At least in the case of the Gripen it’s a stretch considering it’s a follow-on to the canard-equipped Viggen which was designed in the late 50’s/early 60’s. 🙂

Ah, sorry I mixed some info then. I should take better care when scribbling notes. 6x R27ER instead then, add another ton to the combat load.

Oh and just so any passers-by won’t think I was promoting the baseline Su-33 in comparison to the western fighters, we were just trying to find the combat load when taking off from the stobar Kuznetsov. This was interesting in regards to Bager1968’s what-if idea of putting the Flanker on a catobar carrier.

(Ie if India had decided to take a riskier approach than having Ficantieri build them a 40kt stobar carrier with the MiG-29K, instead going for cats and Su-33MKI. But then you have the problem of balancing carrier footprint versus capability, since it’s a 22 metre aircraft with a folded wingspan that’s nearly as long as the non-folding Skyhawk.)

arthuro, really? I’m surprised, considering Dassault’s website says they build all Rafales with CFT capability. I guess it means they do this on their own initiative with export in mind. At any rate it’s nice for the French forces to have the future option to plug in the CFTs without having to rebuild the airframes.

P.S. Turbinia, you are of course right in that the F-15 is still a top-notch performer, but when comparing the F-15 to any newer jet, you also have quite high maintenance costs. A SH is reportedly very easy and cheap to maintain. The cost/hour to maintain the Rafale was posted on these forums a little while ago and were lower than the costs for the F-16 (it seems SNECMA have focused on low maintenance requirements for the M88).

For S.Korea it made very much sense to get the F-15 since you’ll have USAF Eagles operating from their bases if something happens with N.Korea, as well as USN-escorted convoys crossing the pacific with spare parts and munitions. (Very off-topic now) This in addition to the fact that it’s an excellent combat aircraft made it the best choice.

For Greece however, the Rafale would be a good choice in my opinion. They’re already using the M2000 and it would be easier to integrate the Rafale since the support structure with Dassault and Snecma is already present. They can also use the MICAs already existing in their inventory without any integration cost or headaches.
Similarly, the Typhoon was a good choice for Austria since they would be able to use German training and support centres.

I know that using logistics as a criteria is a boring way of choosing which fighter you’re going to choose. 🙂 But as arthuro says below, they’ll all be well suited for the missions they’ll be doing.

I was under the impression that the UK carrier design was modular and could be reconfigured for a CTOL aircraft if needed. Plus, codevelopment and coproduction of the carrier with France would be cheaper than going it alone.

As for the aircraft, the Rafale-M is already developed and in production. It’d be cheaper to procure them than to develop and produce a navalized EF-2000, and it’d be available sooner.

Additionally, the EF was reportedly unsuitable for carrier ops. My impression is that this was the main reason for Dassault to break off, to build an aircraft for naval aviation. Apparently the intake configuration was important in this regard. Also, they’re all built for CFTs even though the land-based flyboys won’t be using them, for instance.

Sorry for the offtopic post in this very interesting thread, but I noticed Doug97 wondering in an older thread why the French broke off from the EF project and this seemed a good opportunity to say it wasn’t about being stubborn towards the neighbours.

They’re reportedly taking off from the Kuznetsov with ca 6000kg (65%, the internal fuel space is smaller than the land-based Flankers) of fuel and 6 R77 (175kg each), 2 R27ET (343kg) and 4 R73 (110kg), total ca 8176kg.

Regarding the western fighters. With the S.Hornet, it seems to me that you have a politician’s airframe (compromising performance to make it attractive to the politicians) with a pilot’s avionics kit that befits the USN – no compromise, state of the art.
Unfortunately today’s political climate has led to a company capable of creating top performers such as the Phantom and Eagle, having their hand forced by the politics game and creating a lackluster airframe. Good thing Boeing bought them because this airframe isn’t up to par in McDonnell-Douglas’ excellent line of heavy fighters.

On the other hand you have the Rafale, a pilot’s airframe with a politician bean counter’s avionics kit. They had to cut some planes from the Rafale order to secure funding for the AESA, and the M88-3 wasn’t ready for the F1 batch either.

So there you go, in my eyes two flawed packages, but then most military programs are. Now what does your western CVSG with more or less highly developed NCW, Hawkeyes, datalinks, the whole package, benefit the most from? Superior all-round avionics of the S.Hornet or the superior airframe of the Rafale? These days, the most advanced fighter you’re likely to end up fighting is a MiG-29A or a F-14A that hasn’t been supplied with spares for 30 years. More likely you’re going to bomb their hangars. I’d say avionics and pick the S.Hornet, for what it’s worth, but then I’m just an armchair general of the 103rd Keyboard division.

However the Rafale’s AESA and full weapons integration might or might get enough funding to be introduced in this decade. Rafale could become a lot more attractive in 3 years or so if Thales’ AESA and Sagem’s PGM developments come through. If I’m building my carrier hulls now, they’re not likely to enter service for a while so I can to wait those three-four years and see what happens.
If I have carrier hulls floating right now and I need some planes to put on them, I’d grab the S.Hornet.

As for the Flankers and Fulcrums, if you want to compare these STOBAR fighters to the western CATOBAR fighters you have to take into account that you can fly these things of a small carrier. If you’re operating a CdG or CVF, that benefit is obviously wasted.
(Edit: After reading Bager1968’s post which was posted while I was typing this, you have yet another variable in that a cat-capable Flanker could be a possibility. You’d have to front the test funding yourself, though.)
The Su-30MKI has already exemplified that you can fit a modern western and Israeli avionics kit on the Flanker.

A Flanker is also 22 metres long, now that’s a big footprint for your primary carrier aircraft. A CVF can handle 4 Hawkeyes and 36+++ F-35B/Rafale (15x10m), now how many of those 22×7.5m flankers are you going to be able to field on your CVF?
(There are CVF deck and hangar plans with the JSF on Beedall’s Navy site so with some rulers or an editing program you can actually draw some Flankers and find out, but I’m too lazy for that right now. 🙂 )
Then again, the extra 7 metres come with benefits to the air frame, and maybe these benefits to the individual air frames will outweigh the cons of operating a smaller air group.

The Su-27K is apparently capable of taking off from the Kuznetsov’s skijump, with a short run, with a combat load of fuel (50% or was it 60%?) and 6+4 AAM. As a striker however, it’ll obviously be lacking in comparison to something launched from a 75-metre catapult. The Russians only wanted them for fleet defence anyway, so this was a good solution for them.
(Edit: This was already covered by Bager1968 but I typed this before seeing his post.)

Logistics. Newer jets like the Rafale and SHornet are going to be cheaper and easier to maintain. More planes in the air when you’re surging.

Of course you also have the political aspect. Do I want to move towards the US sphere of influence or the EU SOI? Both? In that case, if I get SHornets, I’ll buy some Horizons or Type-45 or De Zevens to escort my carrier. Or maybe I’ll buy Rafales and get Arleigh-Burkes for escort.