Roughly half.
Plane purchase costs might be more expensive, but when it comes down to the overall picture (personnel, fuel costs, maintenance, ship costs, etc), Gripen/SeaGripen would be cheaper. Plus, good luck getting the French to integrate any weapons that aren’t theirs.
The engines always provide power to the ship. No matter what the propulsion system is, the main engines always provide primary power. The difference here is in how the engines are powered, electrically instead of a physical shaft connection. Also, yes there are auxiliary generators to keep the lights on in case of emergency.
seeing as how many, including me.. and including you
think india, switzerland, uae, is waiting on India to ride off their order..what would brasil do if India chose typhoon seeing as how they already eliminated it.. go for Shornets or Grimpon?
They go with whatever is in their best interest. While the Indian and Brazilian competitions had mostly the same players, they’re not co-dependent.
Well…. fact is that the Brazilian AF wants the Gripen NG (the official report stated that this aircraft was the preffered choice)….. but politics wants the Rafale. As always, it is what the politicians that decide what is best…. not the experts who have to work with the material 🙁
So, I am afraid, they will opt for Rafale.
Ciau
I agree. Gripen would be much better for the FAB’s operating budget, and especially good for the Navy since it would be building a smaller ship. However, the french have their hooks in.
I think the main reason for the selection is that the NH-90…hasn’t quite got the bugs ironed out.
Quick’n’dirty – but wrong?
— F414-GE-400: 62kN dry, 98kN a/b
— F414-EPE said to gain 15-20pct thrust (??kN dry, 120kN a/b); there will not be a SFC revolution.— SHornet E internal fuel: ~14.400lb
— CFT capacity: ~3000lb
a gain of around 20pctConclusion?
An EPE’d and CFT’d SHornet will not fly notably further than a current naked SHornet (might have to use afterburner a little less).
The influence on trans-/supersonic acceleration is hard to predict, as this depends on area ruling fine tuning.
The CFTs’ added weight will diminish agility and drag (though of course way less than flying external cans abreast on a straight wing).
A non-EPE’d SHornet would gain quite a bit of range and would accelerate better than one with external tanks.
If they use a regular (= non-area-ruled) ext fuel tank for the IRST an EPE’d and CFT’d SHornet will not gain over the current SHornet.
You’re not factoring in the reduction in drag though.
Yep. What happened with Victorious is fresh in my mind, especially with Fox gone.
The lump doesn’t. The dust particles and the acetylene from the torches however can be highly flammable. In fact some of the hottest burning substances know to man are metal powder based.
Could a deal be done with the US Marines/Spanish or Italians to put 6-12 F35Bs or Harriers on QE2 for a few years to start building up RN deck handling etc experience.
All you have to do is move the QE to Norfolk and we’ll gladly use it for training purposes. Fora lot of general deck handling purposes, there’s not much of a difference between jets and helicopters. Those crew that need specialized training will be sent to appropriate schools in Pensacola and assigned to Navy and Marine Corps units for experience.
I must admit I thought it was a considerable number, but the figure did not change when they were pressed.
Incidentally and I know it’s been discussed before, but one naval officer expressed his, ahem ‘distinct dislike’ of the two island design and that now CATOBAR is going to be included, the for’ad island location has meant that the second CAT is located to the left of the flight deck instead of being located at the bow ‘alongside’ the first CAT.
In actual real world operations, the starboard bow cat is used the least often in USN service. Most of the time, jets are parked over it with the port and waist cats used for launching jets.
I thought it relevant to post on this thread, if not then apologies, but I recently and provocatively pressed an RAF officer, (who informed me he had been well involved in the project), about the status of the trio of F-35’s that have been ordered for MOD, where he confirmed that the first two will be B’s (STOVL), but that attempts to have the third constructed as a C model instead of the supposedly ordered B, are in progress.
Does anybody have any more hard info on this?
At this point in time, it doesn’t much matter. These aircraft are not for operational service and Neither the RN nor RAF or BAE has any relevant CATOBAR testing experience. They have STOVL and conventional testing experience.
Yeap John Reid selected Lossiemouth for the F-35B basing when he was defence minister (spot the jock bias when 3 english bases were to loose the Harrier !)
Given the SDSR and the restructuring i suspect it will be Marham as the F-35C is seen as Tornado replacement now.
Its always possible we may see a flight at Yeovilton, it depends on if the MOD decide to have a more carrier orientated training facility and permament use of the RN of part of the F-35 fleet as the JFH wasn’t all that successful
Actually, Marham would make a lot of practical sense as the operational base. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the RAF is a lot less cooperative once they actually enter service.
Yep. Tie down are all over the place on the flight tech, hanger, and elevators on amphibious assaults ships and carriers. If the aircraft isn’t landing, taking off, or being moved, its tied down.
Not really, a conventional tail with a single vertical stabiliser is a stealth nigthmare. It’s act like a a cat eye reflector. The best choice for stealth is a clean Delta with a stacked vertical stabiliser and some continuous curvature. DERA is USA.;)
Actually tailless blended wing delta with no vertical stabilizers like the B-2, A-12, or proposed Boeing NGAD is the optimal stealth design.
Let’s say its just 2:1 instead of 3:1 here’s what the unsaid costs would be
-1/3rd more cruisers/destroyers/submarines to escort CVF
-Substantially increased tanking fleet with an emphasis on fast combat support ships to cover substantially increased fuel demands by escorts and the carrier.
-50-100% increase in number of Electronic Warfare and AEW&C aircraft
-increased number of flag and post-command Captain billets.
Overall Whatever you save in carrier construction, you spend elsewhere.
No argument from me on that, but they did start out as V/STOL ships where an angle deck wasn’t really needed.
In very early planning, then again they were also 40k tons. Anything on earnest as been based off the Thales CATOBAR design, even in STOVL.
With the massive complement required to run a Nimitz, it would be cheaper for the French to pay full price for a QEC/CVF and run that for say 20 years, than get a Nimitz free and do the same, i.e. I doubt that the French Navy could afford to run a Nimitz.
ETA – too slow
Not only that, but the French use much different reactor technology than we or the RN use. French use lower grade fuel with a more rapid refueling cycle.