Never mind that rubbish, do his points stack? up if not why not.

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.

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! :E

What we say about the French can't be printed on Pprune :}

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)

The Royal Marines would love that. :ok:

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,"

1. I don't think they built it with a folding wing mod,
2. Undercarriage and main members not beefed up for CV landings
3. The Marines at the time were in love with the Harrier
   • (that curious version that kept flipping upside down)

But I wonder, sometimes, if a closer look at CAS, and roles and missions, might not have lead to a marinized Warthog.

The Marines are still pissed that the US Navy decommissioned the four battleships ... hey, where's our Naval Gunfire Support, ye swabbies! :mad:

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:)

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.

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??

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:}

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.

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?

You brits you like to talk to yourselve ! Why in hell one of my post has been withdraw ?:confused:

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 ?

:rolleyes:

Didn't they just switch sides for a few years? :confused:

Don't get English southerners confused with the rest of England.

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.

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 ?

Well, nobody else was....

Oh surprise ! You are not so good after all !:mad:

Sorry...didn't watch it...I got distracted reading this.

Back to topic I say...

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.

Other than no-one buying it and dubious support costs. Probably a lack of compability with some weapon systems in the UK inventory. No presence for Dassault or Snecma in the UK military market and no way the MoD would get away with allowing Dassault and Snecma here when BAE Systems provides fast jet through-life services and Rolls-Royce engine support. Granted, Thales is here but their specialisation doesn't include fast jet and engine support. And would France really grant sufficient ToT of the Rafale to the UK to enable BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce to fiddle around with it unless they are really that desperate to sell it. To put it simply, the Rafale - whether it is the best plane around, the worst or nothing much to shout about - won't ever figure in the selection. And if it did, it would be right at the bottom of the list.

Astronaute, speaking as a Scottish Briton, and therefore more British than anyone, I personally would love for our Navy to have the Rafale!

The F35 A or C should, together with Taranis, be the Tonka replacement!

And all Nuclear equipped. This may be the answer to the expense of Trident and it's replacement. I believe SLCMs and ALCMs are what we Brits ought to consider as a Trident replacement, if cost is such a prevalent concern.:ok:

FB

It seems to me that the real problem is not the JSF, but the carriers. Aldready expensive on paper, they will be even costlier on completion, so Britain might need to reevaluate this single choise. If you get something in the region of 30.000t (Italians too would be interested), RN could find the money to buy (say) 40 naval JSF, and RAF another 50. None would be pleased with the compromise, but RN will have a good portion of what it needs and RAF will have something to start with. This interim solution could save some 5-6bn (rough estimates - 2bn from the carriers and 4 from the fighters) and leave the doors open to new orders in the near future. As far as i know construction of the first keel has aldready begun, so there is little time left for this option, but it is still possible.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Super Hornet (or Rafale). They are both good in their own right, affordable and have plenty of improvement ahead. It's just that the F-35 is the only option that can cover both RN and RAF.

Well you could be saying that in German.............

...or Russian - they only stopped going West because the Yanks and the Brits were heading East at the time :}

Oh dear, looks like some of you were correct, incl, Archimedes.
Please accept my apologies for doubting your honest opinions. :):O

And that reminds me ..........
 

There is little or no point in having the Ruffle, everything is labelled in French, which may be OK as the 19th Century language for cooking but pretty useless for 21st Century technological expression.

Also someone mentioned Thales, at present they are involved in the carriers design. Given that the de Gaulle came out a nose too short, if we switch to the F18, we would best remove Thales from involvement with the carriers, re-measure the flight deck and change all measurements to Imperial and labels to English.

The overall result would likely be faster implementation of design and build with resulting cost savings and ..... the Americans would understand everything!!

All round win!! :ok: :E

F-35 pricing firming up
 

OK, here's a better view... Canada's F-35A contract they just signed.

The Canadians have agreed to pay 9bn Canadian dollars ($8.5bn; £5.6bn), which comes out to $138.46 million Canadian; $130.77 million US; £86.15 million each for 65 F-35A... a "price for the package of one airplane and that airplane's share of what is needed to get the squadrons running"!

Plus more for a 20-year maintenance contract.

Note that "Maintenance support contracts" do NOT mean that the operating Air Force does nothing and needs no equipment... it means that maintenance functions above squadron level are the responsibility of the contractor... the operating Air Force still needs all the squadron-level equipment & supplies... which is part of the initial contract (the $9 billion Canadian in this case).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/bu...17fighter.html

So Canada is getting their F-35As for below $85 million each (US)... and likely about $75 million US each (taking the half-way point between Lockheed & Canada).


As the more informed around here were aware of.

Hello Chaps!

1. There is alot of spare concrete at Somerset International - Could be filled by ALL Wildcats when we (the MoD) get them.
2. Still spare concrete - Whatever lovely shiny new toys the RN get could still be based there.
3. Close Wattisham airfield.
4. The MoD budget is four times smaller than the NHS budget.....
5. We don't really know whats gonna be happening around the corner, is Mr A L Q'Ida (spelling!), gonna come out in some other guise? Or shall we start worrying about the Chinese or perhaps Venezula?
6. Will we ask to "Britishise" any new (to the UK) aircaft, or go down the raod of buying "as proved" & off the shelf AGAIN?!!!

Well either way, itr is gonna prove very interesting come the end of October.....:ok:

All good points, but has Rafale already really been entirely ruled out?

If FA18 really is a serious option, then surely any study would have to compare it with Rafale.

Or, if not, the FA18 rumour is just that...

Believe the US call this sort of rumour Horsesh*t!

I don't think the Govt would support the RN buying F-18F at all and here's why:

Dr Fox has gone on record saying that the SDSR will be looking for a UK Fast Air solution for '2020 and beyond'. Sadly that will rule out an F-18F unless we decide to replace Eurofighter with it - the platform is still a 4th Gen fighter with a slightly better AESA radar, so not exactly a quantum leap forward in technology for the money you could spend elsewhere.

HMG are going to be making swathing cuts to the UK FJ inventory that will help pay for a platform that will have contemporary, as well as future, growth; i.e. the most appropriate, affordable, variant of F-35 to match whatever SDSR decides is our 'role' in the modern World.

My personal view is that GR4 is going to go the way of the Jaguar (and perhaps the Harrier may also too) however, a Govt that wants to support Afghanistan until 2015 can still continue to do it with Harrier at a much-reduced cost to the UK tax payer whilst still providing top notch CAS for the guys and girls in the thick of it on the deck.

Rafale is pants quite frankly - and you think that the French would sell you the same version as theirs? No, seriously, non.

GK - As far as I am aware, among the "parts" not included in the $60-$65 million prices touted by Lockheed is the big metal thing in the middle that makes it go.

Also, LM is still in dispute with the government's own accountants over the real cost of the F-35A.

That sounds like the Lynx Wildcat and we are buying a !!!!

And you believe that any country will give you parity? we didn't, the yanks certainly won't either, no matter what kind of contract you think you have.

Well, since "fly-away" indicates that the aircraft has to be complete enough to fly, I would suggest that you provide proof of that rather unbelievable claim... otherwise you owe the folks at LM an apology for the slander and "alternate definition of truth".


Well, since LM has now delivered several sets of test aircraft and 3 rounds of LRIP aircraft for well below the costs "the government's own accountants" predicted, and are in negotiations for a fixed-price contract for LRIP 4 that looks like it will be signed for 20% below what "the government's own accountants" told Congress they would cost, I "respectfully" suggest that "the government's own accountants" have their heads up their ar$$es!

I'm afraid I don't understand your banter old chap! :rolleyes:

What if you don't need parity and are overwhelmingly pleased with what they tell you you're going to get? Then it doesn't matter to be honest, does it?!

As for our cheese eating sisters across La Manche, they'd sell their children if it was profitable. I don't see us ever buying their cheap Eurofighter-like rush job.

Definition of Unit Fly-away Cost Used by DOD:

The standard definition of aircraft unit fly-away cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations. Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments; engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity.

Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares.

What I don't quite understand is that we seem to have quite recently spent lots and lots of money upgrading Tornado ground attack aircraft with some sort of new LCD display in the back seat.

Similarly, I recall some rather extensive and presumably expensive wiring upgrades being done to Jaguar shortly before they were withdrawn.

I'm sure the generalised whining about MoD procurement procedures is well enough aired on this forum, but - for christ's sake.

Phil