The first order will end 2018 probably. But Tr1s will eventually be replaced, which will entail a new batch probably.

Is anyone even talking about such a plan?

The Typhoon’s incredibly high costs have effectively gutted European force structures already.

hmm, that is so non-sensical that I have to call on that one. So do you have a quote to prove that you’re not bluffing?

It was MSphere’s claim, it isn’t my business to go argue his case for him.

Frankly, I don’t. That doesn’t look like the claims I am usually doing..

Can you see me asking for quotes? I know exactly what I have claimed for the last ~10 years..

I remember when you said Norway would drop the F-35 in favor of Eurofighters as soon as an AESA road map was ready for the Typhoon.

Didn’t work out that way at all did it?

You were also 100% wrong about Turkey agreeing to co-develop a true 5th gen fighter with France using the Rafale as a starting point.

Without a doubt you have the worst track record on this forum.

Nice nice.. Spudman, hopsalot, djcross and now FBW.. a gang gathering like that, only because of me?.. 🙂 I am flattered..
so guys, where is your “almost F-22”? 🙂 still waiting to see it.. 🙂

I know this would violate your policy on having sources to support your assertions, but care to produce the quote where I made any such claim?

I didn’t take it as such 😉

It’s more about out friend hopsalot who got all excited about the capabilities described while the text, in its formulation could apply to capabilities he (and others) claimed to be impossible

What is it exactly that I claimed was impossible?

I think everyone agrees that 5th generation fighters can make 4th generation aircraft more effective by taking on specific tasks the 4th generation aircraft can’t and by sharing their superior situational awareness.

Maybe but I see the UCAV, when it comes, as operating at similar ranges to the F-35 to designate targets and if anything, the manned platform should be the thing that holds back out of harm’s way. I’m also not completely keen on full-out replacement of the Typhoon with a UCAV because I’m not totally comfortable in getting rid of the Typhoon’s dog-fighting ability, just in case. I agree that dog-fighting is probably going to be a rarity, if at all, but you never know, **** happens etc. There’s also the issue of carrying cruise missiles, the F-35 can carry them externally but then that compromises the stealth and it’s a waste of an stealth asset to conduct a stand-off attack, so the Typhoon is better used in that role, whilst the F-35s do the close-in work. If we were talking about something more manoeuvrable like the F/A-XX probably will be, then that has potential to replace the Typhoon and by then (2030s) we may well have a Storm Shadow/PGM carrying stealth UCAV as an interdiction platform against fixed targets, but also with an ISR and potential SEAD role, whilst the F-35B and F/A-XX or FCAS air superiority element conduct strike against mobile targets, CAP and CAS. Until then the F-35 will be a great asset to Typhoons and the RAF. It makes since to use the UCAV for strike and ISR because, as an unmanned platform, the fuel fraction and range are likely to be considerably greater than manned/optionally manned platforms. And it makes since to send unmanned platforms at double-digit SAMs on day one, rather than manned ones. While ideally you want a manned platform for moving vehicles and CAS, where a higher level of intelligence and situational understanding is required to avoid friendly fire and collateral damage, apply RoEs and liaise with ground forces. The UCAV could potentially also become involved in CAP and CAS, but only with control and target selection from manned platforms or ground troops. Not keen for it to select its own targets.

But it would be a limited ability UCAV with an invisible wire attached and I see a different role for the UCAV. I see it as being something that can conduct pre-programmed strikes on fixed targets and enemy SAM radars independently. I.e. groundcrew receive target data from command, they feed the co-ordinates in and it flies to within launch range via a fixed route but with some scope to change path to avoid threats, then it either drops a PGM or fires a cruise missile. Or groundcrew feed in intelligence about enemy radar locations and types, and it goes off, finds them and fires a SPEAR/HARM, or whatever they’re using in 2035, at them. Or it drops 4 Fire Shadows off to find them or other specific targets. This would save a fortune on long-range cruise missiles and today it seems kind of senseless crashing what’s essentially an aircraft with a warhead into fixed target, when it could drop the warhead off and come home with marginally more intelligence (in more ways than one).

The other thing with the limited capability UCAV is that it’s entirely reliant on the datalink. Sure MADL is a great datalink, but just maybe it could one day be jammed, even if it’s with very crude noise jamming at very high power completely blocking everything.

Of course it comes down to what you want the UCAV to be…

If you want to put an F-35-like sensor suite into it, and F-35-like stealth, and F-35-like range and carrying capacity… then you will end up with something F-35-like in price.

Now the F-35 isn’t nearly as expensive relative to its peers as people make it out to be, but very few forces could afford to buy meaningful numbers of UCAVs at $80+ million each.

Now imagine a more basic UCAV. It would need to be stealthy and might benefit from a supersonic dash capability if air to air combat was a missile, but would have only a basic sensor suite. Its job would be to act as a compliment to the F-35. Such an aircraft should be cheaper to buy and operate and a lot less technologically ambitious in general.

Obviously stealth isn’t transferable but with this ‘wormholing’ ability and the ability of F-35 to designate targets whilst a Typhoon sits outside enemy engagement range with Meteor, it makes 4th gen aircraft non-engageable, which effectively means the same survivability as 5th gen but only when operated together. Yes, the UCAV would also provide a missile carrying platform, but then it could also be used to bring a similar capability to an F-35 and highlight targets for other fighters. I think it’s more likely a Typhoon will be replaced with F/A-XX or an equivalent joint European 5th gen project of some description.

No question operating with an F-35 would make a Eurofighter a lot more lethal. The point in saying that a UCAV could act as the mule is that the UCAV wouldn’t need an exquisite sensor suite. A fairly basic, albeit stealthy, UCAV airframe would be substantially cheaper to procure and operate than a Eurofighter.

Exactly but an alternative platform isn’t likely to be available or affordable until around 2030-2035. At say 200km, the enemy may or may not detect the Typhoon through the jamming, but being able to actually target the Typhoon at that range with a radar lock is unlikely and there are few missiles capable of making that journey at 30-40kft even if they did (R-37M?). Meanwhile F-35s at 100km range can happily target the aggressor all day long and guide the Typhoon’s Meteors to their targets, whilst also launching missiles of their own. And if there’s one thing a Typhoon can do well it’s accelerate and climb, to provide the missile with the maximum kinematic advantage. I also believe MBDA and Mitsubishi are involved in work on an AESA equipped Meteor for the F-35 and Typhoon/others.

2030-2035 is the timeline you would expect for an all-new manned platform. If they kept the scope of the project under control a stealthy UCAV could be ready in around 10 years. Aircraft like the X-47 have already demonstrated most of the key technologies.

and another thing….

Lets say that FCAS is the genuinely LO asset that France needs (rather than pretending that the Rafale is an LO design). Well if we are suggesting that the Rafale finds targets and hands them over to the UCAV to deal with, then is that not the opposite to how the UK will be using the F35/Typhoon combination?

If the RAF is going to use the F35 to find targets discreetly then get the Typhoon to use its superior weapon carriage to deal with them (as evidenced by the report I just posted on the F35 thread), are we not seeing a divergence of requirements?

I think it likely that this system will not need Rafale or Typhoon to hold it’s hand and will in fact be a genuine LO force multiplier rather than a fancy remotely piloted vehicle. Just look at the emphasise the UK has placed on Taranis being independent when its in hostile territory.

I would be much more prepared for a genuine game changer here rather than thinking that Rafale is the be all and end all for French fast jet operations for the next quarter century.

But which layout facilitates that best?

You are exactly correct. The Rafale has neither the stealth nor the sensors, nor the datalinks of something like an F-35. A Rafale may be able to conduct strikes in defended airspace using a combination of standoff weapons and risky low-altitude tactics, but this is the exact opposite of what would be necessary to act as the sensor package for a larger force. For that role you need an aircraft that can see without being seen… and relay what it is seeing to others without revealing itself.

For an F-35 operator a UCAV with a fairly minimal sensor suite could work very well. All it would need to do is act as a mule delivering weapons to targets that have already been detected and identified by an F-35. A Rafale operating a safe distance outside of defended airspace (or flying at treetop height) won’t be able to provide similar support.