Last I heard, it’s the A-10’s specific mission profile that’s going (given high volume of MANPADS etc that can dominate the low-level attack airspace) – so the F-35 will accomplish more or less the same thing but from higher altitude and using LO/electronic defenses, rather than toughness and armour etc, and ‘cheap’ munitions rather than mighty Avenger.

Then again, they said that the F-16 would replace the A-10, back in the day, and A-10’s still here….

I’ll see your opportunity cost of silo space and raise with oportunity cost of the space that some of these UCAVs will be taking up on CVFs/CVNs.:)

Ah, but what if a DDG has to divert in order to get within TLAM range, and therefore gets hit with an SSK’s torpedo or AShM?

The costs thing’s always a ‘mare, especially when we’re never given accurate and honest figures, but I just can’t see that there’ll be much of a cost saving involved, especially when you start losing your UCAVs for one reason and another – again, they’re still worth having for other reasons.

The UCAVs being ‘cheap’ comment wasn’t aimed at you specifically at all:) – but they’ve always been peddled as such generally… my head nearly fell off when I first came across the Global Hawk’s price!…:eek:

The planned derivatives of Taranis/Neuron could have done all that sea-launched TLAMs have just done in Libya using cheaper weapons. The TLAMs were used to degrade Libyan air defences, to avoid putting manned aircraft within range of possibly dangerous SAMs.

From the (as always) approximate numbers around, I doubt that such a UCAV dropping cheaper munitions will be cheaper than the same number of TLAMs fired.

Factoring in maintenance, fuel, remote piloting personnel and necessary sat bandwidth, it might just be about the same or even a bit cheaper – until you lose one or two of these (heinously expensive) ‘cheap’ craft.

I can see them having valuable roles to justify their existence, but being cheaper than cruise missiles won’t be one of them.

H_K: Cheers for the info on the lovely Mistral and Tonnerre: You’re great!

Re: Mistral Class aesthetics: Yup, I can totally see the other side, but I love ’em from an SF-head and design point of view. She’s about the nearest thing to an SFnal Space Fighter Carrier I’ve ever seen in reality, and how – despite being the opposite end of the scale from La Fayette – she shares some motifs, so you can tell that they’re from the same ‘faction’ (that unified look that you get in design but rarely see in actuality), their forms precisely following their functions… so you get a sense of their relative sizes, scales and purposes without needing any external to compare them with.

Just in case anyone’s interested….:)

Sorry if this has been gone into elsewhere but I’m doing my best (with the limited time at my disposal): Are there any reasonably firm plans to upgrade Rafale to a NG type of level, if anybody wanted that?

Any ideas on specs or artists’ illustrations or anything, or how it could out-compete its potential rivals (especially where F-35A/C is concerned)?

Or is there a sort of gradual improvement ‘roadmap’ instead?

All info (even the possibly doubtful, fanciful or overly-optimistic) greatly appreciated.:)

Cheers H_K for the great pics and the link to the little tugs.

I’ve found that the Horizon/Daring shape is an acquired taste – but I’ve more than acquired it!:) Handsome and proud ships in my eyes.

I’d imagine that a La Fayette has already come in fairly useful, given her speciality? I’m a huge fan of these handy and pretty ships, and their offspring.

On a superficial note, leave it to the French to have assembled the best looking force since we all got rid of sails (IMO)… a group shot of CdG, a Mistral, Forbin and a La Fayette would make my month… especially if it included a fly-past of Rafale, Mirage 2000, Panther and NH90… if anyone could arrange that for me….:D

Ha ha – great topic!:)

My mind’s going in the same direction as others’:-

Practicality: P.1154 (early supersonic Harrier idea), a bit stealthed up but relying more upon electonic systems to keep it safe. Fills the A-4 role mentioned (and/or cheap but decent CAP role) and acts as an insurance policy (and good healthy competition) should F-35B’s problems be unresolvable – as money gets tighter, folks will be looking more towards STOVL Carriers/Sea Control Ships (than CVFs), and this is a cheap plane that allows them to do so.

Practicality and Romance: Ahhh, flying boats!:) In my heart the quintessential flying boat is the Short’s Sunderland… ahhhh…. [Love the Catalina too though.] We poor Brits need some MPA capability after all, and I guess that they’d be pretty good at fighting pirates and whatnot.

Pure, Ludicrous, Outrageous Cool!: SR-71/YF-12 or XB-70 (or some synthesis of the two for bonus points). Give them hypersonic (low RCS) ASMs that can be released at top speed to give even pretty good anti-missile defences a hard time to stop them in time… particularly nice for maritime strike against premium targets.

It’d be an excellent ASat missile platform too, or first stage for your own modest space payloads. It could also function as the LR AAM spam platform talked about in the B-1 thread.

Spendy but your country gets some serious bragging rights – you auto-win any… measuring contests!:D

Yup, it’s tricky without the actual numbers – that’s why what I’m saying is more in terms of the spirit of rather than letter of… as it has to be at this stage.

But we can be a bit more apples with apples: the niche is that which was filled by the F-16 as was (not the bloated monstrosity it is now); pre-E/F Hornets; and Harriers. The cheap and numerous (though capable) ‘low-end’ plane that bulks out your airpower; and the small and cheap STOVL plane.

You might say that the likes of the F-15 are the next niche up, and SH a half a niche up (not sure what the F-16 as it is now is supposed to be…), which (the SH) isn’t being fully replaced by the F-35C so isn’t too relevant (as far as the USN is concerned).

I’ll give you a far broader margin when it comes to the costs of F-35B vs Harrier, since if the B can do everything that it’s supposed to (…) then it really is a ‘quantum leap’ in capability that’s hard to put a number on – so we’ll leave that for now (though it’s the variant that I’m most interested in personally).

What you’re missing is that we’re looking at an analogy of the F-16+F-15 or early-F/A-18+F-14 low-high mix – JSF was always intended to be the cheap/low partner to the highs. It now costs the same as the highs, so has fundamentally failed in one of its core specifications (the one that informs all of the others).

It’s no good pointing to the F-4 to F-15 to F-22 progression, since the high niche follows different rules: it must be the best fighter in the sky bar none, whatever the cost. At its core is an absolute, all else being secondary, so costs can be allowed to spiral without too much impact (within reason).

But if Affordable is a core attribute, then cost can’t be allowed to spiral, clearly. It’s not the absolute best, but the most cost/effective – you buy an adequate capability per plane coupled with adequate numbers of them: both sides of that equation must be met. Once it costs more than highs, you should buy highs instead, obviously; or look to competing aircraft that cost what lows should, in order to procure as many planes as you need (or both).

Sorry, that’s all a bit more rambling than I’d like: Point is I’m not so much concerned with US F-35 procurement, since it has enough buying power to make it work, to some extent, one way or another (and a lot invested in it, besides money); but more with the other ‘partners’ who have tighter budgets and are now realising that this JSF malarkey ain’t what it was cracked up to be… who are now looking to other options – that being the most powerful argument against the programme’s meeting its specifications (Affordable being the key balance to the others).

[By the way Spudman (or anyone else who this applies to), I hope I don’t seem impertinent but can I ask what it is about F-35 that you’re particularly attracted/attached to? It’s not its looks I’m guessing….:D I really am genuinely interested, if you don’t mind.:)]