TurbiniaTwin engine does give some back up for sure, something useful if the RAF swaps out the F3’s at Mount Pleasant….
Turbiniai doubt there is a full generation of technology gap in all areas of defence between America and Europe… it really depends on whether Europe need those defence systems or not and whether is it more cost effective to just buy from US companies or to develop their own…
i very much believe that if Europe decides to pull their resources together to build a certain technology, the expertise required for that technology would probably be the last obstacle they face… most of the time they face problems like political will, fundings and non-cohesiveness rather than technological challenges…
On the finance point I agree 100%, these capabilities are primarily as a result of the R&D budget available, and that is the problem, no country in Europe can match US R&D spending, and when they try it collectively it usually ends in disaster as there are endless arguments over workshare, endless arguments over capability priorities, design by committee, crises as members threaten to pull out and endless re-financing. Look at the EF Typhoon or Horizon firgate. Europe can’t agree on these things, look at the FRES, you’d think an armoured personnel carrier would be something countries could agree on and wouldn’t stretch things to breaking point but even the joint APC program ended up in a Eurofighter style bit of wrangling and arguments over what with the UK going off to develop it’s own FRES program.
TurbiniaTrue, most air forces would love the Rafael or Typhoon for the price of an F16, doesn’t alter the fact that the best the rest of the world can offer is totally outclassed by the F22.
TurbiniaFace it, the F22 is the best fighter in the world, that it was maybe the second best contender for the program and isn’t perfect doesn’t alter the fact it’s massively better than any other design that will see service in the foreseeable future. Put it this way, if any other air force in the world was offered the F22 at a price they could afford then how many of them would knock it back for an alternative fighter?
TurbiniaThe Harrier is a superb machine, a lot is made of technical concerns and being a tough bird to fly, and it does need good engineering support, but if well maintained and with properly trained pilots it offers great versatility and military effectiveness. Pretty tough too. In 1982, when talking about losses, if you figure in the intensity of operations, from carriers in such a hostile environment and given the opposition the losses were remarkably light, when the task force went South many naval officers were expecting to lose the entire force in action.
TurbiniaI find it odd that Europe is usually very smug about their sense of being so much more “ethical” in foreign policy than the USA, yet is complaining about an arms embargo on China, not to mention that when Jimmy Carter tried to impose an ethical arms policy on US arms exports European companies had a whale of a time filling the void left by the exit of US companies from certain markets. I’m not neccessarily blaming them for that, but it’s worth bearing in mind when we see Euro politicians pontificate about the wrongs of American foreign policy.
About the Typhoon and Rafael, I am not denying they’re excellent fighters, but they’re entering service to give Europe a fighter of similar capability to the F15 just as the USAF is taking delivery of the F15’s replacement, the F22, a fighter that completely outclasses both Euro designs. For most users the latest model F15 can offer all the capabilities they need and is very competitive with both Euro rivals, and whether people here like to admit it or not that is a staggering achievement.
And what is it with Europe and stealth? One minute they’re bragging about the radar signature of the Rafael and Typhoon, the next they’re saying it doesn’t matter that US stealth technology is a country mile ahead of Europe.
Europe does do some things extremely well, helicopters for one where Europe is now the market leader in several key areas, and some of Europes missile designs are first class, and we have some superb small arms, but in most high tech areas (AEW, airborne stand off radar, fast jet design, battle field management systems, intel gathering, ABM defence etc.) America has opened up a technology gap of a full generation, possibly more.
TurbiniaFor Korea and Japan, it’s more for strategic reasons than for real operationnal ones.
And you’re saying France doesn’t sell weapons based on political reasons? Both countries selected the F15, when Japan bought theirs there was no other fighter in the world to match it.
That’s my point.
As long as the UASF needs support, it’s perfect. As soon as the aircraft isn’t a first line fighter, it can be different.
You can take a look at Northrop F-5 upgrade and Mirage F1.
The RMAF will get AASM and MICA, thanks to a deal with Dassault and SAGEM.
If you want an amraam with your freedom fighter, you need an Israelis radar.Not true, we had support for equipment not in the US inventory. And are you saying that countries using French equipment don’t see a fall of in packages available? US companies have excellent spares support, that’s a fact. If French support is so good can you explain why Alstom can’t supply spares for equipment it supplied new 12 years ago?
You don’t understand.
The “foreign” market isn’t important because of pure numerical reasons (the f-16 being another problem).
Can you compare the american Eagle fleet with the korean one ?Not numerical, financial, military capability is linked to R&D funds and development budgets, nowhere else in the world comes close to the US in this area, and it rubs off on US export weapons.
Anyway, time will tell what kind of upgrade will be available for the F-15 in 2025 and 2040.
Engineer in the RAF and you want to compare the F-22 and F-117 ?
Stealth. The F22 and F35 promise to be much more stealthy than any other fighters in service. Now Europe is trying to pretend this doesn’t matter, but in that case why does Rafael and Typhoon marketing make so much of RAM coatings and stealthiness, face it, Europe would love the low radar signature technology of the F22 and F35 but couldn’t fund it.
Getting back from a mission, few hours of maintenance and get back in the sky.
we’re an engineer in the RAF and you don’t know that ?That is true, but why do you suppose US aircraft can’t do this? Have you looked at the Middle East today, those IDF fighters are being used intensively you know. In the Balkans and in the Gulf wars US designs were used intensively. And why don’t you give some figures what are mean times between failures for the engines in question?
I fear that the “technological capabilities” are just a sign of the gap in the budget defense, so it’s more “financial capabilities”.
The F-35 cheap price is dead in the water BTW.F35 price is indeed a big worry, on that I’ll agree, but I come back to an earlier point, there is no such thing as cheap, effective, weapons development
Why are so many European countries buying the F35? Why does Europe rely on E3 AWACS? Why did Spain buy the AEGIS system for the F100? What other destroyer has an ABM capability? What is the Euro equivalent of the C17? Why is it that the Typhoon and Rafael enter service 30 years after the F15 and offer equivalent capability? Why is it is you look inside the shiny boxes of a lot of European products you find a lot of US sourced electronics and systems?
TurbiniaWhichever high performance fighter a nation buys is incredibly high cost, flying these aircraft of any type is not cheap, countries like Korea, Japan, Singapore etc. obviously think the F15’s operating costs are acceptable given the aircrafts performance. And I don’t know what you are implying with your point about product support, US companies offer product support and upgrade packages at least as good as anybody else, and a lot better than most, and whether Europe likes it or not American defence contractors have access to far greater R&D budgets and state funded programs than any other defence contractors. US companies provide excellent life cycle support too, I served as an engineer in the RAF and the support we had from US suppliers was first class, so I’m not sure where your view that US companies don’t care about non-US customers comes from. The F22 and F35 have a specific jump in capability over any current design except the F117A, what does the Rafael or Typhoon offer that a F15 can’t in the real world? And the point stands, whether Europe likes it or not the USA is prepared to fund defence, Europe does defence on the cheap, look at ships, Europe has invested billions in new warships that are equivalent in capability to the Arleigh Burke class destroyers that have been in service for 15 years whilst the USN is preparing another advance in capability with the DDX program, that kind of says it all about the technological capabilities of US vs. European defence contractors. The F35 offers a second genuine advantage in addition to low radar observability, it will offer a much lower cost entry into the fleet air arm club for navies wishing to fly the type of LPHD type vessels or small STOVL carriers.
TurbiniaA great shame the RAF couldn’t buy more C17’s, get a re-engineered Herc classic (C130X) and dump both the C130J and A400M.
TurbiniaI agree it would be better to have the ships fully equipped from new, but there are limited funds, how would you manage the disparity between funds available and equipment needed? And bear in mind it is not just about the RAN AWD or RN T45, the same arguments are taking place right across all three services. I think it is too easy to just say the equipment should be there, the sad reality is the services have a defined budget and have to work around it as best they can, and that inevitably means compromises.
TurbiniaIt’s all about what you mean by “adequate”.
About the price, the rafale is the cheapest of the 4,5 gen fighters.
But don’t believe in miracle, a F-16 block 60, with an avionic able to go toe-to-toe with those of the Rafale is as expensive, look at the price paid by UAE.Do you really belive that a 30yo american design will get more upgrade than two brand new fighters in 20 years ?
Let’s say how good the F-35 will be and keep in mind that it will take several years and all eurocanard will have good upgrade in avionics (specially for AESA).
I think it is quite probable that the F15 will have superior upgade packages available than either the EF Typhhon or Rafael. For one thing the US defence budget dwarves anything in Europe and the US still has a lot of years of F15 operations, added to the fact that some of the export customers are the countries most likely to be paying for the top end of the upgrade kits, Japan, Israel, Korea, not to mention that Israel has some true world class weapons systems optimised for use with the F15. The fact that the airframe is an old design is not really a big deal, that does not affect radar and weapons upgrades and the aircrafts flight performance, payload, range etc. is still world class. Europe has a lot of expertise but there always seems to be endless delays, budget cuts and lack of serious political will to continue the development of cutting edge hardware.
About the F16, the question is, what capabilities do the Rafael/Typhoon/F15 offer to customers over and above the F16 or Gripen that they actually NEED? Look at most air forces in the world, their defence objectives, funding etc. and smaller, cheaper lightweight designs make a lot of sense, not least financially. If the Typhoon and Rafael had entered service 15 years ago they’d have been world beaters, but the unfortunate fact for them is that the US is already taking another generational leap, and a lot of the potential Typhoon/Rafael customers are already electing to join the JSF F35 program.
TurbiniaI think the RAN may well use the same “fitted for but not with” approach of the RN and others, I know the idea has a lot of critics but it is a pragmatic way of dealing with limited funds in buying high capability weapons. The expensive and dificult part of the design will be the air warfare side, get that right and leave sufficient space and later upgrading with torpedo tubes, SSM’s, Tomahawk etc. and other nice stuff is not a big problem, it is more sensible to get the primary mission (air warfare) right than to try and include everything at the expense of compromising that primary mission capability. So, for all people have attacked the Type 45 for lacking several important capabilities, those capabilities can easily be integrated later, and they have got a world class air warfare system, I’d say the RAN would be well advised to take the same approach.
TurbiniaThe Rafael (and EF Typhoon) is caught between a rock and a hard place. Not just carrier wise, but generally. Take Russian designs out of the equation for a minute and just compare other American and European designs. The F16 and Grippen offer a more than adequate performance for most users for a lot less money, the F15 is still very capable for those willing to pay Rafael/Typhoon prices with excellent product support and possibility of piggybacking much bigger capability improvement/upgrade programs, and for those air forces who value newness the F35 is on the horizon with a handful of customers possibly doing sums on how many F22’s they could afford. So the Rafael and Typhoon are a lot more expensive than the F16 with the F16 being good enough for most customers, at the other end the F22 and F35 offer higher capabilities, whilst in the middle the F15 and probably F18E/F are worthy competitors. No wonder they’re having a hard time winning sales, if I was paying the $$$$’s I’d look at high spec. F16’s or Grippens whilst committing to the F35 longer term for land fighters, probably the F18E/F at sea.
TurbiniaBad management and typical example of buying hardware without the resources to operate it.
And on the political point, there is quite a bit of discrimination over there, not just against the Chinese but also religeous groups and tribal peoples, just like in Indonesia.
TurbiniaDidn’t their A109’s end up with the SAS for years and years?
I think Sandy Woodward upset a few people when he made a comment in relation to the ship losses that if you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t sign up, not the most tactful comment for the families of dead seamen to hear…..
Sign In
