Who’s working on what for the definitive PAK-FA engine (sorry english not available- but in short absolutely everybody).
[ATTACH]158415[/ATTACH]

Why am I not surprised!:D But on a serious note I am impressed at how any potential for infighting in the vast Russian aviation complex seems to have been surpressed or a least hidden from view and the Pakfa program now seems like a common effort.

I think the emphasis on the air to ground role of the Rafale would make it more suitable for India than the Typhoon. With the active array RBE2, the latest engines, Mica, Meteor, it will do a good enough job for the medium term AtoA needs. Once the Indo/russian Pak-FA reaches squadrons, the Rafale could be moved to the AtoG and deep penetration roles.

Typhoon and Pak-FA could become a bit redudant once the Pak-FA comes operational, unless the Typhoon catches up on the Rafale in the AtoG role.

Nic

There are more than enough Rafale versus Typhoon threads and we all know which side your on so take it to one of those.

Now that French have lost even the helicopter, tank and SAM deal with Saudi Arabia (Mi-17/35 instread of Eurocopters, T-90 instead of LeClerc and Russian medium-range air-defense instead of MBDA Aster SAMP, makes me wonder what happened between French and Saudis that resulted in earlier pulling Rafale out of the contest. Whatever it is, made Saudis pretty pi$$ed.. Looks like we might see Su-35s in Saudi Colors one day.. 😎

I think that technically Raffie might have won the Saudi contest, the rest is politics..

There is no evidence for the Rafale having technically won anything and there is absolutely no need whatsoever to rehash the perpetual Rafale versus Typhoon BS here either.

What is certain is that the Saudis are not interested in French kit at the moment, it could be as simple as it is not as good as it should be for the price, or a french guy could have drunk alcohol in the desert, who knows.

I cant see the Saudis getting Su-35’s, their fleet at the moment is looking very impressive with upgraded Eagles and Tornado’s and now 72 Typhoon as well. Now Pakfa on the other hand is a different story, if the Saudis stick with the Russian theme that is a real possiblity in the long term.

The problem was that it only seemed to be cheaper – in part because it was portrayed as little more than a major overhaul, when in practice, it was a complete rebuild. The rebuild program was a very shortsighted plan, i.e. the RN didn’t quite have enough money to buy new ones, so it went for the ‘cheap’ option. In practice, Ark and Eagle were still pretty beaten up by the late ’60s. If you look through Beedall’s pages on the CVA-01, it certainly seems clear that a Clemenceau sized carrier would have come in around the same price as the rebuilds.

The RN did want the Phantom though, I do agree with that, but the problem is that the Phantom would struggle to operate off anything short of 50,000 tons. This basically means that, in the absence of new large carriers, only Eagle and Ark would have a hope of operating Phantoms. Large new carriers, as we know now, weren’t going to happen. Smaller carriers, in place of the rebuilds, were very much doable, even within the limited budgets of the time. Also, it has to be remembered that even if Victorious had been rebuilt, Crusaders could probably have flown off her decks. The Victorious rebuild showed just how expensive the ‘cheap’ rebuild option was, so it would have been reasonable to cancel the other rebuilds.

It also has to be remembered that in the late ’50s, Mountbatten was still around, and pushing for carriers, so pushing through an order for Clemenceaus would have been doable. The problem was that the project just rolled ever onwards, with no real progress made (new designs, updated designs, but nothing really settled upon). By the time the CVA-01 came to the ‘go or no go’ point, Labour was in charge, and just said ‘no’! Clemenceaus would be at a much earlier point, being built in the late ’50s, and would have been in service by the early to mid ’60s.

One possibility that might have real benefits would have been the UK ordering too many, perhaps as many as five (not unreasonable thinking at the time), and then selling one to Australia. This would of course have allowed Australia to stay in the carrier business much longer, possibly even using Hornets off the ‘other’ Melbourne!!

Basically, cost reasons were valid, but they really didn’t favour either option – rebuilds were cheaper in the short term, but handicapped the entire fleet in the long term. New builds would have been a bit of a struggle in the short term, but have solved a lot of problems in the long term.

They really were cheaper, I dont have the figures at hand but I will try and find them later. They did not just appear cheaper they genuinely were, even Victorious which was the most radical of the rebuilds. Indeed such rebuilds were the RN’s only hope. The 1950s carrier design has had a bit of a renaissance of late, in reality it was only ever intended to be one ship and the metal for it was to have been provided by scrapping the Hunt class escort ships! The other factor that was a serious hamper to the RN’s building fantasys was a lack of dockyard workers and materials. There were serious complaints about how much steel was being used in military programs ad even when the metal could be found ships often found themselves waiting on plumbers and electricians who had been stripped from the dockyards to work on land based reconstruction, playing second fiddle to this was civilian shipbuilding with the RN at the bottom of the heap. It also needs to be remembered that the Victorious Eagle and Hermes reconstructions were very extravagant even for their day, type-984 for instance. Smaller carriers would have been just as hard to justify as big ones, esepcially the way that the RAF and government (not just a labour feature) anti carrier lobby was becoming effective.

Again I seriously recommend Vanguard to Trident.

It is a great pity that the RN didn’t get new carriers in the ’50s, especially given all the difficulties with the rebuilds. In the end, the UK paid for refits on Victorious, Eagle and Ark Royal, and yet none of them really lasted long enough to justify the significant costs. Hermes did last, but not as a fleet carrier, and ended up being modified a number of times. I do wonder whether Gannet AEWs could have operated off her had they left a side cat and arrestor gear on her, even after her conversion to Harrier carrier. This could have helped a fair bit in the Falklands!

I would argue that in place of the refits in the ’50s, the UK could probably have bought a couple of the French Clemenceau class. This obviously would have been a problem in terms of Phantoms (i.e. it would rule out Phantoms…), but the RN had originally looked at Crusaders, so it should still work. Although the Clemenceaus were a little on the small side, they could still have operated a reasonable airwing of Crusaders and Buccaneers. The other thing to remember is that Crusaders could have been replaced after 20 years by Hornets – Phantoms or Tomcats are obviously not an option, but Hornets were entirely possible.

The reason why the rebuilds were pursued was becouse they were economical, if new ships had been cheaper they would have been purchased. The RN always wanted the Phantom, to the extent that when they were told they had to have the P.1154 for the CVA-01 they tried to turn it into a phantom, massive radar, two speys and catapult launching.

And why not?

The builders, plumbers, bricklayers, electricians who constructed the house have all been paid and used that money to the benefit of their own families.

The local Curry’s or Comet have made a margin on the 30″ television which has supported the families of the staff who are far better employed than claiming dole.. The retailer had paid business rates that subsidise services for the local community. The profit is paid out as dividends to the shareholders, the bulk of whom are pension funds that will support people in their old age.

I really don’t see your point

Moggy

That is exactly my point, if a human beings posessions are to be limited to those that he can justify as a specific need then we would once again be descending down a path to all those utopias that perpetually sit just beyond reach for the misery that enforcing them courses. Human kind is a materialistic species it is one of the many factors that seperate us from the rest of the earths organism, it is why socialism never works and why if you were to put your average modern man into a wilderness he would survive only for a short period.

Think about it, what do human beings actually need? food, water and shelter depending on weather conditions, an attempt was made to strip society back to this in Cambodia………..didnt turn out so well.

The power pack is very good,but also suffer from overheating.I’m big fan of Soviet/Russian tanks and now is obvious that if western tanks want to lose weight and reduse their size,they must trow out the loader.Some facts for comparison.Abrams have 21 m3 of volume that need to be armored,Leopard have 19.6 ,Leclerc only 17.5 and T-90 with…11.04.So even with lower weight the armour level can be almost equal..Also the front panel is 2.7 m2 for Abrams,2.2 fo Leopard and 1.6 for Leclerc.

It is interesting that the new Korean MBT seems to follow the same approach as the french in that it uses a compact power pack and an autoloader to produce an over all smaller package but with comparable protection. It will be interesting to see what the Turks come up with, they are supposedly working on a new tank with Germany and it will be intriguing to see which route they take.

Basically the Leclerc is an outstanding tank, possibly a world leader, but it came at exactly the wrong time to be an export success.