F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
70s design perhaps, but already more capable than where the Typhoon is aiming and no work required for carrier capability
Last edited by Justanopinion; 21st Jan 2013 at 15:27.
Originally Posted by Rhino Power
Didn't the RR Speys in RAF/RN F-4s use 'fueldraulics' to power the nozzle actuators?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 21st Jan 2013 at 16:26.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Others were:
- as said above, wanted a lighter aircraft (carrier was an issue for wanting a lighter aircraft, but not the only one) ;
- more emphasis on the AtoG role (Fighter/Bomber) than on the AtoA (Fighter) role that was prevalent for UK ;
- Dassault's & SNECMA's weight
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?
WW,
You're not the first person to consider that idea. Some did say at the time that they joined the programme, imposed almost intollerable restrictions on it (most notably size and mass) and then left. Only to produce their excellent aircraft well ahead of ours. Of course they weren't in a consortium then to slow things down.
But that's all just a flight of fancy. What a lovely jet they made too.
You're not the first person to consider that idea. Some did say at the time that they joined the programme, imposed almost intollerable restrictions on it (most notably size and mass) and then left. Only to produce their excellent aircraft well ahead of ours. Of course they weren't in a consortium then to slow things down.
But that's all just a flight of fancy. What a lovely jet they made too.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 21st Jan 2013 at 21:00.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As John Farley eloquently pointed out I am sure that EF could take off from QEC given the right conditions. However, having seen the BAES pitch to sell marinised Typhoon to the Indians, the back end of the fuselage structure needed alot of work to beef it up enough to regularly take a wire.
BAES have some excellent people and technically they could make it work I am sure. But for how much...? Balance that against loss of income from the UK pulling out of F-35 and I'm not sure BAES would advise the D of T&I and MOD that it's a good idea. Of course if the programme gets axed by the US then there is no choice but I truly believe that will not happen.
BAES have some excellent people and technically they could make it work I am sure. But for how much...? Balance that against loss of income from the UK pulling out of F-35 and I'm not sure BAES would advise the D of T&I and MOD that it's a good idea. Of course if the programme gets axed by the US then there is no choice but I truly believe that will not happen.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney 
The Rafale is a very pretty, and apparently very useful, aeroplane.
The fact it is so AtoG capable unfortunately makes theTyphoon look a bit Johnny-come-lately to the party.
The Rafale is a very pretty, and apparently very useful, aeroplane.
The fact it is so AtoG capable unfortunately makes theTyphoon look a bit Johnny-come-lately to the party.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhiteOvies,
Surely the choice then becomes F-18?
I'm not an unashamed F-18 advocate but I'd suggest that it (or perhaps Rafale) is a much more likely choice than a navalised Typhoon.
Surely the choice then becomes F-18?
I'm not an unashamed F-18 advocate but I'd suggest that it (or perhaps Rafale) is a much more likely choice than a navalised Typhoon.
Last edited by ColdCollation; 22nd Jan 2013 at 08:56.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think after Bosnia the french realized AtoG was a more urgent requirement then intercepting russian bombers. So they changed the requirements and created a complete two seater that has become the main variant for the French airforce.
The German also saw the requirements changing but felt the pressure not to change the Typhoon contract. They tried to sneak out but couldn't..
The insight that air to ground, range and a two man cockpit was needed grew slow, very slow in the UK. Tranche III, if accepted, on this interceptor would make it a very expensive, large RCS, agile, short range, single cockpit attack aircraft..
Maybe keep the Tornado's some longer and work on something more suitable for the next 20 yrs?
The German also saw the requirements changing but felt the pressure not to change the Typhoon contract. They tried to sneak out but couldn't..
The insight that air to ground, range and a two man cockpit was needed grew slow, very slow in the UK. Tranche III, if accepted, on this interceptor would make it a very expensive, large RCS, agile, short range, single cockpit attack aircraft..
Maybe keep the Tornado's some longer and work on something more suitable for the next 20 yrs?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The requirements weren't changed "after Bosnia". The Rafale was from the start thought as a multirole (or omnirole, as Dassault sells it).
The first aircrafts to replace were:
- the Jaguar for the AdlA (pure striker, hence the AtoG importance from the start)
- the Crusader for the MN (pure fighter, navalised)
... and then, all the fighters/bombers in the French inventory.
BTW, the 2 seater doesn't seem that much needed. Indeed, after several years of use, France choosed to have "only" 1 pilot for most missions (even in 2 seaters aircrafts) be it AtoA or AtoG. The exception being the nuclear strike (pilot+WSO), and the conversion course (student+FI). Perhaps also some "high profile" raids, with long-range weapons (SCALP), but it's not a "requirement", more a consequence of the specialist squadron for that kind of weapons being the nuclear-able 1/91 Gascogne with its WSOs.
The first aircrafts to replace were:
- the Jaguar for the AdlA (pure striker, hence the AtoG importance from the start)
- the Crusader for the MN (pure fighter, navalised)
... and then, all the fighters/bombers in the French inventory.
BTW, the 2 seater doesn't seem that much needed. Indeed, after several years of use, France choosed to have "only" 1 pilot for most missions (even in 2 seaters aircrafts) be it AtoA or AtoG. The exception being the nuclear strike (pilot+WSO), and the conversion course (student+FI). Perhaps also some "high profile" raids, with long-range weapons (SCALP), but it's not a "requirement", more a consequence of the specialist squadron for that kind of weapons being the nuclear-able 1/91 Gascogne with its WSOs.
The French wanted carrier capability, which restricted both size in general (note that the Raf has no folding wings) and radar antenna size in particular because of over-the-nose visibility.
The French were also more keen on the ability to carry a big external payload (eg, two effin big tanks and a nuclear missile) than on supersonic maneuver, which was a big part of the UK-German requirement.
Finally, the Frogs intimated later that they did not like the very high degree of pitch instability in the Anglo-German concept, which is how the Phoon does supersonic maneuver without being F-22-sized and which did indeed cause some trouble. But the Frogs did say that after the Typhoon had hit trouble, so they may have just wanted to sound smart.
What about Sea Gripen, anyway? Not sure of STOBAR range-payload - but I bet it can do 450 nm HMMH with 2 x 1000 lb + 2 x AAM...
The French were also more keen on the ability to carry a big external payload (eg, two effin big tanks and a nuclear missile) than on supersonic maneuver, which was a big part of the UK-German requirement.
Finally, the Frogs intimated later that they did not like the very high degree of pitch instability in the Anglo-German concept, which is how the Phoon does supersonic maneuver without being F-22-sized and which did indeed cause some trouble. But the Frogs did say that after the Typhoon had hit trouble, so they may have just wanted to sound smart.
What about Sea Gripen, anyway? Not sure of STOBAR range-payload - but I bet it can do 450 nm HMMH with 2 x 1000 lb + 2 x AAM...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would Sea Gripen, in these straitened times, not fit the same buffers as Sea Typhoon - in that it's not available in the flesh yet?
(Not saying it's not a lovely option, mind...)
(Not saying it's not a lovely option, mind...)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Great British CEPP Handicap Stakes
Having read the deliberations of the great and the good, the knowledgeable and the clueless, I have opened a book on the various fall-back options.The latest prices on all the runners:-
1. Typical Cynical Brit: 1/5 on.Fav. (Whatever we buy will be years late, over-budget, under spec and a quarter of the number needed)
2. Sweet Fanny Adams (F***- all) - 3/1
3. Miss Dewire (F35C) - 35/1
4. Ready, Willing and Able (F18 SH) - 40/1
5. Oh Bad Luck, Admiral! (F35A) – 50/1
6. Cool-Fanned Luke (F35B) - Is withdrawn after being found to be not all it has cracked up to be.
7. ‘ello Matelot (RafaleM) - 125/1
8. Wistful Warton (Sea Typhoon) - 250/1
9. Take a chance on me (Sea Gripen) - 350/1
10. Peggy’s Sussed It (Super Harrier ++) - 500/1
11. McEnroe’s Assertion (MIG 29K) - 500/1
12. Who ate all the Pieski? (SU 33) - 500/1
13. Norfolk & Chance (Taranis III armed UCAV) - 1000/1
I am firmly established in the clueless observer category, but were F35B to bite the dust, then my selection of the most likely winner would be runner no. 2 - Sweet FA - as it would be the most economically affordable choice. I think it would beat the favourite, Typical Cynical Brit, which I suspect will get more outings in future.
LF
1. Typical Cynical Brit: 1/5 on.Fav. (Whatever we buy will be years late, over-budget, under spec and a quarter of the number needed)
2. Sweet Fanny Adams (F***- all) - 3/1
3. Miss Dewire (F35C) - 35/1
4. Ready, Willing and Able (F18 SH) - 40/1
5. Oh Bad Luck, Admiral! (F35A) – 50/1
6. Cool-Fanned Luke (F35B) - Is withdrawn after being found to be not all it has cracked up to be.
7. ‘ello Matelot (RafaleM) - 125/1
8. Wistful Warton (Sea Typhoon) - 250/1
9. Take a chance on me (Sea Gripen) - 350/1
10. Peggy’s Sussed It (Super Harrier ++) - 500/1
11. McEnroe’s Assertion (MIG 29K) - 500/1
12. Who ate all the Pieski? (SU 33) - 500/1
13. Norfolk & Chance (Taranis III armed UCAV) - 1000/1
I am firmly established in the clueless observer category, but were F35B to bite the dust, then my selection of the most likely winner would be runner no. 2 - Sweet FA - as it would be the most economically affordable choice. I think it would beat the favourite, Typical Cynical Brit, which I suspect will get more outings in future.
LF
Norfolk and Chance is an attractive bet ..
Courtney,
Your memory is correct, the Phantom Spey reheat nozzle had its own dedicated oil system. In fact there were four separate oil systems, engine, reheat, constant speed drive and the starter. I had a look in my cupboard full of things I was supposed to throw away and my Phantom and Buccaneer aircrew manuals are still there. I think the Avon in the Lightning had a fueldraulic driven nozzle which may have contributed to its propensity to catch fire at the back end. I guess the dynamic seals on a set of fueldraulic actuators next to a very hot jet pipe would be a pretty challenging design requirement.
Walbut
Your memory is correct, the Phantom Spey reheat nozzle had its own dedicated oil system. In fact there were four separate oil systems, engine, reheat, constant speed drive and the starter. I had a look in my cupboard full of things I was supposed to throw away and my Phantom and Buccaneer aircrew manuals are still there. I think the Avon in the Lightning had a fueldraulic driven nozzle which may have contributed to its propensity to catch fire at the back end. I guess the dynamic seals on a set of fueldraulic actuators next to a very hot jet pipe would be a pretty challenging design requirement.
Walbut