TooCool_12fI’m scared.
Kind of.
If that programme should come apart the forces are in deep ****.
Gosh! Said it before and say it again: Time to dump that B version and concentrate on a single merged and re-prioritized A/C version, plus a twin-seater. Time!!!
teh “B” version is the one the british (a major foreign partner) are there for (and pay for), if the US decided on their own to cancel it, it might be quite interesting to see what’s in store for RN next… or would the brits switch to the “C” model, or get some “compensation” for their investment and need to look somewhere else for an aircraft…
TooCool_12fi’m talking about what i think will actually happen. I don’t believe the B will be cancelled (I actually think the fuss about it is largely because certain elements in the US are unused to the idea of an american vertical lift fighter), I do think the UK is wedded to the F35, and the UK elements of the aircraft are considerable. The source codes will be fine by the time its in service and the UK will have autonomy of operation.
Whilst I know France and the UK recently reafiirmed their commitment to develop and procure together, and it is possible they may even operate very similar aircraft carriers if things aren’t cancelled, I can’t see the RN operating a French aircraft with no UK content.
Therefore it needs work.
don’t worry, I don’t think either that UK will get out of JSF program unless it’s completely abandoned (very unlikely to say the least)
however, since in this topic it’s the starting point (what if), let’s imagine for a second UK has to make do without the F-35. they have no participation in any naval fighter available, and, as everyone knows it, the budgets are getting smaller and smaller as the time goes by.
Now, what would you change in rafale?
engines?
while the EJ200 for example, may give more thrust, you’d have to fit them in (a bit tight) and redo all the testing of teh aircraft: lots of money involved, which isn’t worth it considering the small series it would give (unless the french decide to “modernize” (reengine) their fleet before it’s even complete, which is just as unlikely
radar?
maybe, if it ever fits inside the nose cone (again, a tight fit it seems to me), and can be wired, and integrated in the weapons suite and the whole SPECTRA interface… lots of work again
ECM suite?
SPECTRA is the most integrated suite to this day, and the british have nothing comparable ready in any near future
actually, more or less, the only thing that may be done do give some “work” to the british industry would be an assembly line in UK… but, again, who would do it?
BAe? they build the Typhoon, so, chances they build also the Rafale are slimmer than any of the propositions cited above
if it’s not BAe, who else? with what qualified workers?
Some find teh rafale too costly already, but a “partly UK Rafale N” would be even worse in that regard
TooCool_12fer, excuse me, what work would rafale need? it already exists in naval version and is NATO compatible.. so, more or less any weapons integration in british arsenal would be about coding
besides, the fuss about the US “collaboration” is mostly because there’s not much in terms of collaboration, but rather US development with “partners” just paying and eventually buying what the US decide to let them buy… the F-35 is still considerd by the US as an export and even “privileged” partners like the UK won’t have access to the “full model with all options” like source codes of their own aircraft for example.
TooCool_12fagreed…
one has to remember that these carriers are sharing the same basic architecture with the 2nd french carrier which, if (when?) built, will operate aircraft like the Rafale or E-2 Hawkeye (so, perfectly able to operate the F/A-18 E/F as well)
TooCool_12fon the other hand, if specs were written only to get what’s already on the shelf, we’d still fly SPADs and Fokkers at best 😉
TooCool_12fa rafale would be good too, yet, somehow, I don’t think argentina may be very interested in buying a french aircraft if their goal is to equip themselves to go against UK… I don’t know why, some strange feeling… 😀
TooCool_12fwell, considering that boeing proposal is very different from tankers they proposed to other nations (japan, for instance), it’s an entirely new aircraft they need to make fly, composed of various parts coming from various models (fuselage 767-200, wings 767-300 and cockpit 767-400), which is what earned it the nickname “frankentaker”. once they made the airframe fly (and tested and all that stuff), they need to integrate all military specific hardware they intend to put in it
EADS, proposes, on the other hand, pretty much the same airframe they sold already to australia (among others), in which they need to integrate specific USAF hardware (that’s nothrop-grumman’s job).
basically, the difference is that the airframe is ready in EADS/NG case and not in boeing’s
TooCool_12fAnd first and foremost, the thing is a TANKER. Its role is to refuel tactical a/c. Its SECONDARY role if airlift. If you can get more booms in the air with a smaller, cheaper, SLIGHTLY less capable a/c…..then so be it.
major problem is that the number of airframes are the same, so, the number of booms is identical.
The difference is that the “bigger guy” will be able to feed more “little guys” in a row (bigger load), which can be also considered as an equivalent of “more booms in the air”
the price argument works the other way too (maybe even better)
TooCool_12fmaybe they’re afraid dassault opens an independant line in brasil? which may mean that embraer wouldn’t get as much work on these fighters as if they were building them?
what’s strange is that they put rafale last in basically every domain. now, let’s compare the rafale and the SH (at least two fighters operational today).
rafale has a somewhat longer range, with bigger payload, beats Sh in a2a WVR confrontation, does “god only knows what” in BVR (still lots of secret stuff there, and rafales AESA radar will only enter service this year if I’m not mistaken) and yet, finishing last means finishing also behind the SH…
now, the question is, how their operational capabilities were asessed for the rafale to finish completely behind? it’s just so categoric statement “rafale = BAD” that it’s already looking suspect by its “categoric” nature, before even going into detail of it
TooCool_12fThey aren’t different issues – if the UK has to defend future oil rights in Antarctica, the Falklands will become extremely important strategically. It might not happen for decades, but if there are large quantities of oil in Antarctica, it will certainly be exploited by someone, as the rest of the world’s oil runs out.
Al
funny things being, officially, all these countries have signed the treaty saying that antarctica doesn’t belong to any country… any “oil rights” would simply be a matter of “who has the biggest muscles”.. which, again, isn’t something new, but also has nothing to do with any “right”
TooCool_12ftalking about coherence, the whole scenario is about a country that has no real way to harm anyone around falklands since it’s air force is in dire straits and its navy can’t come close for UK submariens patrolling the area…
if we want to be coherent then the answer is simple:
forget it completely, there’s only some small politician talk that will take place and that’s it
if they decide to go and attack, there’s obviously the will to start a conflict, and that platform would be an easy target in such a case, much easier than the islands themselves from which the typhoons shoudl be able to wipe out any argentinian aircraft with ease (we’re talking about aircraft of which the newest one is 40 years old, basically, even if some avionics were modernised)
as for serbia attacking kosovars, it’s another topic and has no place here, but, just for your information, kosovo was an autonomous region of serbia and what happened there was matter of serbia’s internal problems with albanian nationalists, not just some innocent civilian harassment by the “bad military guys”. Besides, the KLA was considereed by everybody, NATO countries included, as a terrorist organisation until the NATO leaders decided they wanted a justification to remove milosevic from office and declared KLA “a liberation army”. Anyway, the “why” and all political reasons and justifications are out of topic here, I simply underlined the fact that if there’s an armed conflict, there’s little in a way of “civilian” targets that may be considered “off limits” by anyone
TooCool_12fif there is an escalation (will to go and use weaponry to stop the drilling) what would your suggestion be?
I don’t say that it would be a clever way, but if going into a conflict, a drilling platform is an easy target to reach (and before you talk about terrorism) one could talk about strategy in order to reduce enemy’s ressources.
back in 1998, NATO has bombed serbia all over the place with almost no military target hit yet I have some doubt that many around here would consider NATO countries as “terrorists”
TooCool_12frisk of escalation yes, even if the UK would have difficulty doing something substantial against argentina (on the continent it’s another story than when they have to go all the way to the falklands) but, as far as drillers are concerned, once your platform lays on the bottom of the ocean (one bombing would suffice), you have to build another one and get it back down there… it’s a good year to go if not more… the fact of bringing an AWACS in the days after the bombing wouldn’t pull the drilling platform back on the surface of the sea.
Not that I suggest they should do it guys, but even if it’s just posturing from their behalf, if it ever had to go further into a conflict, there’s a “relatively easy” way for argentina to strike a target without too much risk to themselves (much less risky than, say, attacking the islands for example)
besides, back in 1982, they had only 5 exocet missiles (others had yet to be delivered by the french), did they ever get their other missiles?
TooCool_12fnot to be unhelpful but, if they simply send a few A4s to attack the drilling platform, it’s possible they get to it before they are detected if there’s no AWACS in the area… flying right down on the surface of the sea, the ground based radars may have trouble detecting them before they are in position… unless you have those typhoons patrolling permanently on top of the platform, one air raid may very well be sufficient
TooCool_12fit was supposed to be cheaper to operate alone than multiplying aircraft types specialized for various missions.
now, is it “that cheap”?
consider that it does everything the JSF is supposed to do once it becomes operational, maybe more, and it’s sold at a price that JSF won’t ever be able to reach unless it’s built in much higher numbers… (rafale is expected to be around 280 aircraft for the moment.. more if there are some exports)
Sign In
