Grim901Thanks for the info. To tell the truth i ‘ve never seen the Taranis next to something i can directly compare sizes. While in the Neuron there is this, which gives a good idea of how it compares to the Rafale:
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rv/le_bourget_05/imagens/dassault/17_nEUROn.jpg
You ‘re right about Global Hawk, it does have a very long range (though the potential problems i mentioned remain). But in an UCAV configuration, carrying weapons it would have to reduce its range.
Even better! I think the UCAVs can soon take at least a part of A2G missions without risking pilot lives. The technology exists for years. Maybe stealth UCAVs don’t fly yet operational, but non stealth do.
It’s obvious that the Typhoon for the forseable enemies of RAF or Luftwaffe, is enough. And that specially RAF, can theoretically ignore further A2G development and use it only for A2A. The only issue with upgrading faster is, winning export competitions (for example the very lucrative Indian contract i think requires the AESA and despite the fact that you can deliver it, i can’t help thinking that the Typhoon will get lower score in that part of the criteria).
Yeh it is a problem with Taranis that we solely rely on computer generated images right now, but that should soon change, flight testing is scheduled for this year. But we have been specifically told it is similar in size to the Hawk. I’m excited to see it and the possibilities for it’s evolved design in relation to whatever the successor is to the FOAS is.
The AESA is a shame, I think it is/was planned for T3 or possibly a later upgrade now, but the design work is pretty far along, having said that, the current array is still pretty impressive. I think that we’ve already offered it to the Indians for integration, maybe if the Typhoon wins MMRCA or another competition where it is needed it’ll give the partners some motivation to get it sorted.
Red somewhere that EF was the only aircraft in Singaporean contest that managed to take out 3 F16s and fly away, but later lost due the lack of A/G.
Obviously F15SG has been inaugurated politically, although it didn’t even passed the AA requirement.
It was always planned for early versions to be entirely AA, which was poor judgement in my opinion that has cost the UK time and money in adding the capability for use in Afghanistan.
Having said that, the AA is impressive. Apparently a Typhoon won a mock dogfight with 2 F15’s over Cumbria a few years back too. When it’s WVR/dogfighting, there are almost no aircraft that can match it.
Grim901I was absent for the week end but but I would like to point out firstly that I don’t understand what D-Day comes into this debate. I am highly respectful for every ally nation and I don’t have anything against Britain…I may be a rafale enthusiast just like you are a BAE/Typhoon one Jack despite your saying but that doesn’t make me a nationalist or british hatter. if I ever offened you then I appologize. Please just stick to the debate and aeronautics without any other considerations.
About the core of the subject, I would like that you provide as much evidences as in this report. To prove that the saudi arabian deal wasn’t affected by corruption is almost as hard to prove that the earth is flat… An international inquiry is not neutral and to quell an inquiry isn’t as well…The “scheme” of the corruption is well explained with smoke screen and secret accounts in tax haven with some hard evidences like “firm numbers”, “fund transfer” or various testimony from high ranking officials.
I don’t want to be dragged in an endless debate where we disagree all the time…It is just a waste of time for everyone.
If you want to be convincing, an idea would be to debunk all the points and argument raised in this report. I think you can understand a little french don’t you ? otherwise we can help you…I just wanted to point out that a if you disagree with this 1h report of this standard you need to do some serious work because honestly, even with a good sens of critics, this is really a quality investigative work. So you need more than unbacked/unchecked information you gave in your previous posts…
Obviously if you balance the credibility of your sayings and the report…The results is pretty obvious on “objective” journalistic criteriums letting appart our respective enthusiasm for aircrafts.
For the final time: The SFO inquiry had NOTHING to do with the Typhoon sale to Saudi Arabia, it related to a deal that occurred over 20 years ago under similar circumstances.
Grim901I didn’t know T23 used Phalanx? Must be one of its much vaunted stealth features :p
Aww hell I got mixed up. Sorry.
if your only gonna comment on the names :rolleyes:
oh heres my patrol boat. This is something I wish the UK had, ever since has sailors giving themselves up to Iranians I wished we had some of these, I would base them around the world. I dont need comments saying this is stupid im submitting it to the fantasy world section. I guess it could be similar to a Coast Guard cutter.
Ths picture has a helicopter – it wouldnt have one permenantly on board this one is transfering crew.
Its armed with a 57mm Bofor by BAE and two 50 cal’s
I like it, it’d be a nice thing to replace/augment the P2000’s with.
As for the C3 you showed, can you give details of the weapons fit, it didn’t look to good for C3 tbh, a VLS but only one gun? Ship looked nice though.
Grim901Warship hulls tend to last a lot longer than the equipment within them, and the Invincibles were designed on the principle of ‘upkeep by replacement’, meaning when something wears out you simply unplug it and fit a new one, engines included!
That amazed me the first time I heard about it. It just seemed too far-fetched. I remember seeing that documentary of Lusty last year when they actually switched out one of the engines while they were under way. Astounding feat.
But where would it get Harriers?
Us? Every other nation that is chucking them out in favour of shiny F35B’s.
We have some of the most advanced, GR9’s they could be refurbished for use after 2018, the FA2’s could be refitted too. That’d be a pretty formidable force mix for a small carrier, refitted/upgraded FA2’s supporting GR9’s. The Indians would be annoyed.
So all arming & fuelling is done on deck?
Yeh, same as on the new CVF’s.
Yes I was, the fatigue that Invincible went under in 1982 must have eaten a large hole in her structural lifetime.
As for the damage, there are all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories (even to the extent that a whole new invincible was built in secret by the yanks!!). But a persistent rumour is that a bomb passed through her super-structure without going off. I personally don’t see it myself, the famous hand-over photo of Vince and Lusty doesn’t appear to show any damage.
The ships were designed for use in pretty awful seas for quite long periods, similar to the current frigates. They were supposed to hunt for Soviet subs in the GIUK gap for long periods and ended up not having to for much of their lives. That’s why the Frigates didn’t need replacing by 2005 as thought when they were built, that must make up for a year in the South Atlantic.
Grim901joining this debate very late in the day, I would challenge the assertion that the USN is the most powerful ever seen. Its power is challengable and always has been. Throughout its modern (post45) incarnation there has always been a fleet/military/air-force able to stand up to it in certain regions, or certainly deny it immediate access. Surely the RN of the early-mid 19th Century holds this title as it was utterly unchallenged and could do what it liked?
That’s actually a good point. The Soviets might not have been able to control much of the seas, but they’d sure have given the the US a hell of a headache. All those subs and missile boats can be pesky beggars and it only takes one to get through to cause a great deal of mischief.
Of course no one is debating the fact that the USN is in charge and has been since WWII, but they’ve never had that total impunity that the RN did post-Trafalgar.
Grim901If the upgrades don’t get done then what? You have lots of half developed fighters that will in no way be suitable for front line combat in the coming years.
Well since a significant number are intended only for deployment for the defence of UK and Falklands airspace, that isn’t an issue for the entire fleet, against all current threats even the T1 is good enough. But if they were needed for combat (or there was a possibility of it) then funds can be made available at short notice, the need to fight tends to give a kick up the backside to the govt.
Hmmm see above….. But I agree they are not going to fund upgrades because they will not have money to do so after they buy T3. What should have happened (again like what is planned for the Raptor) is to take some of the money saved by not buying T3 and use it to develop and fund the procurement (yes I know the development has been partially funded) of an AESA radar, accelerate Meteor missile integration and bring all the T1 and T2 Tiffies up to T3 standard.
The problem with the MoD that is my main worry here is that, if we were to go ahead and give up tranche 3, the little money saved after our penalties would just disappear elsewhere to alleviate budget pressure, it wouldn’t suddenly become a Typhoon college fund. Like I said above, the current situation is snafu but we’re in it now, we need to follow the best course of action for now, which, for the RAF and Typhoon fleet is just to push on and buy the decent aircraft before all the funding disappears.[/QUOTE]
At least for Germany it does not matter. The need was for a defensive counter air fighter, which is to protect friendly airspace from intrusion. As an AESA is on the upgrade path and Captor is quite good in the current form, this is good enough for Germany. Same with the replacement for the Tornado fighter bomber wings. It will only be used in peace-keeping or stabilisation missions. And it will be good enough for that as wel..
Typhoon is hopelessly outdated for USAF (and most likely RAF) needs, but okay for the Luftwaffe.
As I say, a lot of the RAF’s need (don’t know exact numbers but I think it’s just over half of the Typhoons we deploy (123 total deployed) will be for defence of our own airspace. There’s no reason those can’t be the T1 and T2’s that won’t need as many upgrades to get them to a decent standard.
AFAIK the current UAV and few operational UCAVs, don’t offer good range or they offer medium range, but at very low speed for fuel economy. And aren’t as big as the newly developed drones.
A fighter-sizes UCAV is different, but i think the first UCAVs will be smaller sized (if i judge by Neuron’s dimensions). This will allow for smaller RCS even if you don’t apply a superwow stealth profile. Enough to make some of them arrive to the target. It will also allow to have many of them at a fraction of the cost of a real fighter.
In a more distant future, probably we will see fighter sized UCAVs.
With large range, there is another problem of UCAVs. The more it goes aware from its launching post and control station, the higher the probability that the enemy can jam the UCAV itself or the communication of the UCAV with your ground station. Also, the longer it flies in enemy territory the more it becomes vulnerable to enemy detection and thus to being shot down.
I think UCAVs are perfect, with today’s tech, to cover with low money and large number, a “shallow” area of your enemy land (up to 200 maybe 300 kms). The percentage of losses is justified by the inferior price and the distance isn’t so big to lose easily control of the drone. In the worst case that your enemy has enough jamming ability , once you are aware of it, you can always make your drones come closer to you before it’s too late and strike enemy targets closer to your front line or recall them and use them from a new direction.
The Taranis UCAV (and the Neuron I believe) are about the size of a BAE Hawk, that’s almost fighter sized. Remember that the Global Hawk has flown from the USA to Germany in one go, so intercontinental wouldn’t exactly be my version of short range.
Note that Taranis’ big brother will be along in a few years that will almost certainly be a size increase.
Just as a final note on Typhoon, not all of the upgrades that we are talking about as making it inferior are that necessary or need to be rushed, as the RAF force isn’t a one trick pony, we still have Tornadoes and Harriers to do a lot of the A2G work (See Afghanistan) and the F35 on the way in a few years that will be better suited to most of the jobs we’ve been talking about, as that what it’s designed to do. But if I were putting one up against a Typhoon I don’t think it’d be clear who would win.
Grim901Maybe it wasn’t designed to do the right thing in the first place 😉
Certainly it wasn’t designed to do as many things.
Apart from the Carrier variant, what can the Rafale do that the Typhoon can’t?
It’s a weakness in the light of the current atmosphere where Britain and maybe Italy don’t seem to be interested in an attack version of the plane while opting for a F35/EF fleet, while Germany wasn’t supposed to buy any. So does it mean Germany will be stuck to finance the T3/4 alone to replace their tornados? Are they going to be forced to buy the F35 too?
Britain went it alone for part of the original Tornado design, the German’s could do it here if they wanted to upgrade theirs further. And the RAF is interested in the attack version, but they don’t have funds at this moment, they will eventually. Had the programme not been international costs would have been higher (= less a/c and less capable probably).
Remember that F35 is an international programme too, on a much larger scale.
It’s not a Typhoon vs Rafale thread.
It’s a thread about suspicions in the swiss competition.
It’s not because we French have been called “Rafale fanboys” and because Rafale has been criticized that we must fall in this trap.
Has there actually been any evidence of a direct possibility of bribery in the Swiss competition or is it just about prior alleged dealings of companies involved?
Grim901Ok CAM didn’t know how to draw it.
Using quad packed CAM would be fine.
This is a design based on an ealier drawing I posted. I’m thinking adding another phalanx could be
To costly.
Possibly, but they usually tick to 2 or none, must be a reason for it. And remember that the Phalanx’s will just be transferred across from the T23’s, so not much cost involved since they’ll probably be FFBNW anyway.
Is the drawing based on a real ship/design?
Grim901naval scalp and aster 15.
Didn’t think Aster would be operating off it?
Is that design based on a current one?
I like it though, i’d just change Aster to CAMM for realities sake. Maybe stick a second Phalanx on.
Grim901It’d cost a bit (new lifts, I think), & we’re likely to have more decks than F-35Bs to go on them, so no real point for us. And who else who’s likely to get F-35B would want to spend money refitting a 35 year old ship for it?
Could be a short-term Harrier carrier for India, before refitting to an LPH, if the IN or anyone else wants one.
We’d be better off keeping Ark Royal as an LPH if we can somehow find the money to operate a second one, as she’s both newer, & already modified. Maybe someone else will want her for the role, when the RN retires her.
I hadn’t actually thought of the RN keeping her on as an LPH, I meant for a foreign customer.
I reckon if we had gotten our act together last year when the Russians were trying to screw money out of India for the carrier that we could have gone in and made a sneaky little sale. Who knows if it is going to be really late that window might still be open.
Allegedly they F35bs could operate from them, probably in quite a limited fashion though, rolling vertical landings or whatever they’re called probably wouldn’t be an option because of space limitations so bring back weight would be a problem.
I wonder if Pakistan wants a cheap and cheerful harrier carrier?
I had thought about that, with their constant paranoia about being outdone by the Indians you’d have thought they’d want a carrier. It’s a possibility. With the US funding them so much they might even be able to get some F35B’s to operate off it too. But it’s more likely they could use it as an LPH.
The only other remote possibility I could think of was Brazil, no real reasoning.
Grim901Stealth, lack of an AESA radar, external weapons carriage, not yet fully developed, future development prospects uncertain. Pretty much a one trick pony. Most do not have laser designators, IRST, and a host of other highly touted systems and they probably never will get them due to lack of funds. Why? Because you keep buying more than you need instead of developing the airframes you have to their full potential.
In short, it is nothing more than any other 4.5th gen fighter with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. Many of those weaknesses need to be addressed if it is to remain competitive against second tier air threats in the next 20 years. Will the funding be there? Sure it’s at the beginning of its service life and it’s already starting behind the eight ball.
Again this is not about the Raptor but I will point out to you that the Air Force wisely terminated it this year. Choosing instead to spend the money on a much more relevant, and flexible system.
I never said the Typhoon was unneeded I just think it’s not needed in the numbers being forced upon their customers.
We can’t really punish the platform for the Treasury and anti-defence mindset of the government. The potential is there, that counts for a lot. Hopefully in a couple of years the budget pressure will alleviate slightly and the upgrades will start being purchased properly.
I completely agree on the Raptor decision, it was wise. The last statement about unnecessary numbers I’m also inclined to agree with after having seen the plans for operational deployments of the aircraft it does seem like we have too many on the way (only need 123 operational + some spares) but the problem is that we are now procuring the decent multi-role versions that we actually need for current ops and I doubt that if we stopped buying them that the govt. would go back and properly upgrade the older craft to the same standard, so at this point i think the procurement should continue.
If I could go back in time and change it, i’d get rid of tranche 1 and have them build them at a higher standard to begin with so that the budget issues would never compromise capability, it’s a shame I can’t.
Grim901Yeah I know it’ll be some way of yet, they’re still some of the youngest ships we have. I’m thinking way off as C1 is winding down when the shipyards are running out of major work to do. With 2 full sized carriers in operation I wouldn’t really want to use one in the commando role like we used Ark Royal, they’re far too big and valuable, i’d build 4 new LHD ships. In the end that works out as equal to what we had until Invincible went out of service.
Grim901Illustrious will almost certainly have her out of service date postponed to coincide with QE being operational, anything else would be bloody daft.
Invincible, who knows? I can’t see too many customers out there if I’m honest, harriers won’t be operational for ever so that limits her future life to operating helos or maybe as a LPH, with some form of refit improving her internal layout for marines.
No possibility of it being refitted for F-35B’s then?
But as an LPH it could still be useful.
Grim901Except that we could build two LHDs half the size of CVF for a lot less than one CVF, if we built ’em to Juan Carlos 1 spec or similar. Considering the state of public finances, that sounds a lot more sensible.
Not the treasury’s version of sensible. They’d rather spring for a white bedsheet for troops to wave.
I agree though, we should go for a smaller class for the Commando role. Closer to the size of the Invincible class. Perhaps we could design it more like the French Mistral class or the new Australian Canberra class. That way one class could replace Ocean, Ark Royal, Bulwark and Albion in time.
Grim901But who knows, maybe our journalists will become much more aggressive when Brazil will order Rafale, when we’ll get the indian contract, UAE, Switzerland, Kuwait, Greece, Oman, etc. Maybe they’ll discover something strange after all… 😎
I lol’d. The fact you’re not competing in Greece or Oman and that you are barely able to stop yourselves being kicked out of India was partly behind it. Chances are you will win in the UAE though, no idea about Kuwait and Switzerland probably won’t even buy a fighter now.
Inferiority complex when the Rafale is a better overal system than the Typhoon by a long shot? Made without or minimal foreign help, with only french components and a MUCH better versatility than the Tyffie, and even at a lower cost despite france making only a third of the number of planes? Dream on
I’m yet to see much evidence that the Typhoon is worse than the Rafale, it does what it was designed to do very well. And I don’t understand why people keep using the fact that it is a multinational fighter as a sign of weakness. It was designed to be multinational from the outset for all the advantages that brings instead of costing the British taxpayer billions more than it needed to spend to replicate a capability that half of Europe also needed. I’m fairly sure Britain could build it’s own fighter if it was pushed to do so.
Also, it’s not fair to use the Tranche 1 and 2 aircraft as a comparison for versatility when they were designed to be built less capable and upgraded to the proper standard later to spread costs. The actual full capability tranche 3 (or 3B now) is a more accurate comparison.
That said I’d be happy if you guys ditched that F35 thingie and spent the buck instead on a really multirole tranche 3 with all the goodies to make it relevant for CAS/penetration missions.
I’d rather they stuck to the original plan and did both.
Sign In
