Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Rduarte & Baron Rouge, you seem to have fallen hook, line & sinker for a fishing expedition that breached European Common Fisheries policy on the size of landings about 40 posts ago.
By the by, Baron, you may care to note that it was your compatriot who started all the nationalistic willy-waving, with the opening gambit in post 439:
That's even less erudite than the Sun headlines you (rightly) deprecate, even if it is in slightly more sophisticated English. He then goes on in a similarly arrogant and demeaning manner and expects not to be on the receiving end of some heavy return banter? Dearie me... 
Of course, this could all be a cunning double bluff before Rduarte reveals that he was born in Cleethorpes, is as British as Yorkshire Pudding and has in fact been on a fishing expedition all of his own...
By the by, Baron, you may care to note that it was your compatriot who started all the nationalistic willy-waving, with the opening gambit in post 439:
You (british morons)
Of course, this could all be a cunning double bluff before Rduarte reveals that he was born in Cleethorpes, is as British as Yorkshire Pudding and has in fact been on a fishing expedition all of his own...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wanting to sound too serious, in what has become an increasingly comical thread....
In all my dealings with the Rafale and SEM drivers at Landivisiau I was very impressed indeed by their kit and professionalism. The same goes for the FAF drivers in their M2000 RDI, -5, N and D variants. Sadly never got a go against their F1 chaps.
All those boys and girls were absolutely first class and would give any NATO unit i've fought a run for their money. As an airframe Rafale is obviously pick of the bunch but the 2000 series performance is also staggering. And a lot of those chaps wear badges for ops done over the 'stan, and other places, that we give them very little credit for.
Anyway, back to some good old fashioned trans-channel frog/rosbif slagging...
In all my dealings with the Rafale and SEM drivers at Landivisiau I was very impressed indeed by their kit and professionalism. The same goes for the FAF drivers in their M2000 RDI, -5, N and D variants. Sadly never got a go against their F1 chaps.
All those boys and girls were absolutely first class and would give any NATO unit i've fought a run for their money. As an airframe Rafale is obviously pick of the bunch but the 2000 series performance is also staggering. And a lot of those chaps wear badges for ops done over the 'stan, and other places, that we give them very little credit for.
Anyway, back to some good old fashioned trans-channel frog/rosbif slagging...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Age: 73
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca,
Thanks for your last post, I must admit, I was myself a guest for 3 years in the RAF and I appreciated the professionalism of the Brits, and thats probably why I cannot bear most of the idiotic banter going on here.
Just a small point, even if the EXOCET is a French design, BAe became a major subcontractor for the missile due to the huge order from the Royal Navy, and much more were built for export...
I know it is a bit hard to swallow, 5 missiles and 4 ships destroyed, especially as parts on those missiles bore the words "made in UK"
Back to roastbeef/froggy banter
Thanks for your last post, I must admit, I was myself a guest for 3 years in the RAF and I appreciated the professionalism of the Brits, and thats probably why I cannot bear most of the idiotic banter going on here.
Just a small point, even if the EXOCET is a French design, BAe became a major subcontractor for the missile due to the huge order from the Royal Navy, and much more were built for export...
I know it is a bit hard to swallow, 5 missiles and 4 ships destroyed, especially as parts on those missiles bore the words "made in UK"
Back to roastbeef/froggy banter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: pomme....pomme !
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Archimedes
Rduarte & Baron Rouge, you seem to have fallen hook, line & sinker for a fishing expedition that breached European Common Fisheries policy on the size of landings about 40 posts ago.
By the by, Baron, you may care to note that it was your compatriot who started all the nationalistic willy-waving, with the opening gambit in post 439:
That's even less erudite than the Sun headlines you (rightly) deprecate, even if it is in slightly more sophisticated English. He then goes on in a similarly arrogant and demeaning manner and expects not to be on the receiving end
Of course, this could all be a cunning double bluff before Rduarte reveals that he was born in Cleethorpes, is as British as Yorkshire Pudding and has in fact been on a fishing expedition all of his own...
By the by, Baron, you may care to note that it was your compatriot who started all the nationalistic willy-waving, with the opening gambit in post 439:
That's even less erudite than the Sun headlines you (rightly) deprecate, even if it is in slightly more sophisticated English. He then goes on in a similarly arrogant and demeaning manner and expects not to be on the receiving end
Of course, this could all be a cunning double bluff before Rduarte reveals that he was born in Cleethorpes, is as British as Yorkshire Pudding and has in fact been on a fishing expedition all of his own...
Less money to spend and a compability with the French Navy.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The thing that impressed me was the Maginot Line. I had a great time going up and down on the electric railway to the front line and seeing all the updates in ATGW and NBC equipment. The next time the Germans or the Ruskies come they'll be ready.
Just a pity about Belgium and the Low Countries.....
The problem with the Rafale is that it was designed to operate off the Foch and was, therefore, limited to about a 10 ton design weight. With no on carrier AAR and no decent national out of area AAR, it is severely limited in both range and payload.
Before anyone thinks I am just knocking the French, I was totally staggered to find out the F-35B spec has been changed to delete the wet wing wing pylon capability - obviously deliberately. Potentially putting the RN in the same position of having a carrier limited littoral range capability within threat range.
Frankly, I cannot see anything but a F-35C capable carrier with at least a a buddy-buddy tanker and a wet tank capability being acceptable for autonomous ops. But what do I know.
Just a pity about Belgium and the Low Countries.....
The problem with the Rafale is that it was designed to operate off the Foch and was, therefore, limited to about a 10 ton design weight. With no on carrier AAR and no decent national out of area AAR, it is severely limited in both range and payload.
Before anyone thinks I am just knocking the French, I was totally staggered to find out the F-35B spec has been changed to delete the wet wing wing pylon capability - obviously deliberately. Potentially putting the RN in the same position of having a carrier limited littoral range capability within threat range.
Frankly, I cannot see anything but a F-35C capable carrier with at least a a buddy-buddy tanker and a wet tank capability being acceptable for autonomous ops. But what do I know.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: pomme....pomme !
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Frankly, I cannot see anything but a F-35C capable carrier with at least a a buddy-buddy tanker and a wet tank capability being acceptable for autonomous ops. But what do I know.
Take a look in: http://www.rafale-marine.com/
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have given up trying to find anyone who thinks STOVL JSF is a good idea, so have gone back to trying to find Elvis.
If you had the choice of a tonne or two of anything to put in an aircraft it would be a toss up between fuel and bombs, not a f###ing lift fan. If you want to operate from austere places go ahead, but given that the CV variant can go alot further, why not buy that one and overfly the austere place on the way to the fight.
In fact, given that the only possible reason for buying STOVL is to keep Rolls Royce happy, why not buy one less aeroplane and give the savings to Rolls Royce to shut the f##k up?
It's the last manned fighter...our last chance to put all those procurement ghosts to bed, and here we are f##king it up royally. Hand me the red wine!!
If you had the choice of a tonne or two of anything to put in an aircraft it would be a toss up between fuel and bombs, not a f###ing lift fan. If you want to operate from austere places go ahead, but given that the CV variant can go alot further, why not buy that one and overfly the austere place on the way to the fight.
In fact, given that the only possible reason for buying STOVL is to keep Rolls Royce happy, why not buy one less aeroplane and give the savings to Rolls Royce to shut the f##k up?
It's the last manned fighter...our last chance to put all those procurement ghosts to bed, and here we are f##king it up royally. Hand me the red wine!!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
rduarte,
The Rafale can barely get itself off the deck, let alone carry a reasonable AAR off-load.....
ps. I studied French at school for 12 years, but I manged to disremember it.... It took a lot of work, but I got there. (Caused a lot of confusion when I had to learn Spanish though.... )
The Rafale can barely get itself off the deck, let alone carry a reasonable AAR off-load.....
ps. I studied French at school for 12 years, but I manged to disremember it.... It took a lot of work, but I got there. (Caused a lot of confusion when I had to learn Spanish though.... )
You see you're never going to sell you little aeroplane to anyone if they have to be able to read French.
Thread Starter
orca I'm not trying to be awkward, but didn't one or two Sea Harrier guys from the Falklands state that it would have been difficult to operate in those extreme sea states etc if they were operating conventional carrier aircraft? Does that mean anything to you, or were they just saying what the audience wanted? Would modern landing aids make a difference?
Also how much of an advantage is it to be able to land on a ship other than a carrier? A Shar landed aboard Fearless in 1982, another accidentally landed on a Spanish freighter, have there been others? Interesting to note that being able to receive a Sea Harrier in an emergency was part of the specification for the Fort class AORs of the RFA.
Also what if CVF is an austere place?
But surely the RAF wants the F35B for the austere conditions capability offered by a V/STOL aircraft (cf current operations in the 'Stan), and since it will be joint force, the RN will get the same. I suspect that Their Lordships dare not protest, lest the RAF refuses to co-operate, which would threaten CVF altogether.
ORAC what will the USN use for AAR after the Viking retires? Anyone ever thought of a tanker built on the Hawkeye airframe? If you can build a COD.....
Jacko's mention of carrier trials by an Islander (or was it defender?) has given me a (rather dubious) idea. Why not use it as a carrierborne tanker to complement FSTA? In fact why not develop it as FSTA light - to refuel Merlin HC3 and Chinook Mk3s ashore as well as CVF borne assets? Maybe thats what the trials were for? Tinfoil hat time.
With regards to all these matters we need less talk and more action.
Also how much of an advantage is it to be able to land on a ship other than a carrier? A Shar landed aboard Fearless in 1982, another accidentally landed on a Spanish freighter, have there been others? Interesting to note that being able to receive a Sea Harrier in an emergency was part of the specification for the Fort class AORs of the RFA.
Also what if CVF is an austere place?
But surely the RAF wants the F35B for the austere conditions capability offered by a V/STOL aircraft (cf current operations in the 'Stan), and since it will be joint force, the RN will get the same. I suspect that Their Lordships dare not protest, lest the RAF refuses to co-operate, which would threaten CVF altogether.
ORAC what will the USN use for AAR after the Viking retires? Anyone ever thought of a tanker built on the Hawkeye airframe? If you can build a COD.....
Jacko's mention of carrier trials by an Islander (or was it defender?) has given me a (rather dubious) idea. Why not use it as a carrierborne tanker to complement FSTA? In fact why not develop it as FSTA light - to refuel Merlin HC3 and Chinook Mk3s ashore as well as CVF borne assets? Maybe thats what the trials were for? Tinfoil hat time.
With regards to all these matters we need less talk and more action.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 23rd Aug 2006 at 23:19.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There's been talk of a tanker F-35B for the Marines
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Valid points old chap, but if we look at the programme as it is then we may not be comparing like with like. The STOVL JSF will in all probability need to RVL onto CVF not VL, there goes that advantage. The STOVL JSF will probably enter service at the limit of weight versus thrust from that damned lift fan - hence the need to RVL. If you want to buy something on the grounds that you can never update it due to weight then STOVL's a great idea. The CVF is not austere, and the criteria for radius of action is much (much) greater for the CV variant. Therefore if you are going to 'jump ashore' by less than a 100nm or so, you might aswell have bought CV and stayed on the boat. If you're going more than 100nm how the hell are you going to move the (mountains of) kit, to your new home?
If you buy CV with more petrol you can loiter over targets, you can wait until the Flanker CAP is Bingo, you don't have to go back tomorrow. You don't have to apologise to the COMAO leader, becasue despite the fact that you're all flying JSFs you have got the crap one.
I know that whatever we get should be better than what we currently have by a country mile.....but if you're upgrading from sticks and stones, why pat ourselves on the back for buying an air rifle - when for the same(ish) money we can get a shotgun?
CVF+STOVL=great step in right direction but still woefully lacking compared to land based aviation.
CVF+CV=world beater.
Valid points old chap, but if we look at the programme as it is then we may not be comparing like with like. The STOVL JSF will in all probability need to RVL onto CVF not VL, there goes that advantage. The STOVL JSF will probably enter service at the limit of weight versus thrust from that damned lift fan - hence the need to RVL. If you want to buy something on the grounds that you can never update it due to weight then STOVL's a great idea. The CVF is not austere, and the criteria for radius of action is much (much) greater for the CV variant. Therefore if you are going to 'jump ashore' by less than a 100nm or so, you might aswell have bought CV and stayed on the boat. If you're going more than 100nm how the hell are you going to move the (mountains of) kit, to your new home?
If you buy CV with more petrol you can loiter over targets, you can wait until the Flanker CAP is Bingo, you don't have to go back tomorrow. You don't have to apologise to the COMAO leader, becasue despite the fact that you're all flying JSFs you have got the crap one.
I know that whatever we get should be better than what we currently have by a country mile.....but if you're upgrading from sticks and stones, why pat ourselves on the back for buying an air rifle - when for the same(ish) money we can get a shotgun?
CVF+STOVL=great step in right direction but still woefully lacking compared to land based aviation.
CVF+CV=world beater.
Orca
You've let the cat out of the bag with the RVL! We were in on the original idea and I could not think of a more hazardous way to get an aircraft aboard and gave it a royal slagging. Astonished to hear it's still being considered!
Just imagine, on final, coming over the round-down at 40+kts relative, 2 deg alpha or so, engine spooling down and then relying on your brakes to stop 15 tonnes of aircraft in ~120m (give or take) of potentially worn camrex with no possibility of a bolter.........
Can anybody seriously think this is a good idea? I'd rather go to bed with Ann Widdecombe (or listen to more anglophone f*ckwittery....)
As for WEBF's question re organic AAR - both USN and ourselves appear to be signing up to the idiocy of using an already payload limited fast jet (be it 18E or Dave B or C) to carry buddy tanks. Interestingly enough, a lot of the Viking airframes being retired to AMARC have upwards of 10000 hours life on them. The Chileans smell a bargain and are trying to get around 10 or so to operate from land. If we bought a proper carrier, it wouldn't take a genius to try the same - particularly if you know what the ISAR pod on the Viking is capable of.....
You've let the cat out of the bag with the RVL! We were in on the original idea and I could not think of a more hazardous way to get an aircraft aboard and gave it a royal slagging. Astonished to hear it's still being considered!
Just imagine, on final, coming over the round-down at 40+kts relative, 2 deg alpha or so, engine spooling down and then relying on your brakes to stop 15 tonnes of aircraft in ~120m (give or take) of potentially worn camrex with no possibility of a bolter.........
Can anybody seriously think this is a good idea? I'd rather go to bed with Ann Widdecombe (or listen to more anglophone f*ckwittery....)
As for WEBF's question re organic AAR - both USN and ourselves appear to be signing up to the idiocy of using an already payload limited fast jet (be it 18E or Dave B or C) to carry buddy tanks. Interestingly enough, a lot of the Viking airframes being retired to AMARC have upwards of 10000 hours life on them. The Chileans smell a bargain and are trying to get around 10 or so to operate from land. If we bought a proper carrier, it wouldn't take a genius to try the same - particularly if you know what the ISAR pod on the Viking is capable of.....
(Pauses from building large wooden badger)
RVL does not sound like a good idea, but then - as you say - buying an aircraft with no bring-back margin out of the box isn't exactly smart either.
Can't imagine why they would drop the external tanks, except they are limited in their use and it's one more thing you don't have to pay for. I don't think that anyone has fitted either the -22 or the -35 so that the tanks can be dropped and LO is maintained, so they are only of use for ferry. OK, the JSF could use them in a second-day, non-LO mission with added external stores - but then you just wiped out two-thirds of your external stores and have only two useful stations left.
WEBF - Are you really going to see an LO aircraft used primarily in austere Harrier-type operations? If you're going to do that you'd be better off with a simpler "Harrier III" with no supersonic, no pretence at LO (which you won't have with more than 2x bombs and 2x AMRAAM anyway) and the Harrier issues fixed.
Ah yes, the Viking ISAR pod. Norden's last and finest....
ORAC - The Rafale should have decent performance as long as they can launch at their design max weight. If they can't do that off the CdG they have effbombed up somehow.
I'm told the F-18E has decent off-load with wall-to-wall tanks. In fact the Navy decided long ago that the SuperBug was their baby, albeit uglier than they were promised, and have decided to love it. Of course the Block 1 Es (particularly the first few lots that can't have AESA) are limited compared to the later aircraft, so CAP and tanker will be their mission.
(Hammering and sawing resume.)
RVL does not sound like a good idea, but then - as you say - buying an aircraft with no bring-back margin out of the box isn't exactly smart either.
Can't imagine why they would drop the external tanks, except they are limited in their use and it's one more thing you don't have to pay for. I don't think that anyone has fitted either the -22 or the -35 so that the tanks can be dropped and LO is maintained, so they are only of use for ferry. OK, the JSF could use them in a second-day, non-LO mission with added external stores - but then you just wiped out two-thirds of your external stores and have only two useful stations left.
WEBF - Are you really going to see an LO aircraft used primarily in austere Harrier-type operations? If you're going to do that you'd be better off with a simpler "Harrier III" with no supersonic, no pretence at LO (which you won't have with more than 2x bombs and 2x AMRAAM anyway) and the Harrier issues fixed.
Ah yes, the Viking ISAR pod. Norden's last and finest....
ORAC - The Rafale should have decent performance as long as they can launch at their design max weight. If they can't do that off the CdG they have effbombed up somehow.
I'm told the F-18E has decent off-load with wall-to-wall tanks. In fact the Navy decided long ago that the SuperBug was their baby, albeit uglier than they were promised, and have decided to love it. Of course the Block 1 Es (particularly the first few lots that can't have AESA) are limited compared to the later aircraft, so CAP and tanker will be their mission.
(Hammering and sawing resume.)