MildaveRafale M is proven to be able to operate from USN carrier, and even be serviced. Scalp, LGB, Meteor etc. are already integrated or planned. Leasing or buying a few mica would not be so bad since any maintenance needed could be done with the French Navy and air force. Any other weapons could be integrated but I guess India could help here if they select Rafale and ask for US weapons on it.
Close parnership with France which would go in the same direction that their strategic agreement recently signed, full interoperability with the US, all with a modern and state of the art platform who’s only competitor so far is the Typhoon…
Well that’s the problem isn’t, they can’t take the risk to see an interim solution become permanent and have their pilots start comparing Rafle with… Typhoon…
So again since French and UK pilots are receiving their first training in the US anyway, it’s much better to buy F 18 which is a platform that will be replaced sooner rather than later. Then UK pilots could transition along with USN pilots on the F 35 and benefit from it.
A Sea Gripen makes no sense what so ever. You invest a lot of money for a plane that doesn’t exist for performances lower than the F 18, with interoperability still to be proven, and with no commonality with either French or US who are the only Western countries with carriers, and the only countries in the world with CATOBAR capabilities.
MildaveI would say mainly politics since whithout all the US sanctions since decades they could have as much money as SA and UAE to afford state of the art weapons, which they did with the F 14 at the time the US were friendly.
Mildave“massive economic benefits of JSF” lol I almost died reading this…
Technology wise they should go for Rafale. India selection was pretty clear about that. Why go for sea gripen that offer no commonality with any major country using a carrier and less capable than either Rafale or Typhoon ? A normal Gripen carry less, a sea Gripen would not make sense.
Anyway, the UK should have chosen Rafale 20 years ago…
MildaveThe fact is the first F 35 delivered are probably be limited, so if the solution of an interim aircraft is serious the UK is going to go for F 18. All the talk about Rafale is simply political noise. The likely solution for the RN will be to lease some USN aircraft for a 5 to 10 years period or so and then give them back when the F 35 comes to full standard or retired them if they are already used.
Remote possibility since France is getting 11 aircraft a year and they don’t need that much, they might lease some of their aircraft since I don’t think France is getting a second carrier any time soon and they are left with a marine squadron they don’t quite need right now. But given the logistical differences, I don’t see how that senario is possible.
MildaveIncredible, you found a 9 years old thread !!! :D:D:D
For the CFTs, no one paid, nothing happened.
Well at least I had a very good laugh reading a few posts of that time !
Mildave1.5 b for 3 planes ? Who said UAS were cheap !
MildavePakistani sources really ?
We had so many sources before november then everybody got surprised when none of the US plane made it even after Obama sent a nice letter, so anything can still happen !
MildaveNobody has made any serious mention of the M51 being procured, and all the talk and agreements have been about using the Trident successor. From a technical standpoint the M51 doesn’t even make sense, it’s inferior to the Trident 2!
France has already paid for the renewal of its nuclear deterrent. New submarines are completed with the induction of the Terrible, and new missiles are currently been fielded as well with the M51. As for the air force their new missile is also been fielded as we speak.
Reducing maintenance and future research is all France is looking for, while the UK is in serious trouble over the future of their nuclear deterrent.
There is little chance for the UK to get the M51, since they are dependent on the US for more than just the missile. Satellites, communication systems, early warning, missile launch warning… Honestly the real question is why they don’t scrap the whole program since they have very little independence over it; I don’t see how it justifies the cost.
They should focus on attack submarines only where a chance for European cooperation is much more credible. They could always fit a nuclear warhead to a tomahawk if ever they feel really threatened.
MildaveI find it funny how some here are talking about the IR reduction features of the M-88 simply as a detail. If the Typhoon had these they would be the “trump” card of Typhoon survivability.
Of course in a world where IR detection is becoming more and more lethal, it’s just a minor details the fact that Rafale engineers chose survivability rather than raw performance. Yet the Rafale is still capable to carry more stuff further.
Anyway it doesn’t really matter. Rafale has no longer anything to prove to anybody and the fact that India chose both European aircraft is a proud moment for every European to remember.
MildaveA UCAV which can drop half a dozen small bombs, fly home & load up again, over & over again, is cheaper & more effective in the long run.
We hope !
The trend seems to go the way of “optionally” piloted aircraft though.
Mildave@ Sintra : none of your pics show a delta winged fighter…
The point he’s trying to convey I think is that lack of visibility is certainly not the number 1 reason why the Typhoon won’t be navalized. And while it might never be CATOBAR compatible it “might” and I stress “might” have limited STOBAR capabilities.
MildaveNo, this is like me telling you that P_r = {{P_t G_t A_r sigma F^4}over{{(4pi)}^2 R_t^2R_r^2}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Radar_equation.. but apparently you don’t give a jot and instead jump to analogies that is irrelevant in the context of antenna size and it’s impact on receiving, passive or not, everything else being equal.
Nice try mate, but I don’t think you’ve looked at the equation long enough.
You would realize that the important variable in the dividend is F^4 = pattern propagation factor, followed by the divisor variables here Rt^2 and Rr^2 which equal respectively distance from the transmitter to the target and distance from the target to the receiver.
Ar which is the aperture and so the size is but one variable out of five which compose the dividend. What all of this mean is that the most important factors are the environement (how well the waves propage and echoes) or F and the distance or range of R.
It also mean you can improve the detection by adjusting Pt and/or Gt and/or Ar and/or σ and/or F^4 and reducing R^4. It proves that size or aperture is part of the equation obviously, but not the biggest part by far as bigger doesn’t necessarily translate into better. Any other variable can be adjusted to get a longer range like Pt (transmitting power) which is exactly the path Dassault explored for the UAE. The biggest factor after the range is F which I only assume here is related to the type of wave used and how they are affected by the environement (weather, background : water, desert, forest etc, kind of object been reflected on etc).
MildaveIn case of war cheaper to redirect F 15, F 16 and F 18 production for domestic need with state of the art avionics. More pilots are already qualified included the reserve and national guard.
The actual F 22 would be used for critical recon mission, or to take out or protect important target or zone…
MildaveWhat´s next, the Typhoon cant be turned into an aircraft carrier because the paint his grey?
Beside modern aircraft are supposed to be able to land on carrier even at night with zero visibility so…
Anyway there is still a big ? about the Typhoon being able to land on a carrier, like ever!
MildaveI don’t have an issue with the performance of Rafale, (and with an odd exemption, nor does anyone else) it is already fantastic.
The latest round with “what if” is how you would go around to make either fighter even better, and most of us opted for the Rafale airframe,
with F414/EJ200 to make it flat out exceptional.On the radar range, i so totally disagree that matching missile range is all you’d want, and if that is the reasoning, i’m taking it you consider AWAC’s moot,
-since they can’t instantly engage what plop up on the screen.
There is a time-race going on here, and the sooner you get a whiff the sooner you can start running in the right direction, preferably at warp 5.
Even if you are planning to use the radar as a primarily passive listening device, (doubtful for the time being)
it is just unnatural & illogical to argue for a smaller size being better,
at least for any non-french.
This is like saying that a 90’s era computer big as a house is better than actual computer because it’s bigger.
First you need to have a good look at the architecture, miniaturisation, algorithms and power management. Since all of these details are classified, we can only try to understand what drove the engineering choices, and if these choices were sound, rather than dismiss completely just because it looks different.
First of all, in today environment you rarely use you radar if you’re flying a combat aircraft. EM emissions management is the name of the game. That’s the reason why stealthy aircraft are making increasingly use of satellite guided weapons in AtG mode, and self-homing missiles in AtA. While the use of radar can provide better range for a firing solution, you’ll only do so if it’s safe for your aircraft to do so. Better to use an approximate location and launch a missile with poor PK, than to emit, be detected and never know if the target’s wing man or the rest of your target’s squadron are firing on you at the same time.
It doesn’t matter how good your radar is, you’re always going to be detected (and increasingly so by modern system) farther away than your radar’s is capable to receive for a very simple physic principle. The echoes bouncing back on hard objects lose energy and are degraded by the use of composites materials, jamming etc.
Having a radar that can see further than is necessary for the use of your weapons is simply going to tell your enemy “hey look at me!” while you’re unable to engage in the next few minutes or seconds. Meanwhile your targets have plenty of time to start manoeuvring to escape or attack you with longer ranged weapons. It also means they have a longer time to analyse your emissions and develop jamming and counter measures.
Modern air forces don’t fully use their radar in exercises even with friendly nations and you really think they are going to play AWACS with their fighters? Should the emissions be intercepted by the enemy which is going to happen in such a case (ELINT aircraft, satellites boats and even submarines…), and should an effective jamming solution be found, your entire fleet is done for. By definition AWACS mission isn’t compatible with LPI, or discretion which is why the use of dedicated platform is the way to go. Even modest Pakistan is getting some.
With AWACs you keep the enemy at bay, because he’s going to do everything to fly as far away as possible in order to reduce and/or delay any chances of being detected. This is what you call area interdiction.
Note that the better passive systems improve the less use of the radar is made. So sure you still need it, but the assumption that you can effectively use a Typhoon or a MKI to effectively AWACs a battlefield is not serious.
So it’s not just about arguing for bigger or smaller, it’s about arguing for the right size for the job at the right price.
So why would they put in place an inappropriate sized antena when from the very beginning they intended the Rafale as a “omnirole” platform fighting sea air and land(lol almost like a navy seal:D)? I agree everybody makes mistake, but you don’t build a submarine when you want to go on the moon!
Sign In
