Nicolas10Well, its obvious you are a Gripen Fanboy…………Yet, instead of countering any of my points you would rather just call names!:eek:
For anyone to counter a point you would have to actually make a point in the first place. Quite difficult when nobody knows anything about the real F35 performance.
But let me try anyway.
“F35 has sensor fusion”
Awesome! No other plane out there has sensor fusion! Especially not the eurocanards :rolleyes: Rafale has all the information from all of it’s sensors + link 16 info on one single tactical picture, but I don’t know how they call it (sensor fusing?)?
“F35 handles like a F22”
Similar handling doesn’t mean the same performance. It’s a nice PR stunt for retards who will equate “handling” with performance and manoeuvrability
“acceleration of a clean F16 block 50”
Rafale pilots have to cut the throttle in order to not overtake the greek F16s in a dogfight, so I suppose it’s got even better acceleration than a F16 block 50 (and than a F35) 😀
Come back when the F35 is operational and play again.
Nic
Nicolas10You are still talking about CVF’s size as a driver to whether its CATOBAR or whatever. You have to stop that thinking….it isnt that simple. Look at the drivers involved. Joint RAF/RN airgroup, pilots that may have just rotated off a land-based tour and not seen the ship for 4 months. With CATOBAR they are unavailable for carrier ops until they deck certify again. With STOVL they get in the aircraft and go off on ops. That IS extremely important in the Joint Force model we are employing now.
Nobody forces the RAF/RN tu pursue that joint force model. Obviously selection of the F35C would create the need to change that structure, and to keep the FAA independent.
EMALS really IS a necessity for CVF CATOBAR where we to go down that route eventually though. CdeG can use conventional steam catapults because it has very effective onboard steam generators powering the ship – the reactors. CVF has no such steam producing capacity. So adding C13-type cats would mean adding auxilliary boilers and hundreds of miles of steam pipery onto a ship designed to be highly automated and lean-manned. It is NOT a credible option.
But how far off is EMALS? Couldn’t it be fitted on the CVF before the few squadrons of F35C get operationals and the pilots trained?
I’d dispute the ‘critical to national security’ element in my book they are exactly that as it impossible to meet certain security requirements, with assuredness, without Carrier Strike of some description. Also support your foreign policy goals, as earlier described, otherwise you accept the position of having no options when the jaw-jaw fails. To the UK this is unacceptable.
It wasn’t my argument at all. I was just replying to sealord’s argument.
Nic
Nicolas10I have already explained that CVF would not NEED EMALS.
Sorry then I have missed that one. I still find it illogical
No cost is what matters, especially when you are building ships that are not critical to your national security and the B will have at least a minor cost advantage.
If they are not critical to national security, then why buy them at all?
But even then, why does the CVF need to be so big? Why not a cavour type or so. Then the cost would really go down.
Nic
Nicolas10The EMAILS will be far more efficient and will require much less manpowr to maintain.
I don’t say that EMALS have no advantages, only that the CdG operates a catapult at the same time as being smaller than the CVF, so was wondering why the CVF would NEED EMALS to operate the F35C. Sure it would be more efficient. No debate about that.
As for the F-35B and the CVF’s………..The Lightning will be able to generate far higher sortie rates than say the Rafale on the CdG. Further, unlike STOVL aircraft like the Harrier. It is vastly more capable and on par with any landbased or navalbased types. (including the Rafale)
Rafale on the CVF would generate higher sortie rates than Rafale on CdG. Why are you comparing what isn’t comparable? And while F35B would probably be on par or superior to most naval types. F35C would still be superior, which is all that matters.
Nic
Nicolas10But not without extra cost, and it is extra cost that has resulted in only a single CdG, and managing is not impressive.
That would have cost much less than the cost of the development of the F35B
Nicolas10CdG is only just capable of operating Hawkeyes and Rafales, in reality she is too small. She raises steam from her nuclear plant. Her cost is as such that the French navy can only afford one of her and her availability is atrocious. She is a fantastic example of how not to build a carrier. CdG is the reason why the UK needs to keep the CVF programme cost down.
I was only comparing it because its size is smaller and yet it manages to operate conventional aircrafts. The CVF is quite a bit bigger and hopefully after the CdG issues it should be possible to avoid most of them.
Nic
Nicolas10Nic,
Airports can be rendered unavailable for all sorts of reasons. Look at the earlier post by Stacey 24b. The runway condition in the Afghan oparea was a factor in the decision to deploy GR7 to theatre and not the, then available, Jag or Tornado GR forces. Yet that is a ‘low-intensity’ conflict that you confidently predict wouldnt need STOVL capability.
CATOBAR isnt an option for CVF until EMALS is available as there is nothing to generate steam for steam cats. So its STOVL or wait for EMALS. The F-35C range advantage over F-35B is less than dramatic. The overheads that come with the need to have a pool of carrier qualified pilots are significant, especially within a joint land/sea based squadron structure as we are using, and the attrition rate in crashed jets and unlucky pilots equally significant.
Not choosing STOVL simply on the basis that the carrier is big enough to take a CATOBAR arrangement is schoolboy fantasist thinking I’m afraid.
I don’t think it’s because they are big enough. But I think the performance advantage is important enough to warrant installing a catapult. And I don’t see why you would need EMALS? The CdG is smaller than the future CVF, and yet it’s capable of operating Rafales and Hawkeyes. Just the same, all the other countries managed and still manage to carry out CAS ops without STOVL planes either basing their planes around the theater or on AC carriers.
Then again how much more efficient would a Hawkeye be in the AW role than a heli based platform? And as you mentionned the possibility to use UCAVs once they go online…
Going F35B would be a complete waste of ressources on such a big ship if you ask me. Maybe as a RAF CAS platform for land, but to put on a ship like CVF? C’mon.
Nic
Nicolas10Personally, to me the Harrier would be far more useful in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. Than say the Jaugar or even GR4 Tornado.
The Harrier has matured from the original AV-8A to todays AV-8B+ and GR7/GR9. Soon to be followed by the supersonic F-35B! Clearly, the concept has proven to be very successful and will continue for decades to come…………
I disagree. In most low intensity conflicts, airports are available. If not, a helicopter will be able to take over the job. The STOVL was useful when countries couldn’t afford large enough carriers. Now with the size of the CVF, it would make MUCH more sense to CATOBAR it and go for F35C. The tradeoffs for going STOVL are definately not worth the ability to land where there isn’t an airfield just once in a while.
Nic
Nicolas10It’s a pity the jaguar was phased out either with the RAF or the AdlA. With a few updates and weapons (brimtsone and AASM for france) I think it had a quite useful role left doing CAS in low intensity conflicts like Irak or Afghanistan.
It could go anywhere faster than a Harrier, and it was a hell of a tough bird.
Nic
Nicolas10I can’t imagine the mess with Pakistan if India was to send some troops in Afghanistan. It would turn real nasty real quick!
Nic
Nicolas10Britain will get JSF because thats what being an american ally is going to come down to. and a big part of the CVF project is british jobs, so how would that be served by buying from france an inferior system like rafale? would britain give up the JSF work share it has for itself? JSF+CVF is the future. buying systems that when introduced in 2015 will be outdated would more likely to kill the program than save it.
Britain will keep it’s share of JSF work whether it purchases it or not, just not as big a share. Purchasing the Rafale will cost a bit, but definately not as much as a F35, and then they would be able to sell a PA to France, which would surely make up for the Rafale purchase in terms of value.
And as I said, could the UK really afford the 2 CVF + JSF? Rafale MAY turn out to be inferior to the JSF, but it could be smarter to have to carriers with Rafales to allow budget for other RN platforms (more T45 for instance).
Nic
Nicolas10Awesome video…
Phantoms + Buccaneers on a single carrier is almost too good to be true. It’s a shame Britain axed their big carriers really.
Nic
Nicolas10Netherlands and Canada have a very small AF compared to the RAF (and I’m not counting the FAA), but then France, which has sizer rougly similar also decided to opt for a single platform with the Rafale, which was bound to replace all the fast jets in inventory.
Dedicated platforms will do some things better for sure, but I don’t think most european countries can really afford that anymore, especially if they are to design their planes themselves. When they purchase off the shelf products it’s another story, however you still need different supply chains.
Nic
Nicolas10So it seems the pilot had no way to control the plane once both engines were out… very sad, as he must feel guilty all the same… 🙁
Nicolas10Shouldn’t the UK just cancel F35B and pool with France and make a deal to build the French PA2 for as cheap as possible, while at the same time purchasing Rafales for as cheap as France could sell them?
It would be a win-win, since it would bring down the cost of their own CVF while Dassault would lower unit cost of the Rafales.
I hear those who say the F35 > Rafale, but even if it’s true, I would say Rafale > Nothing 😀
Nic
Sign In
