Royal Navy to Buy F18F
Archimedes- I think he's the same one, I did a quick trawl through his other posts, very similar in style and language. Tendency to get rattled easily, and utterly appalling language, merged with xenophobic posts and single minded desire to prove that Rafle > Anything :-)
glad rag - if it is the same chap, experience shows that his points often sound terribly reasonable but are general/generic in nature. And they are couched in that Blairite style whereby what's said is not untrue but creates an impression not fully sustained by the facts.
(We haven't yet hit the point in his usual MO whereby his posts denegerate into priapismic xenophobic pro-Rafale mud-slinging, bolstered by some dodgy reference to the laws of physics which 'prove', according to him, the superiority of Rafale to anything designed by those of an Anglo-Saxon bent.)
However, in answer to your direct question, let's look at what he says:
There is, for obvious reasons, no proof that the Rafale is better than JSF. Certainly, in terms of the avionics, if the F-35 (if it happens) appears with sensor capability only 60% as good as intended, it knocks Rafale into un chapeau cocked. Is it really better than the F/A-18? He thinks it is, insists it is, but offers nothing approximating to reasonable evidence that it is.
Since there is no Seaphoon, the point about Typhoon vs Rafale M is moot, and the debate over which of Rafale and Typhoon is better in general can go on for years without adequate resolution - only when a number of people who've a reasonable number of hours on both types (i.e. exchange bods between Typhoon & Rafale fleets) can make a comparison will that one be settled, if it ever will be.
Likewise Gripen - no carrier variant, not under consideration for CV(F) - at least at the moment, despite the SAAB graphics department's best efforts.
MiG-29K and Su-33 are irrelevant anyway, since I can't see us buying either of those.
To which the response is for what - do we get the airframe cheap, but at hideously high support costs?
A very Gaullist view - the importance of origin mattering more than capability on offer to our poster.
Then -
As has been pointed out, it has been used over Aghanistan, but it isn't omni-role yet, since it lacks designation capability. Again, an assertion about the F-35. Expensive - yes, looks like it will be, even allowing for supposedly impressive low operating costs; piece of junk - still to be proven; never fly operationally - who knows?
And we get the standard-issue statement from Rafale proponents suggesting that Typhoon is an air-to-air only platform, ignoring the fact that (unlike Rafale at present) it can self-designate LGB, and has been able to do so since 2008 and the declaration of multi-role capability.
And, of course, this is assertion - the chap offers no hard evidence to prove his point, probably because he has none, and unless several XI(F) chaps I know have been lying harder than a politician with a dodgy expenses form, I believe him to be wrong. What's more the evidence that is available contradicts him - note the way in which some of the problems in terms of finding the time to train for air-to-ground, integration of PWIV, etc, etc have been mentioned by people who fly Typhoon, without any suggestion that the air-to-ground capability is the chimera astronaute wants us to believe, taking his word over that of those who fly the Typhoon.
This is then followed by (and note the slight ramping up of the xenophobia):
Again, a bit of a non-point, since the Rafale has been around a tad longer than the F-35. And the point can be taken to absurdist extremes thanks to its inherent lack of relevance, since it could just as easily be said that at least the Fairey Battle was flying on ops in 1940, unlike the strange all-wooden thing de Havilland were trying to sell the RAF at the time...
Note the inherent contradiction here - last time round, the Rafale was an Omni-role fighter, but now it isn't - at least at the moment - as omni-role as we were meant to believe from that posting. And when is 'soon' for the arrival of Block 4? Does this give the aircraft the same or better capabilites than (say) Super Hornet? It's all blustering assertion again.
There's no attempt to comprehend what F/A-18E & F can actually do (they can guide their own weapons onto a DMPI and the fun that can be had with the decoupled cockpits on the latest F-models possibly put the SH ahead of the Rafale)
We have no clear price comparison on the overall packages between the Rafale and the SH. What, exactly, would the TLCs look like for the each? What would the support package look like? What about weapons clearances - how much would it cost to get (say) Brimstone on Rafale versus on the SH? What about workshare for British industry? Experience of working with the US suggests that there'd be some, whereas experience to date of working with Dassault (AFVG, Jaguar) suggests that it might be lacking. It might not.
The problem is that his points are generally spotterish assertions drawn from public domain literature telling us how wonderful the aircraft is, without any proper consideration of all the factors which would influence any putative procurement of Rafale or F/A-18E/F to say what the best option is. It's simple assertion that upon closer examination is based entirely upon the fact that that Rafale is a decent aircraft (not disputed), will have additional capability added (ditto), but because it isn't American, is European, and - even better - is French, is therefore the best option.
That, to me, doesn't stack up.
(We haven't yet hit the point in his usual MO whereby his posts denegerate into priapismic xenophobic pro-Rafale mud-slinging, bolstered by some dodgy reference to the laws of physics which 'prove', according to him, the superiority of Rafale to anything designed by those of an Anglo-Saxon bent.)
However, in answer to your direct question, let's look at what he says:
Just buy the Rafale M, who is better than the JSF,F-18,Typhoon,Gripen, Mig29K or Su-33.
Since there is no Seaphoon, the point about Typhoon vs Rafale M is moot, and the debate over which of Rafale and Typhoon is better in general can go on for years without adequate resolution - only when a number of people who've a reasonable number of hours on both types (i.e. exchange bods between Typhoon & Rafale fleets) can make a comparison will that one be settled, if it ever will be.
Likewise Gripen - no carrier variant, not under consideration for CV(F) - at least at the moment, despite the SAAB graphics department's best efforts.
MiG-29K and Su-33 are irrelevant anyway, since I can't see us buying either of those.
The Rafale M is at 60 millions US $
And at least it is european...
Then -
No !!!!
The rafale M is flying over A-stan, it is a omni-role airplane, not a expensive piece of junk, who will never fly operationally as the F-35 ! About the Typhoon, it is a good air to air aircraft, but only on that role !
The rafale M is flying over A-stan, it is a omni-role airplane, not a expensive piece of junk, who will never fly operationally as the F-35 ! About the Typhoon, it is a good air to air aircraft, but only on that role !
And we get the standard-issue statement from Rafale proponents suggesting that Typhoon is an air-to-air only platform, ignoring the fact that (unlike Rafale at present) it can self-designate LGB, and has been able to do so since 2008 and the declaration of multi-role capability.
And, of course, this is assertion - the chap offers no hard evidence to prove his point, probably because he has none, and unless several XI(F) chaps I know have been lying harder than a politician with a dodgy expenses form, I believe him to be wrong. What's more the evidence that is available contradicts him - note the way in which some of the problems in terms of finding the time to train for air-to-ground, integration of PWIV, etc, etc have been mentioned by people who fly Typhoon, without any suggestion that the air-to-ground capability is the chimera astronaute wants us to believe, taking his word over that of those who fly the Typhoon.
This is then followed by (and note the slight ramping up of the xenophobia):
At least it is flying on operation, not like the plastic junk that the gringos want to sell you !
The Rafale is on the block 3, soon it will be on the 4, then it will do everything you can ask to an omni-role fighter !
What about the Super-trash or the Typhoon ? I don t ever talk about the gringos junk F-35 !
What about the Super-trash or the Typhoon ? I don t ever talk about the gringos junk F-35 !
There's no attempt to comprehend what F/A-18E & F can actually do (they can guide their own weapons onto a DMPI and the fun that can be had with the decoupled cockpits on the latest F-models possibly put the SH ahead of the Rafale)
The Rafale is the only option to allow the FAA to have an equipement up to date, with no snags and a reasonable price !
The problem is that his points are generally spotterish assertions drawn from public domain literature telling us how wonderful the aircraft is, without any proper consideration of all the factors which would influence any putative procurement of Rafale or F/A-18E/F to say what the best option is. It's simple assertion that upon closer examination is based entirely upon the fact that that Rafale is a decent aircraft (not disputed), will have additional capability added (ditto), but because it isn't American, is European, and - even better - is French, is therefore the best option.
That, to me, doesn't stack up.
Last edited by Archimedes; 5th Aug 2010 at 21:40. Reason: Edited to ensure spelling of priapismic stands up to attention (coat, hat...)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignoring the French Connection & posture, a couple of additional ingredients for the mix occurs to me;
When Hoon the Loon announced the original signing of the agreement to part fund the F35 development and purchase them for our two new carriers, all to be delivered in 2010/2012, if memory serves correctly, he triumphantly declared that never again would GB produce a fighter aircraft. Which is a political mindset that still seems to be at large and may be in the way of ditching the F35, a lot of political clout went into achieving that position. Labour has always stated that UK armed forces should not exist, despite being the biggest user.
On the other hand, I feel that the chances of the alternative RR engine for the F35 coming to fruition are rapidly decreasing, granted the increasing NIH (Not Invented Here) posture being adapted by the US political arena, witness the contract award to Airbus for the new Tanker fleet, that was immediately rescinded as Boeing lost and the cries that have already gone up about the additional cost of the RR option.
So all in all, more fuel to the arguement that says dropping the F35 and taking on the enhanced F18 is the only practical way forward, both in terms of cost and sensible timescale, (imagine - having the aircraft ready at the same time as the carriers?), given our current financial problems. We would still need to have both carriers, as you cannot run a navy with a single ship main deterrant, that has to be taken out of ops for the odd year or so, but fitting nuclear propulsion would provide enhancement and we could buy this from the US, they have the technology and it would be a good quid pro quo for the F35 cancellation, to strengthen the ground attack, buy a few Warthogs with hooks!
When Hoon the Loon announced the original signing of the agreement to part fund the F35 development and purchase them for our two new carriers, all to be delivered in 2010/2012, if memory serves correctly, he triumphantly declared that never again would GB produce a fighter aircraft. Which is a political mindset that still seems to be at large and may be in the way of ditching the F35, a lot of political clout went into achieving that position. Labour has always stated that UK armed forces should not exist, despite being the biggest user.
On the other hand, I feel that the chances of the alternative RR engine for the F35 coming to fruition are rapidly decreasing, granted the increasing NIH (Not Invented Here) posture being adapted by the US political arena, witness the contract award to Airbus for the new Tanker fleet, that was immediately rescinded as Boeing lost and the cries that have already gone up about the additional cost of the RR option.
So all in all, more fuel to the arguement that says dropping the F35 and taking on the enhanced F18 is the only practical way forward, both in terms of cost and sensible timescale, (imagine - having the aircraft ready at the same time as the carriers?), given our current financial problems. We would still need to have both carriers, as you cannot run a navy with a single ship main deterrant, that has to be taken out of ops for the odd year or so, but fitting nuclear propulsion would provide enhancement and we could buy this from the US, they have the technology and it would be a good quid pro quo for the F35 cancellation, to strengthen the ground attack, buy a few Warthogs with hooks!
Last edited by Entaxei; 5th Aug 2010 at 17:04.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
As we say in France " if you want to see a country full of morons, just cross la Manche ( Channel) heading North !
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A marinised Warthog!!
That would be a hoot if tooled up with AGM 84s as well as the Avenger when the Red Navy comes through the GIUK gap.
(How very Tom Clancy and Cold Warrior-esque)
That would be a hoot if tooled up with AGM 84s as well as the Avenger when the Red Navy comes through the GIUK gap.
(How very Tom Clancy and Cold Warrior-esque)
A marinised Warthog!!
I was once asked by a US Marine friend (infantry MOS) why the US didn't put the A-10 on carriers. I had to think about that.
Beyond it's being slow as hell and thus needing to tank to get anywhere "from the sea,"
- I don't think they built it with a folding wing mod,
- Undercarriage and main members not beefed up for CV landings
- The Marines at the time were in love with the Harrier
- (that curious version that kept flipping upside down)
The Marines are still pissed that the US Navy decommissioned the four battleships ... hey, where's our Naval Gunfire Support, ye swabbies!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Rafale operational?
How do the French define operational??
From what I've seen Rafale is able to carry out flights overseas only when accompanied by a proven 20 year old shepherd aircraft.Every Rafale on the flypro sausage side was always with a Mirage 2000 to show it the way. Maybe we could get lease Thunder City's Lightnings to help Typhoon into combat??
CS
From what I've seen Rafale is able to carry out flights overseas only when accompanied by a proven 20 year old shepherd aircraft.Every Rafale on the flypro sausage side was always with a Mirage 2000 to show it the way. Maybe we could get lease Thunder City's Lightnings to help Typhoon into combat??
CS
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... it could just as easily be said that at least the Fairey Battle was flying on ops in 1940, unlike the strange all-wooden thing de Havilland were trying to sell the RAF at the time...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry to be trivial on a important topic, but it's been on my mind since the start of this thread,
would uk hornets have the "false canopy" painted on the underside?
also, do we have a requirement for a few GROWLERS??
would uk hornets have the "false canopy" painted on the underside?
also, do we have a requirement for a few GROWLERS??
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr fish, I wondered the exact same thing.
As the false canopy looks so very effective, would it not be worth painting some false missiles/tanks on the upper wing surfaces too?
Come to think of it, if someone would paint the name on the side of the A400 that would help too
As the false canopy looks so very effective, would it not be worth painting some false missiles/tanks on the upper wing surfaces too?
Come to think of it, if someone would paint the name on the side of the A400 that would help too
Not sure that the Sea Hog would work very well. Big spot factor even with folding outer wings, and the USN likes the main gears a long way aft so that the jet doesn't tip on a rolling deck.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,001
Received 2,893 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Could be another cunning ploy,
Aka the we have cancelled the TSR2 and are buying the F-111
Out of interest how many fast jet pilots do the navy actually have?
enough to field a football team?
Aka the we have cancelled the TSR2 and are buying the F-111
Out of interest how many fast jet pilots do the navy actually have?
enough to field a football team?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sandbox
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You brits you like to talk to yourselve ! Why in hell one of my post has been withdraw ?
As I told you before, you wont get anything close to the Rafale !
You are just good to follow the gringos and buy the ****s they want to sell you !
Now, you can continue jerking off about the F-35 or the F-18 !
My case is resting !
Ps You still fail to give me the answear, why the Rafale is not good enough for the RN and FAA ?
As I told you before, you wont get anything close to the Rafale !
You are just good to follow the gringos and buy the ****s they want to sell you !
Now, you can continue jerking off about the F-35 or the F-18 !
My case is resting !
Ps You still fail to give me the answear, why the Rafale is not good enough for the RN and FAA ?
Evertonian
Oh come on Arch! His country's official "participation" in that scuffle also ended in 1940, so he cannot be expected to appreciate the parallel that you are drawing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As we say in France " if you want to see a country full of morons, just cross la Manche ( Channel) heading North !
Southerners have more in common with france than they do England.
i.e. An English man's home is his castle.
Southerners can't even pronounce 'castle', they stick an 'r' sound in to it for some inbred reason, therefore they're not really English.
South England is for all intents and purposes Northern france, neither inhabitants actually sound English.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sandbox
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't they just switch sides for a few years?
I know ,in June 1940, the brits did run away with their tails between their legs !
Why didn t you stay to fight the germans ?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parce que il y a personne sauf la France qui a choisi les avions de Dassault pour leur militaires.
But I have always thought it looked stunning, and the photos on the web of Flotille 12 (IIRC) about USS John Stennis showed it off remarkably.
But I have always thought it looked stunning, and the photos on the web of Flotille 12 (IIRC) about USS John Stennis showed it off remarkably.