MarcellogoSlow? They are running like never had before and from different fronts all together: it’s only that there is a whole lotta distance betweem Palmira or Khanaser to Deir.
MarcellogoWell, Rafales operates from Charles de Gaulle without any problem, so it just work.
Viggen and Gripen take off and landfrom motorways also, so I think we can take it as a matter of fact.
MarcellogoYes , this allow not just better performances but also help to solve the issue that hopsalot has highlighted, allowing a shorter landing run, more security and the possibility to be used on carrier.
MarcellogoAnd that is the reason because from 1970 onward (with Viggen) they have begun to put canards or even more simpler strakes (like on Mirage 2000) on them.
So we are discussing on an issue that was solved more than 45 years ago?
Marcellogo@ VNomad
I will publish there a direct excerpt of wikipedia to highlight the level of your ignorance on european fighter matters:
Escadron de Chasse (Fighter Squadron) 1/7 at Saint-Dizier received a nucleus of 8–10 Rafale F2s during the summer of 2006, in preparation for full operational service (with robust air-to-air and stand off air-to-ground precision attack capabilities) starting from mid-2007 (when EC 1/7 would have about 20 aircraft, 15 two-seaters and five single-seaters).[110][115]
In 2007, after a “crash program” enhancement six Rafales were given the ability to drop laser-guided bombs, in view of engaging them in Afghanistan. Three of these aircraft belonging to the Air Force were deployed to Dushanbe in Tajikistan, while the three others were Rafale Marine of the Navy on board Charles De Gaulle.[116] The first mission occurred on 12 March 2007, and the first GBU-12 was launched on 28 March in support of embattled Dutch troops in Southern Afghanistan, marking the operational début of the Rafale.
So, the first A2G engagement of the Armee de l’Air’s Rafales happened even before that its first squadron reached full operational status: you are making confusion with the Marine Nationale, whose first version featured just air-to-air capability.
Armee of Air preferred to wait instead other five years without any acquisition to have a fully capable multirole fighter from the start.
For the rest, if you consider the Tornado to be a multirole fighter just because the initial program phase went under the name Multi Role Combat Aircraft (that had a totally different meaning in this case) I despair that we well ever sort this thing out.
Marcellogo@Vnomad
Again, UK is UK i.e. just one of the partecipant to a multinational project not Europe, all others have not implemented any of such capabilities until much later. Typhoon entered service in 2003 so there were more than ten years of production before having them added.
-Wrong example. F-15E is not classified as a multirole plane but as a strike fighter in USAF nomenclature i.e. the same niche category of F-111 and Tornado. For the rest you are right both it work two way, multirole plane is a concept quite peculiar to USA not a worlwide standard at all.
Yes, I know that with this last one I’m DEFINITIVELY going pedantic but allow us poor europeans to feel quite in Dire Straits between RussianSTRONK!ism and That’s Murica converging attitudes and so have to keep the point for such a long time.
Large multinational programmes were a way to gain scale economies and so to save our own autonomous industrial capability, they surely doesn’t worked as planned as our external politics are too different (Uk are warmongers and German pacifist) , our spending attitudes are vastly different (Germans are obsessed by their budget, French by their Grandeur), our operative doctrines are totally divergent (France is practically a single plane airforce from the sixties, AMI would keep three different model of plane also with the F-35) and THANK GOD FOR THIS! as we are indipendent nations, with our own instituctions, language and even civilization, not some sort of minority partners of a multinational firm.
With all the problems we had and all the waste this basic objective was in any case achieved and let me add, it is not that F-22 and F-35 programs are such a so shining examples of efficiency, cost saving and timely deliver to allow someone an higher moral ground on that matter.
Now back to main topic, please.
MarcellogoAlso in this case , it doesn’t need to be too one sided .
The choice of converge all into the F-35 program was also a result of a perceived gap about stealth technologies seen as impossible to cover up indipendently, more than by some diabolical plan made by bad, bad americans.
So jumping all on the F-35 bandwagon was considered the most viable solution by many, above all by those partecipants that have not a proper aereospace industry and would otherwise forced to buy a foreign designed plane anyway.
Marcellogo@Vnomad
This is just a wrong assumption from your part.
Typhoon was conceived as an air superiority fighter, whit eventual A2G capability to be added just in the 3rd tranche production.
This was a source of a lot of quarrels between the three main country involved: UK pushed to add an initial air to ground capabilities earlier, Germany remained stuck on their initial, very basic configuration while AMI had not the concept itself of a multirole fighter in her own doctrine (we changed somewhat idea because of Storm Shadow but still for us Typhoon is a Caccia and F-35 an Aereo d’Attacco ).
At the contrary the French wanted a plane with good multirole capability and carrier operation capable and so they went off from the COMMON European NATO members program when it was ascertained that their own requirements (and their industrial ambitions) were uncompatible with the ones of the other partners.
Sweden is still not in Nato nor was a member of the EU when those programs were started, so is like to put Japan and China in the same basket.
Marcellogo@Vnomad
What?
The Eurocanards were intended as substitutes for planes like F-4 or F-104S (the Typhoon), the Mirage F-1 and the Viggens i.e. 3 or even 2 generation planes.
The F-35 would instead be a substitute for Tornado, Harriers II and AMX i.e. planes of 4 generation, entered in service after F-15 & F-16.
There will be more than 10 years between the entering in service of the last of them and the F-35 and AFAIK neither Sweden nor France have ordered it at all.
MarcellogoHave there been any report about F-35 being actually faster than mach 1.6/1.7?
Have been published any data showing its actual climb rate?
So I’ll keep on my previous opinion. It can have a lot of good qualities but it still the slowest of the whole lot.
And given that it has an excellent, almost fantastic engine and a overall good T/W (something that I recognized without any external push even 2 years ago) what I can blame for it, except its own aerodynamics i.e. being a flying brick?
Pilot testimony said that it, at maximum load (what it mean with it? just internal or with all the pylon full?) it was faster than a F-16A block 15 with the same load.
Interesting but not surprising at all if it refers to internal against external load.
MarcellogoThe descriptions made by respectively hopsalot and MSphere are both so extremely partial that can be cited as perfect examples of that acritical and biased approach to the F-35 theme that reigned supreme until now.
Plane is actually operative, although in an initial configuration and well behind its shedule, so let’s it speak with facts, showing the many things that it can do flawlessy and the ones in which it has surely some shortcomings.
Actually any discussion about F-35 cost bore me to death instead.
What are actually the viable alternatives to it? Maybe keeping on with the Typhoon production can work for us and Uk (both not for CW use) but for the rest of air forces involved ? F-15C and F-16block15 until the next half of a century?
So no mastter what it will cost in the end , we would have to stick on it.
Marcellogo@Ryan
I did not if this is the correct translation in English, but ther friday’s prayer is the moment that usually spark revolts in M.E. as you can’t just ban people going to Mosques without facing an uprise.
I have given you the benefit of doubt , you are demostrating by yourself it was wasted .
Marcellogo@haavarla
What he means with Continental power, its the same as Regional Power.
Russia do not have 180 military bases around the world. They do not have 10 super carriers and lots of smaller carrier fleet to travel the world.
Hense, Russia is a Regional power, and not a global power in terms of their military.
I think he mean it in a completely different sense: while America, like the old British empire (whose role it has inherited) is a sea based power Russia is an eminently Land based nations, spanning from Korea to Poland (in this she is the heir of Ghengis Khan’s Empire) so, when it came to defense expenditure i.e. the argoment of the said declaration, it have to destinate a great part of it to Army, same as the nations of Europe in XIX century had all to adopt full range conscription and the possibility of mobilize reserves in the smallest time possible when Britain and America itself, separated by them by the sea could still keep voluntary service.
let’s add thatRussia is absolutely handicapped in this also by the fact that even if enormous it got not easy access to the Oceans and its more important naval bases usually get blocked by ice in winter.
On the other hand Usa suffer the oposite problem , having decided to be a global power with an interventionist agenda it got to devolve a lot of its own (astonishing ) defense expenditure to the issue of deploy / mantain its own forces at an ocean if not two from home.
Marcellogo@ ryan, putting together nations like UK, Italy and Germany is a furthercomplication: the first one is a very interventist one, the last one is absolutely isolationist.
So while one wanted a full package of upgrading for give the Typhoon a full multirole capability, Germany doesn’t wanted to spent a dime more of what it already has done to procure their own “Cheap Charlie” version.
In case of AMI the problem was more of doctrinal nature: there was not thing like a Fighter here: the Caccia do a thing, the Aereo d’Attacco just another and there is nothing in between.
Marcellogo@bring -it-on.
Fine with me, the discussion has in my eyes reached a good point of agreement and has been amusing and useful, no need to prolong it further on side aspects.
@Mig-31BM
Thank for the diagrams, i’ll reply to your last question in PM.
Sign In
