and had the codeword ‘HANDBRAKE’ assigned. A ‘HANDBRAKE’ call would, and did, cause much activity to happen in the assembled fleet!. The Aeronavale training allowed us to profile the Agave radar….which, if memory serves, gained the codeword ‘CONDOR’. A call declaring ‘CONDOR racket’ on a given bearing was therefore a detect of an Etendards Agave emissions. Both were well trained out to the warfare teams.
I completely agree with the above but I wonder if we have a minor crossed point
An attempt to clarify
All ships could identify exocet but on older ships it was up to the watch to raise the alarm, newer ships or ships dispatched later identified the Exocet as a threat thus flagging alarms quicker.
The older ships eg Type 42 Batch 1 (Sheffield) had an old analogue computers these could not be updated on the fly it was a big job.
The more modern vessels could be up dated quickly by cartridge /disk.
so the first ships down did not recognise exocet as a threat (at least until updated) and potentially a few ships throughout the conflict could did not recognise Exocet as a threat.
The above is my understanding of the situation, I actually see nothing mutually exclusive between our statements, but perhaps my previous was a tad generalised (thus false).
LindermyerFrance didnt help out with information on Exocet…we already had MM38 in the fleet as GWS.50 anyway so we knew all about the seeker etc.
They allowed the Aeronavale to exercise with the RN so we could work up a profile on an Etendard/AM39 attack.
Indeed part of the reason Argentine air attack was such a threat was because the Royal navy EW / ESM systems did not identify exocet as hostile.
Its also true to say that Argentina new the limitations of Sea Dart very well since they also operated the system (whoops).It was immensely valuable to us but not something you could have laid blame for at the manufacturers door…either Dassault or Aerospatiale!. Stopping arms supplies to a state actually conducting hostilities is not an uncommon step for a government to take…and not just Western ones.
It has been reported that France helped out the UK by instructing the intelligence services how to disable an Exocet.
These inoperative Exocets where then sold to the Argentines by the intelligence services posing as arms dealers.It should be noted that the Aerospatiale engineering team who were integrating AM39 with Argentina’s new Etendards went to some lengths to make sure that their Argentine counterparts were able to complete the work, and deploy the capability, before they came away.
Regards
LindermyerThis isn’t a colonial war though! The islanders have decided their own fate! Britain is there just to maintain the islanders desire for freedom! wake up to it!
None of which alters the fact that Article 5 doesn’t apply, or the reasons why the NATO agreement was drawn up the way it was.
Whether other nations would chose to get involved is a matter of conjecture and speculation, there is no legal reason for them to do so.
Sign In
