Yet again: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081208/118747597.html 😡

Condolences to the family… and shame on Russia for letting their boys go to sea in such a decrepid tub.

You’re not looking at the 2 aircraft as weapon systems though. The Typhoon may enjoy some WVR advantages, but….the F-35 is less likely to have to get into the WVR fight(which isn’t where you want to be anyhow). You’re also not taking into account how effective weapons/sensors are against a (more)conventional airframe vs. a VLO one. The F-35 is still more likely to have the element of surprise whether BVR or WVR, which is a huge advantage. That combined with a still very maneuverable airframe, HMS and HOBS missiles.
The question then becomes- does the % advantage the Typhoon might have in WVR offset its disadvantages? The F-35 is most always going to enjoy first look, first shoot advantages over the Typhoon, and a greater ability to hide. Those are pretty important capabilities that shouldn’t be dismissed.

All points well taken and I thank you for them, however all I was trying to do was to reply to Over G who was stating that the F-16 was a bomb truck. It was not designed as such. The F-35 to me looks like it has been built around the air to ground scenario first and the (notwithstanding considerable) air to air capabilities are secondary in that philosophy. Wing area, relatively poor rearward visibility and apparent g-limitations on the “C” variant all tell me that the designers did not start out thinking about air to air first. Typhoon simply put was.

Which is the better obviously remains to be seen.

Cheers

What am I asking?

Can the F-35 do everything the Typhoon can – if it can, the Typhoon was a very expensive mistake.

I would of thought that the emerging capabilities of the JSF would of been envisioned before the Typhoon contracts were signed.

Let the fanboys skewer me on this one but there is no way a glorified bomb truck like the F-35 will ever be the dogfighter the Typhoon can be.

A troubling development indeed when the RN can’t apparently spare one single Frigate for this work.

However I would not draw too many comparisons between the withdrawal of HMS Endurance in 1982 and this particular redeployment. In 1982 the defenses of the Falklands was essentially a company of Royal Marines I Believe. Today there is significant defensive infastructure there including Tornado F.3’s (soon Typhoons) and the ability to fly in reinforcements directly from the UK. Argentina is not going to sail into San Carlos Water tomorrow because of this, but it is a troubling development nonetheless.

Beware ALL THINK TANKS.

Every think tank in Washington DC has been set up to push an agenda of some sort. They are smart and subtle and you need to take everything they publish as fact with a huge grain of salt. They are often mouthpieces for interest groups or specific individuals that have the money to push an agenda.

CDI is just another example. American Enterprise Institutite, Globalsecurity.org and countless others from the entire political spectrum are all the same sort of thing.

Beware what you quote as fact when you do not at least, with all due respect, try and address the bias that the source in question actually has.

Amen!

Someone else said it first a long time ago, but I think it’s only too appropriate when dealing with the PAK FA. The very minute that picture comes out:

1) Someone will draw similarities of the PAK FA to the F-22/Typhoon/F-15E/Tie Fighter and declare it as a clear copy of an obviously superior western design, while using other copied designs (Tu-160, Mig-29, Su-25… pretty much anything if it has wings) as proof of evidence.

2) A russian fanboy will decry this claim, pointing out various features of the new aircraft that make it distinct, while proclaiming this new aircraft as the greatest invention since dirt and/or the harbinger of Jesus. It’s ability to do the Cobra-maneuver-times-eleventybillion will be a particular point of conflict.

3) The first person will begin a flame war with the second person so vast that it will raise JonJames and Star49 from the dead. This will be known as the Great Cataclysm of Keypublishing.

3) A third person will duly point out that the UNITED STATES copied THE RUSSIANS via the F-15 and the Mig-25, accusing the US of doing the very same.

3.5) Someone will, of course, call it a photoshop.

4) A person of intelligence will point out that similar intended roles generally result in a similar design, at some point using the quote “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” by the fourth page of the argument. This brave soul, though noble in pursuit, will quit the thread by page seven.

5) Someone will attempt to point out that looks don’t account for jack **** in the long run, and actual performance and capability is what actually matters. This person will, unfortunately, be unheard as the fanboys grind each other into permabannage and page closure.

This pattern will spread throughout all aviation forums; particularly in irandefense, acecombatskies, and any russian-based forum period. Prepare for anarchy.

EDIT: That being said, I seriously propose that the PAK FA Saga thread be split into two: One for pictures, news, and data about the PAK FA that comes in as a sort of database of information, and one for the actual speculation (a.k.a. inevitable flame war). Cause I dont feel like sifting through twelve pages of arguing to find the one post with actual meaningful information or news.

I want this post submitted for a Pulitzer Prize….As well I want all of us to copy the image below and feel free to drop it into the conversations from time to time when they go off the rails.

Charles De Gaulle Overhaul completed

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abf3058fb-00cb-431b-99a3-294921c39085&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

France is almost back in the aircraft carrier game with the Charles de Gaulle having completed a 15-month overhaul period. The aircraft carrier underwent 2.5 million hours of work. The overhaul was led by French shipyard DCNS.

Now, ship and aircrew are going to train up again to redeploy on their carrier. While the Charles de Gaulle was out of commission, the French navy kept crews carrier qualified in part by training with U.S. Navy carriers It also deployed Super Etendards to Afghanistan.

The Charles de Gaulle received notable system upgrades during the past months, including the ability to use the new Syracuse III satellite communication system and to accommodate and support the Rafale F3 standard, the ASMPA nuclear cruise missile (yet to be fielded) and the Rafale-launched Scalp-EG cruise missile.

The overhaul cost €300 million. The overhaul period left France with limited force projection means. It also highlighted the problem of having only one aircraft carrier. A decision on whether to buy a second aircraft carrier is not expected until around 2011, although industry officials aren’t optimistic the investment will be made.

…Personally, I think the Rafale would be a go choice for India. Thereby, keeping the US and Russia in place…….Yet, I still believe the Super Hornet is going to win.;)

Agree fully Scooter. India to me is where Rafale is most likely to break their duck. What I think makes the Rafale more likely for India versus some of the other countries that have been linked to it is the high esteem they hold the Mirage 2000H in. It performed extremely well in the Kargil conflict a few years ago and by all accounts the after market support they have received from Dassault has been quite good.

Boeing can certainly not be seen as a slouch in after market support, but with hardly any American kit to speak of in the inventory the Rhino looks like more an unknown to them.