pppRii: I honestly don’t think that the US companies (as they are now) could have a new fighter ready by 2030 – unless there are some severe changes in the relationship between state and industry (with lots of punitive spanking!)… them SHs will be soldiering on for some time yet.
Spudman: Did you find out if the possible F-35 remote control was what Turkey was referring to in the F-35 thread, that you asked about (re the codes/sovereignty issues)?
Remote control… lol. Sounds like an error in translation. For a start, there is no reason to fit remote controls to F35, but not F16…
Doubtful on two major issues.
1. Tech transfer
2. It would be carrier aircraft which is not what the Japanese want, need, or are willing to pay for (think about the cost difference between F-35A & C).
I think it would be possible to have a common design, I think the bigger problem is that ADX is a pure fighter requirement, whereas SH is intended to be a fighter/striker and F15E is very much a striker programme.
pppTo be honest talking about Typhoon was more about poking America into doing a better deal.
For the Americans its an easy bluff to call.
Yeah, there’s not much more ludicrous, hubristic and pure-marketing-BS than proclaiming something not even built to be a generation ahead… especially when it’s a generation ahead of a generation of planes that have yet to be actually tested in combat and over a decent period of time to see what countermeasures evolve… some things can only be meaningfully classified (and even then dubiously) in light of experience, with hindsight.
Anything claiming to be 6th Gen best be totally invisible (in all spectra) and have scramjets and lasers….
‘Yeah but, our next fighter will be so far ahead that it’ll skip the Gens 6-49 that lesser companies will end up building, and be 50th Gen!’
BS!
[Mmmm, this is in reference to Boeing’s ‘6th Gen’ mentioned, not the April Fool’s post.]
6th gen = autonomous UCAV IMO. The rest are just 4th or 5th gen, depending on criteria you want to measure them against, they all have many of the same features.
pppWhich is more important right now?
The fighter role is, because the Tornado GR4 can stay in service for another decade. The Tornado F3s on the other hand are on the way out and would need the airframe rebuilding. Same with the German F4s, those airframes are probably older than most people on this forum.
Block 5, UK only.
UK block 8+ and all other partner nations aircrafts don’t have a validated software supporting AtG modes yet.
Sure, but it’s the RAF version we are talking about.
i’m going to quibble.
here is my quibble: It is not correct to say that in any of the cases (SPain, UK, Germany or Italy) A2G was not needed.
It may be easy to suggest at the moment with Rafale ahead of Typhoon in the developmental curve (does that make it closer to obsolescence?) that Typhoon was never meant to drop bombs. But its simply not true.
I respect the right of Rafale fans to lurk in this forum, but i think you must lurk accurately!:)
Air to ground was always planned, but it was always going to be in the later tranches, and those later tranches were replacing strike squadrons. Tranche 1 was always a fighter to replace fighter squadrons. The RAF added some air to ground to T1 for a possible Afghanistan deployment.
pppThe Rafale begun its operationnal career (in 1999 or 2000, can’t remember) as a pure A2A (F1 standart) only for the MN (french navy), replacing -at last- Crusaders.
Now all operationnal aircrafts are F3s (new crafts or updated F2s). Still ~10 F1 in storage (Marine), to be updated.
About replacing the F1s : they don’t replace “only” F1-CT (pure A2G), but more capable F1-CR (CT missions + recce role) (and, partly, M-IVs) with the new Areos/Reco-NG pod.Cheers
Az’
Sure, but for the most part the Rafale has been replacing strikers, whereas Typhoon has mostly been replacing fighters.
pppIIRC Iceland’s air defence will soon be private.
Many Thanks
I think that is a fleet of aircraft for training services rather than an air force.
pppDid you just dare comparing total program unit cost (including development cost & all) to the unit purchase cost?
hahaha how low can you go? 😀
I don’t know how low Kovy can go, why don’t you go ahead and ask Kovy, who wrote it? He’s a member on here, though I doubt you’ll take that same attitude towards him, a fellow French, will you? :rolleyes:
Here’s his profile if you want to take it up with him…
http://forum.keypublishing.com/member.php?u=4309
Well go tell it to the Air Planners! I’m sure that they will be enthralled by your wisdom and immediately withdraw all the assets that you don’t see as being useful. :rolleyes:
TJ
Indeed
pppCould be local pylon limitations; any correlation to what pylon they use?
The Storm Shadows would be on separate pylons.
pppHalf that actually (sill 3x more than an enhanced Paveway II though).
That is what it should cost, what it is actually costing the French MoD is €351,158 per unit(1) 😮
Paveway IV is £30,000 per unit (E35,000)(2).
351,158 / 35,000 = 10.03
So, AASM costs 10.03 times more than the Paveway IV.
(1) http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/aasm-bomb-too-expensive.html
(2) http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/01/24/204244/paveway-assembly.html
Rafale is a better jet than Typhoon. Its capable of carry out air superiority and at the same time deep air to ground strike mission unlike Typhoon. Well done French!
It’s a shame politic ruin any sales of it overseas.
Really 🙂
pppI don’t really want to wade into this fight, but at this stage it’s pretty clear that the only aircraft still flying pure CAP in Libya are the ones that either can’t drop bombs (Mirage 2000-5) or from countries that have political restrictions (Qatar, Italy). Every other nation is flying muti-role interdiction sorties with F-16s, Rafales etc. because enforcing the no-fly-zone is simply not needed anymore.
AFAIK, that leaves the RAF’s Typhoons as the only glaring exception of a country with “multirole” aircraft that aren’t being used as such. So it’s not entirely disingenuous for some of us to ask why.
And the Typhoon are providing the air defence, with the Tornado providing strike, right tool for the job.
pppThe rafale can use paveway, aasm, scalp/storm-shadow, reco-ng, refueling pod, mica missile for air superiority and do it every day in operation. The typhoon is said to have a paveway capability but never use it… damn, what a aircraft.
Typhoon didn’t do strike because the RAF has a larger number of dedicated strikers in the Tornado available than it has Typhoons. Come on, this was gone over a page or two back, so why be so disingenuous? :rolleyes:
AASM ability to strike with a vertical trajectory and high speed can’t be matched by a paveway.
At the end of its flight, an AASM have much more energy to apply trajectory corrections. Conversely, in the same case, a traditional paveway has to trade accuracy for range.
The greater speed of the AASM is also an advantage : less time for the target to react.
… and 300,000 Euros each. Both AASM and Paveway are capable of carrying out strikes against the target set in Libya.
pppAs opposed to your own signature, obviously.
My signature is irrelevant to the debate, since its not part of the thread, but rather part of my signature, this applies to all signatures.
In any case, my signature is not trolling, since it depitcs early French UAV technology, the Dassault Petit Duc, one of my favourite aircraft as it happens. This is the complete opposite of trolling. If you would like to return the complement by adding a BAE Raven to your signature, I assure you I shall not object 😎
How can you imagine us to take you seriously with such a signature of yours ?
EDIT: burned by Das Kardinal.
Anyone coming on here to “burn”, “own” or do similar, is clearly a troll trying to “one-up” other members in the “comebacks” stakes… pathetic.
PPP,
1. First of all I am answering you without any provocations just arguments unlike another poster. You are overacting and over sensitive. It is not the WAAF here.
2. comparing AASM with pave-way is fine but there are significant differences which lead to a capability gap. The stand off distance is one of them. Bringing the High altitude SAM argument is quite weak. Why use expensive Tomahawk and other cruise missiles if there were no threats ? Also the Libyan conflict is one particular example but in even higher threats environments this stand-off capability is getting even more relevant.
3. Both rafale and typhoon can drop bombs…and also a Tucano which is a totally different bird. So you can’t say one is equal another just because they can drop bombs. There is the capability of the weapons like explain above but also the capability of the aircraft.
The rafale is here a better striker platform 1) because there are more AtG weapons installed 2) because it can take significantly more external fuel.
1. Calling a member “overreacting” and “sensitive” is a provocation. Further to those points, I am merely correcting false statements about the Typhoons capabilities. I notice some people are trying very hard to take everything into a different context or change the subject…
2. You cannot just declare an argument weak, simply because you feel like it. I am discussing the Libyan conflict, and the role of the Rafale and Typhoon in it, and within this context both the Paveway and AASM are completely sufficient to achieve the objective. We can sit here all day inventing scenarios in which one would be better than the other, but a tailored scenario will always lead to a tailored conclusion. One could equally invent a scenario where one needs the same precision capability, but at a lower cost, and then the Paveway would win hands down, but its nothing to do with the topic at hand.
My point about high altitude SAMs is highly relevant as for the extra standoff distance of the AASM to be an advantage over Paveway in the mission, the target must be able to attack the Paveway armed aircraft at medium to high altitude, and not be able to hit the AASM armed aircraft at a similar altitude, due the increased standoff distance offered. Clearly if this is not the case, then there is no advantage. Any extra capability that is not providing a decisive advantage in the capability to achieve the objective simply does not matter, and is merely clouding the issue.
3. Nice strawman. For the purpose of merely dropping “a bomb” from an aircraft they are actually all equal (Tucano, Typhoon, Rafale). The capability of the aircraft does not come into it, as you stated, it must merely be capable of taking to the air with “a bomb” and dropping it. Also in this category are hot air balloons and transport aircraft with a cargo door.
Any further objectors to my signature, feel free to direct your complaints to my inbox!
pppPPP : stop calling people trolls please.
To me, as far as I remember (I once learnt english) “closest… to” is a comparative. So, if someone compared Paveway to AASM, it was you.
You tried to diminish the differences between Rafale and Typhoon.
My initial post was :
And you said :
So, to you, Reco NG is insignificant, as the refuelling pod, as the capabilities of AASM as used in Libya (undocumented). Well, that’s a PoV.
However, my initial message was not here for comparison purpose.
WRT AASM and Paveway, I did not compare them, I said they are in the same broad category of PGMs (as opposed to being cruise missiles or ATGM). The context of this was the claim that the Typhoon could not perform a ground strike like Rafale did, when clearly it could, as Typhoon does have a PGM. Its not the same PGM, and the Paveway and AASM have their own advantages, but fundamentally they can both perform that given mission.
I am only calling them trolls because their statements are there not for factual purposes, but to provoke an angry reaction. I notice you didn’t object to the trolling by the French, but only to me complaining about trolling… And before you ask, here are some of their trolling statements:
Typhoon is so 5th gen aircrft, acording to the comercial PDF! :p
Don’t mind ppp, he’s just jealous.
Nic
pppHa 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
I think the F35Bs problems are tiny in comparison to the problems involved in getting a P.1154 to a half decent spec for the same mission. Nice idea though 😀
pppppp,
An AASM is a stand off, fire and forget weapon unlike pawevay. One rafale with 6 AASM can saturate an airfield in just one path from more than 50Km avoiding Libyan SAMs.
A Typhoon with its paveways would be much more at risk having to be much closer, to guide until impacts its LGB and the then select a second target, reposition, launch its second bomb, wait impact…and select a third target…etc etc …Not a very comfortable position if you ask me. It would be dramatically more vulnerable.
That is why except for CAS the Typhoon as close to no AtG use for the moment. It can’t take on defended target without taking a lot of risks.
Now prove to us that the Libyans had high altitude SAMs at the target airbases, and that that Rafale used the AASM against the air fields, sources for both claims, else they are invalid.
“Rafale is better than Typhoon, French is better than British”
assuming that eurofighter is “british” is even more as you said “irrelevant”
The troll is back and obviously can’t read English properly. Back to class for you, the two parts are separated by a comma and are atomic. Here’s another…
“Roses are red, violets are blue”
So the roses are blue now then? 😀
pppIt would have to be something unique, not any of these generic type aircraft. First choice, Avro Vulcan, its very unique, and a very beautiful aircraft. Next choice probably the SR71 for the same reasons as Vulcan.
As for updating them for the 21st century…
SR71: AESA recon radar.
Vulcan: Praetorian, high power jammers internally, computerised bombing sights, Storm Shadow, Paveway II & IV, AAR pod, new engines.
Sign In
