VnomadIndia needs to recognise that when Rafale was selected for MMRCA L1 it was a buyer’s market. Now it’s a seller’s market.
LOL. I’d say with the ToT/licensed production angle out of the way (opening the door to the F-35) and several manufacturers looking to closing production lines in the absence of fresh orders (read: Eurofighter, SH, F-16, F-15), its even more of a buyer’s market than it was before.
VnomadDoes that mean Typhoon would be judged useful because UK (NATO member), Germany (NATO member), Italy (NATO member), Spain (NATO member) all use the same equipment? If so, perhaps the USA ought to be ordering a few so that it can a high level of integration with NATO members using Typhoon.
What is the Eurofighter equivalent to the MADL? By when will it be capable of multi-ship sensor fusion? Even in terms of logistics, it’ll be thoroughly outnumbered by F-35s in most typical coalitions, making the latter the more obvious choice.
USA needn’t order any EFs. Not when two out of the four EF states are already F-35 operators with a third slated to do so by 2025. Hell even Germany is a potential F-35 operator over the medium term, what with the EF going out of production, and UCAVs options looking iffy.
VnomadThere might be a political reason why Belgium (likely to have 3?/4? x F-35’s available for US-led NATO adventures) or The Netherlands (likely to have 4 x F-35’s available for same NATO operations) would want to show active support for US strike actions. However, I don’t think half a dozen or so Belgian + Dutch F-35’s would make any real difference militarily in something like a major conventional conflict where they could be outnumbered 10:1, 15:1, 20:1 by US F-35’s.
True to some extent (since this applies to their F-16s too). At the same time, the F-35 being designed for a high level of integration with other F-35s (among other reasons), means the coalition will value a detachment of four Belgian F-35As, lot more than it would four Rafales, five Super Hornets or six Gripen Es.
VnomadBelgium has had a very close collaboration with other NATO F-16 countries (including the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway); now those countries are moving to the F-35. In fact most NATO countries are moving to the F-35.
Indeed.
Benelux countries agree to joint air policing
Nicholas Fiorenza, Brussels – IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly
04 March 2015Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed an agreement on 4 March on the joint air policing of their territories.
Under the agreement – signed in The Hague by Dutch defence minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, her Belgian counterpart Steven Vandeput, and Luxembourg’s ambassador to the Netherlands Pierre-Louis Lorenz – the Belgian Air Component and Royal Netherlands Air Force will take turns keeping two F-16s on quick reaction alert (QRA) defending the airspace of all three countries from not only military threats but also against renegade aircraft. The joint air policing effort will begin in mid-2016.
In a worst-case scenario Belgium could order a Dutch aircraft patrolling Belgian airspace to shoot down a renegade aircraft, while the Netherlands could similarly order a Belgian fighter patrolling Dutch airspace to do likewise. In Belgium the decision would be made by the Belgian defence minister in consultation with the prime minister and minister of the interior, while in the Netherlands the decision would be the responsibility of the minister for security and justice. Luxembourg, which has no air force and is currently covered by Belgian QRA, does not allow the use of deadly force over its territory.
The formal arrangement follows a letter of intent signed by Belgium and the Netherlands on joint air policing in October 2013. The agreement now has to be ratified by the three countries’ parliaments and approved by their executive branches, a process which is expected to take up to a year. After that, details like the length of the rotations of the Belgian and Dutch aircraft on QRA will be worked out.
VnomadIn air to air mode, in speed, climb, agility, the F-35 is nowhere near the Typhoon, the Rafale, and there us a good chance it will struggle to keep up even with a Gripen E.
And yet no amount of upgrades will enable them to launch their Aim-120/Meteors at ranges comparable to those for the F-35. In most DACT setups they’ll be trounced by the F-35 (unless the RoEs have been restricted in the interests of a ‘sporting fight’). The same will apply to a comparison of their loss-exchange ratio against a generic enemy.
F-22 redux; what really frustrated Red Force pilots flying against the Raptor wasn’t its speed or climb rate or agility, but the simple fact that, for the most part, they never knew where it was until they had a missile inbound.
VnomadWould the US allow the B61 to be integrated onto a foreign airframe? Has this been done previously?
Tornado IDS
VnomadI would’ve thought it was the other way around — that if anything it is the diesel boats that give Russia the edge over the UK. Regarding nuclear boats alone, it’s questionable whether Russia today can really deploy any more SSNs than the UK can, while the SSBN force seems broadly comparable until the three Borei boats are truly in service with operational Bulava missiles. I think the claim that Russia’s submarine force lags only the United States will be stronger over the medium-term than it is today. Even five years from now one would probably not question the assertion. But today?
How do you figure? The Russians have nine Akulas, four Victor IIIs and one Yasen in service (plus half a dozen Oscar IIs). Compared to four Trafalgars and two Astutes. Even with lower availability, they most certainly field more SSNs. Plus then there’s the dozen 877 Kilos, four 636s and one Lada.
The Bulava’s operational now I believe. So, same story on the SSBN front.
VnomadIts an erieye-ng GaN + swordfish mpa + airtracer esm mashup/combo in a single aircraft.
Will it be equipped with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles?
VnomadI read the first sentence you wrote, but also the sentences below about air policing. What I said was that Gripen C did not meet the air policing requirement of the Swiss air force (not talking about strike, recce, OCA, DCA). Actually it did not meet the specific QRA requirement either (which was part of air policing it seems)
Presumably there are reasons for why they have such high requirements for air policing and QRA roles. If you don’t understand those reasons and find a way to address them, your proposal of going for a lower-performance is not relevant.
The Swiss requirements vis a vis QRA always seemed rather dubious to me. I mean, how does Sweden police its airspace given that it has only Gripen C/Ds available?
One could have argued that the Swiss hold themselves to a higher standard, if not for the rather embarrassing fact that QRA in Switzerland is only available during business hours on weekdays (until recently, not even during lunchtime). Plans to provide 24×7 QRA came about much later, and will still only fructify by 2020.
VnomadWhile the prices may be comparable, in fact, the capabilities will depend also on what you expect…. if you want deep strike on day 1… er.. well, foir Belgium it’s irrelevant… it has simply no way to reach and strike anything aside its allies on its own. Any way you turn it, if it goes to bomb something, it has to be inside a coalition and there, they certainly won’t be the first ones in the fight. if it’s for their primary mission which is air policing, not sure the F-35 brings anything to the table the others can’t do at least as well if not better, not to speak about maintainance costs where the F-35 will certainly remain the costliest choice for a long time to come
You seem to be labouring in an odd state of cognitive dissonance. When it comes to Switzerland, a country that hasn’t participated in a war since 1815 and has an avowedly defensive military philosophy, you think Rafale is still in with a chance. But when it comes to Belgium, home to NATO HQ, currently operating nuclear-capable F-16s, you believe fighter requirements will be driven by the primary mission of.. air policing?
Also, for the record, the F-35 isn’t just better than the Eurocanard at Day 1 strikes, its equivalent or better at nearly every role, save perhaps for (non-fighter) interception. Including OCA, DCA, escort, SEAD, DEAD, strike and post-ROVER upgrade.. CAS too. The advantage of a VLO airframe cuts across mission profiles. Plus, going for the F-35 will lend to far better interoperability with other NATO air forces fielding the F-35 (US, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey.. and eventually Denmark, Canada, Poland & Spain too).
Vnomadactually, there are those who consider the fighter replacement unnecessary, who have and will vote against, but they aren’t numerous enough to win alone. There were also those who considered that the aircraft chosen was the one that was the worse of the contenders and they made the numbers needed to cancel the buy
No they didn’t. Not even close.
There’s a section that would prefer to retire/sell-off the existing fleet. Then there’s the section of the population that would like nothing new bought. There’s a section that would prefer something cheaper or to defer the buy to a later date. Then there are those who’re happy with the Gripen E. And what’s left over is a tiny delusional minority who actually thinks voting against a Gripen E purchase today, may result in a Rafale purchase tomorrow.
Strangely, that us the PoV of a few swiss guys I happen to see discussing on other boards… but YOU know better
If they were discussing military weaponry on internet boards, then those ‘few Swiss guys’ have an level of interest in the technicalities of the subject that in no way reflects the awareness level of the general population.
VnomadNow, if once more, the policians decide to take an aircraft considered inadequate after the tests (by simply declaring it ok, as if tests never took place), the referendum will reject it. If they follow the recommendations if the evaluation team… it may come through
Oh come now, you’re being silly! The Gripen E didn’t lose the referendum because it wasn’t advanced enough. It did so because the associated cost was considered steep, especially in a country where a substantial part of the electorate would like to disband the military altogether.
To believe that the Rafale could have cleared that referendum is an exercise in wishful thinking.
VnomadThat is exactly why embedded systems like EOTS, EODAS or OLS-35 don’t make much sense.. A podded version is much easier to replace..
There is no podded alternative to the EODAS. And the EOTS is a Line Replaceable Unit; both replaceable and upgradeable. Same applies to the OLS-35, I believe.
VnomadThe RCAF’s Hornets have been upgraded to serve till 2025. So they’ve still got plenty of time to recommit.
Also, like other members of the JSF consortium they’d have been placing orders on a piecemeal basis anyway (rather than one large bulk order), so they’re unlikely to have lost much to the CAD depreciation (which may well ease by the time they actually order a new aircraft).
What they may actually lose out on is workshare, especially if the program garners some new export orders before the Canadian order eventually comes through.
Vnomader, 34 fighter for 3.5bn €, the F-35 is far from that, unless you don’t count all the stuffyou need to pay for around it (and then, the Rafale can compete as well, maybe even the Typhoon)
For the F-35, they may be willing to reduce the required numbers (or hike the budget). I doubt they’ll be as generous when it comes to the Rafale & Eurofighter.
Sign In
