Anyone with a valid opinion?
EMBRAER’CEO recently stated on Tv that they hve been trying for long to get in the US defense market (last week I think)
in fact.. yes.
first, for the very reason thobbes stated – lack of superpower support should lead to pretty low level in AAA
– nations that go to war around the planet do so with internal politics in mind – they won’t start a war if there’s a danger of heavy losses. all wars in the last 25 years have shown the path: attack the weak and endlessly talk with the powerful…
for the powerful guys, there’s too much to loose in an open conflict between them… it’s just not worth it…
I strongly disagree but I do prefer your scenario for the only sake of those who wld be involved.
Actually, I worded that wrong, my mistake. I believe their next fighter will be manned, but France and the UK won’t be involved in a programme together. I see France going alone (or do what they done twice before – join, demand, not get what they want, leave), and the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain doing what they’re doing now. I also see Sweden going it alone too.
My cristal ball says that Mbb will surface again. Germans hve the tech, the $, the willingness and they are disapointed by all the partnership they hve been involved in. Let’s be honest, only their F4 so far hve fullfilled their expectations.
So as you said, Fr, a coalition ard BAE and Germany. Italians cld try to go their own way too and join a non-euro partnership.
If DEW’s aboard tactical fighters are successful and tactically significant as both an offensive and defensive weapon, i am sure many many air forces would re-look at their fleets. We may well need many many more bombers then fighters…basically take out the opponent before he can launch his babies…Larger crafts can also generate more powerful DEW and of course carry a lot more weapons.
Power does not Hve to be provided by the aircraft 😉
I agree with you and RpR in that we may never see major large scale conflicts between nations that have large mechanised military capabilities, but I don’t necessarily think it’s limited to nuclear armed states. I think most of this is due to politics than anything else, most of the industrialised nations are unlikely to fall into a point where they actually go to war with each other, at least not on the scale of WWI or WWII, e.g. I can’t imagine major European nations like France and Germany exchanging blows again, at least not in my lifetime.
That leaves smaller regional conflicts involving non-state elements, as we have seen over the past 15 years or so, for which A2A isn’t really a priority, and has been summed up by what’s been said already in this thread.
Let me guess: after the dollar painted A380, the new Airbuzz PR campaign would depict a lezard painted shark mouthed A330 with a dramatic load of Mica missiles and call it the ImperioCeptor or Napoleoraptor?
This is a quite massive order I would guess when 2/3rds of the fast Jet pilots will fly mostly training aircraft. About how many airframes are we talking here ? And how is this all going to be organized ?
A central training center for all those pilots or a number of trainers attached to each 2nd tier fighther squadron ?
While T-50 and M346 are obviously the most capable candidates, I would guess T-50 wins technical evaluation and then get’s thrown out for some bogus reason.
M346, Hawk et al are a bit expansive, I would think. The motivation behind all this is to reduce costs, right ? My bet is either M346 in partnership with RSAF or PC-21 on cost grounds.
The T50is rather expensive to operate and France wld needs ctrl over engine tech (service life expension for example).
A good point (my own guess) wld be a derated peace time mode with eco capability and “empty” airframe delivery (mothballed)
Another problem? How do you figure?
Not only is there a shortage of likely wartime partners that operate Su-27s, it would hardly be unprecedented for a Russian aircraft to be operated by an ally or a Western or even US aircraft operated by an adversary.
Indeed
considering that there’s often whining about this or that european air force not buying european, it would be quite strange to go for an airframe coming from somewhere else…
– A good candidate may be the hawk (yet, one may ask, “why buy the aircraft to the brits while they don’t buy from us?” (naval rafale for example) :p )
– another good candidate would be the M346,.. twin engined, good performer, and most certainly giving the ability to install systems that would allow operational training and, eventually, light warfare if needed
– PC-21 would be just a trainer, but would lack performance if France had the idea to use a “cheaper option” for “overseas operations” like in Africa, for example
For example, one could imagine a Rafale going downtown leading a patrol of lighter aircraft to have a combined strike (cheaper than the 100% Rafale package) with all the capabilities of a Rafale, and with more eyes and bombs (guided by the leader) over the combat zone. A turboprop may have difficulties following in such a scenario
Do you still think that in ten years the bad guys in an asymetric scenario will still hve only Ak47, old aden or bofor canons and religious song to throw at fast jets passing by?
Indeed, even by Bill’s standards that was a pretty disgraceful performance…
SU-35s are going to concede the first look and first shot, dodge missiles while closing to visual range and win in a knife fight? I truly hope that is what the badguys think they are going to do.
That’s funny. But all SU won’t be the “bad guys”… This is another problem that the F35 will hve to deal with.
So TomcatViP, now you’d like to shut this thread after opening a can of worms with specious arguments that you can’t back up? Well, I’m still playing.:D
Oh… I’am not tht kind of guys. If you would know me you’d know that I am the one that can redraw an entire study just because someone had a better idea or most cost effective one. Ego is the worst quality in the Engineering field.
So back to topic. Working with Antonov (especially for their ability to build cheaply large single billet aluminium spar) could hve been a very good initiative. Sadly IMOHO it’s too late now. We missed the train just as we let Ukraine out of Eu. Both were bad decisions.
Working around the C5M looks like a (rather costly) better option.
Untill someone (AKA the Russian Air Force) actually orders the AN-70 in numbers (there are only three firm orders from the Ukranian MOD, the dvelopment contract signed with the Russians covers… development) the SAAF would be entirely mad to go for this aircraft.
The An70 program failure (so far) is a big waste of capabilities. Sadly it might stand in history as one of those formidable prototype that never went into full production for whatever raison that are not-related to the plane.
Burns 90% of the fuel of a C-5 for 60% of the payload. That’s what a big thick ‘tactical’ wing will give. A wing that isn’t required for > 90% of missions.
How about a proper strategic airlifter to supplement the A400?
I think you hve pinpointed the problem. The all-In wonder does not match fleet wide needs.
It will be interesting to follow the next program actually taking shape.
Up to six An124 as stipulated in the contract (see sources)
@Sintra: thx for the info. Really informative
@all_readers: the thread shld either end itself here as it is or be pursued around the relatives merits of the A400 (with stepped capabilities) and the C17.
…The F-35 clean has all the targetting , EW stuff onboard and of course the ability to carry 2 x 2000 lb bombs and missiles.
And an exilirating engine for the pilot.
However the polemics aroundthe bigger wing (wich is normal for a plane that has seen such a change in the expectations of its users – remember the 16, the 4, the 86 and blablabla) makes me lean toward a slightly over weighted craft with not as good as expected transonic acceleration. But to say it again, slightly…
Ok lets look at it in 2006 Australia paid 1.5 billion dollars for 4 C-17 and have added 2 more at a cost of 560 million dollars total cost not including maintenance 2.06 billion
In 2012 the UK added another C-17 to its fleet at a cost 310 million dollars plus signed a 300 million dollar maintenances deal
Hummm… Didn’t UK bought its first two C-17 trough a (really) expensive leasing contract ?
India has just signed a deal for 10 C-17�s deal set at 5.8 billion dollars
There is some blur here as the price quoted by you is the one shown on the request to congress
The only confirmed price that I can (rapidly) find on google is the one stated by FlightGlobal (see the news section on KeyPub forum.
So where is 1.8 billion dollars for 10 C-17�s is coming from apart from dream I do not know
See above pls
France spent 160 million dollars to overhaul 10 C-160�s
Many European countries including the UK who has C-17�s have used An-124�s over the years
The SALIS program that involves 18 NATO and EU countries cost 200 million Euros a year all in to operate 2 An-124�s
Up to 6
Minimum hour is roughly around 2000. It does not said what was the real amount of hours flown. Company chartered are Ant and Volga
Sources :
SALIS : http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50106.htm
NSPA : http://www.nspa.nato.int/leaflets/docs/NAM_Fact_EN.pdf
So split between 18 lets say 12 million each and the lets say France pays a bit more say 20 million a year over 10 years that�s 200 million plus the 160 million for the overhaul of the 10 C160�s works out 360 million dollars just 50 million over the cost of 1 C-17
See above please + C-17 price that you used is from Wiki 2007
Lets also say using the augment that has been used on this thread that C-17 can carry more further then A400m so An-124 can carry more further then C-17
I am not saying anywhere that the C17 is a good plane. I am just pointing at the recent deal as a matter of possible opportunity. No less, no more.
So no C-17 is not and would not have been a cheaper option
When elephants are typing the bill on a pocket’s calculator, everything else looks cheaper.