Carrier Strike A/C anyone?

#2
Nice, didn't they pull out of the Euro fighter programme to produce that?
 
#3
It looks like a decent bit of kit on first glance. Rafale have made some good aircraft. On the down side would you want to live with the knowledge that your flying a French plane of a French built carrier for the Royal Navy?
 
#4
Yep, the French withdrew from the Eurofighter programme because no one else wanted a carrier capable version. Rafale is a very nice aircraft with nice sensors and an ok warload. However, it is hampered by a surprising lack of thrust and is inferior to both Typhoon and (hopefully!) the F-35.

regards,
MM
 
#5
Magic_Mushroom said:
Yep, the French withdrew from the Eurofighter programme because no one else wanted a carrier capable version. Rafale is a very nice aircraft with nice sensors and an ok warload. However, it is hampered by a surprising lack of thrust and is inferior to both Typhoon and (hopefully!) the F-35.

regards,
MM
Not inferior if you want to fly it off a boat though!

Can Typhoon do a CAP over Pitcairn island?
 
#7
Surley we could buy the airframe and throw in some feck off big Roles Royce engines, that would solve the thrust problems. Bespoke avionices suite from a Brit contractor. It will work in boats and land and will still keep jobs in the UK. Win win?
 
#8
Magic_Mushroom said:
Yep, the French withdrew from the Eurofighter programme because no one else wanted a carrier capable version. Rafale is a very nice aircraft with nice sensors and an ok warload. However, it is hampered by a surprising lack of thrust and is inferior to both Typhoon and (hopefully!) the F-35.

regards,
MM
Have to disagree with you there M_M. My understanding is that apparently, the reason that they withdrew from the Eurofighter programme is that they wanted to be given the design and manufacture lead on this project and the other partners to be made sub-contractors. The other partners (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy) were having none of this and so the Froggies went off in a Gallic huff and developed Rafale instead.
 
#9
crabby said:
Well, why don't we get ourselves Navalised Typhoons then? ;)
That could yet happen if the F-35 went seriously nipples pointing to the sky.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#10
bobath said:
It looks like a decent bit of kit on first glance. Rafale have made some good aircraft. On the down side would you want to live with the knowledge that your flying a French plane of a French built carrier for the Royal Navy?
As opposed to what they have now?
 
#11
FC - MM is correct, as are you...

In essence, the French view of collaboration was that they had design leadership, the engines would be from a French-led consortium and the avionics would be from a French-led consortium. Naturally enough, the other partners demonstrated that 'F*** off' is a multilingual concept and invited the French to do so...

However, there is a suspicion that the French realised that they wouldn't get the aircraft they wanted - carrier capability being a secondary concern that the other partners [notably Germany, Italy and Spain] might jib at and refuse to fund - so they decided to go nuclear in the negotiations to get out as quickly as possible. Anything less might have led to attempts to keep them on board, so they concluded they'd be best served by getting out and never mind what anyone else thought of them; SOP which the FCO would do well to learn - national interest comes above hurting other nations' feelings... [well, apart from blowing up boats in friendly harbours, of course].
 
#12
Archimedes said:
FC - MM is correct, as are you...

In essence, the French view of collaboration was that they had design leadership, the engines would be from a French-led consortium and the avionics would be from a French-led consortium. Naturally enough, the other partners demonstrated that 'F*** off' is a multilingual concept and invited the French to do so...

However, there is a suspicion that the French realised that they wouldn't get the aircraft they wanted - carrier capability being a secondary concern that the other partners [notably Germany, Italy and Spain] might jib at and refuse to fund - so they decided to go nuclear in the negotiations to get out as quickly as possible. Anything less might have led to attempts to keep them on board, so they concluded they'd be best served by getting out and never mind what anyone else thought of them; SOP which the FCO would do well to learn - national interest comes above hurting other nations' feelings... [well, apart from blowing up boats in friendly harbours, of course].
You put it so much better than I ever could :D
 
#13
Also, isn't there a problem that the French carriers ar too small for it, the naval Rafele, to use?
 
#14
Ex Stab,

Not inferior if you want to fly it off a boat though!

Can Typhoon do a CAP over Pitcairn island?
I didn't suggest it could. Land based and carrier based aviation each have advantages over the other. My point is, we have Typhoon and we're getting F-35, both of which are superior to Rafale by quite a measure.

Bobath, Crabby,

Well, why don't we get ourselves Navalised Typhoons then?
Surley we could buy the airframe and throw in some feck off big Roles Royce engines, that would solve the thrust problems. Bespoke avionices suite from a Brit contractor. It will work in boats and land and will still keep jobs in the UK. Win win?
It would cost an absolute fortune to strengthen the Typhoon airframe for carrier ops. Although BAeS have looked at it and it is feasible, the cost would be prohibitative given we'd have to do it on our tod for a relatively small production run.

Likewise, you can't just 'throw in' new avionics let alone engines. The latter would require redesign of intake inlets and most probably the rear fuselage structure. This in turn would need new flight control software etc. We tried it in the 60s when we insisted on sticking the Rolls Royce Spey and different avionics into the F-4. Result, a more costly, less capable F-4 than everyone else. Can you imagine how much the French would charge?!

Personally I don't think F-35 will get canned. Delayed further yes. But not canned. Even the F-35B variant seems to be looking more solid now although the USAF seem to be cooling to a split purchase of A and B models. If we didn't get F-35, I'd probably go for FA-18E/F with Rafale as a close second.

FFbox,

Also, isn't there a problem that the French carriers ar too small for it, the naval Rafele, to use?
No. The deck of CDG had to be redesigned to cater for the E-2C but Rafale has always been fine. Both now operate no worries.

Regards,
MM
 
#15
Aparently we have looked at Rafele or navalised Typhoon already as a contingency if the JSF projuect goes t*ts. This is a possibility as I believe they're still haing problems with the MOU.
 
#16
Magic_Mushroom said:
Ex Stab,

Not inferior if you want to fly it off a boat though!

Can Typhoon do a CAP over Pitcairn island?
I didn't suggest it could. Land based and carrier based aviation each have advantages over the other. My point is, we have Typhoon and we're getting F-35, both of which are superior to Rafale by quite a measure.

Bobath, Crabby,

Well, why don't we get ourselves Navalised Typhoons then?
Surley we could buy the airframe and throw in some feck off big Roles Royce engines, that would solve the thrust problems. Bespoke avionices suite from a Brit contractor. It will work in boats and land and will still keep jobs in the UK. Win win?
It would cost an absolute fortune to strengthen the Typhoon airframe for carrier ops. Although BAeS have looked at it and it is feasible, the cost would be prohibitative given we'd have to do it on our tod for a relatively small production run.

Likewise, you can't just 'throw in' new avionics let alone engines. The latter would require redesign of intake inlets and most probably the rear fuselage structure. This in turn would need new flight control software etc. We tried it in the 60s when we insisted on sticking the Rolls Royce Spey and different avionics into the F-4. Result, a more costly, less capable F-4 than everyone else. Can you imagine how much the French would charge?!

Personally I don't think F-35 will get canned. Delayed further yes. But not canned. Even the F-35B variant seems to be looking more solid now although the USAF seem to be cooling to a split purchase of A and B models. If we didn't get F-35, I'd probably go for FA-18E/F with Rafale as a close second.

FFbox,

Also, isn't there a problem that the French carriers ar too small for it, the naval Rafele, to use?
No. The deck of CDG had to be redesigned to cater for the E-2C but Rafale has always been fine. Both now operate no worries.

Regards,
MM
I know you didn't suggest Typhoon could do what I asked, I was making a rhetorical point about us being unable to project air power where we want to. Or where the French can. As I see it we can't operate a CAP away from a fixed base at all which means we'd better be careful who we upset when our friends aren't there. A Rafale on a carrier today is vastly superior to a Typhoon out of range over the horizon or an F35 on a carrier in a few years time.
 
#17
I can't help feeling that the Rafale and Sea Typhoon studies are leverage, though - the MOU has problems, but given the choice of seeing the RAF & RN go for something else not made in America or giving the UK pretty much what it wants in MOU terms, or a very generous offer for Super Hornets and I suspect that an American airframe will appear on deck.

Also, a Rafale purchase would be very awkward. Not because it's a French aircraft, but because it would raise questions over numbers. If the JSF is canned (I share MM's view, BTW, that it won't be) then from an RAF point of view, the Rafale offers too much in common with Typhoon and (despite the legions of French nationalist spotters posting to the contrary on internet fora) doesn't offer an air-ground capability a step change greater than that provided by Typhoon. Yes, it's more A-G oriented, but since Typhoon will be able to do a more than adequate A-G job with Storm Shadow, PW and Brimstone, why add a new aircraft to the fleet at much cost when economies of scale could apply if you buy more Typhoons?

This leads to a smaller buy of aircraft for CVF, with the risk that the RAF takes the view that the RN should fund the airframes since they're to be carrier based. Alternatively, the idea that the UK offers the CVF as a coalition platform from which the USMC, Aeronavale and others fly combat ops during wartime emerges. There are some people who see this latter answer as being a perfectly logical solution to the problem.

I suspect, though, that the RAF wouldn't automatically default to a 'We've got more Typhoons, s*d the RN and the carrier' approach. Despite the view sometimes seen on Pprune that the RAF is constantly conspiring to destroy the FAA, the reality, in my experience is rather different.

The complimentary nature of air and land assets and the utility of a carrier as a means of enhancing the flexibility of air power rather than simply making the fleet look jollly impressive at a review and poising [with a silent 'i'] near to trouble spots as an illustration of maritime power is well recognised by most of our crustacean chums, and, for that matter, amongst FAA officers of my acquaintance.

The problem - again based on experience of chatting with RN officers on a regular basis - lies largely in the attitudes of non-air minded RN officers who think that a carrier's air group should only ever fly off the carrier, even if the end result of so doing is to create the world's most expensive self-licking ice cream which offers little military effect.

Given that it appears that the RAF sees carriers in a different light to how it perceived them when CVA01 was cancelled, this means in the absence of JSF you obtain an aircraft that can't be hit by the Treasury and instead bought in meaningful numbers - which pushes you down the route of the F/A-18F, which - particularly as a two seater - offers certain capabilities that complement the Typhoon and what'll be a dwindling number of Tornado GR4s (you could use S Hornet for AAR of strike packages, Tac R, AFAC, NTISR using two sets of Mk 1 Eyeball and a targeting pod, etc, etc).

That's my take - I'm sure others would dispute that (particularly Avions Marcel Dassault) - but as I hinted at above, I suspect that it'll all work out with the JSF anyway making the above as irrelevant as it probably is dull to read...
 
#18
EX_STAB said:
Magic_Mushroom said:
Yep, the French withdrew from the Eurofighter programme because no one else wanted a carrier capable version. Rafale is a very nice aircraft with nice sensors and an ok warload. However, it is hampered by a surprising lack of thrust and is inferior to both Typhoon and (hopefully!) the F-35.

regards,
MM
Not inferior if you want to fly it off a boat though!

Can Typhoon do a CAP over Pitcairn island?
You don't fly cabs of boats,they're SHIPS, :roll: stick a hook on any cab,a Fleet Air Arm pilot'll land it! 8)

RoofRat: Hermes 69-72 (When we had proper Carriers,not those cute lil things they have now)
 
#19
RoofRat said:
EX_STAB said:
Magic_Mushroom said:
Yep, the French withdrew from the Eurofighter programme because no one else wanted a carrier capable version. Rafale is a very nice aircraft with nice sensors and an ok warload. However, it is hampered by a surprising lack of thrust and is inferior to both Typhoon and (hopefully!) the F-35.

regards,
MM
Not inferior if you want to fly it off a boat though!

Can Typhoon do a CAP over Pitcairn island?
You don't fly cabs of boats,they're SHIPS, :roll: stick a hook on any cab,a Fleet Air Arm pilot'll land it! 8)

RoofRat: Hermes 69-72 (When we had proper Carriers,not those cute lil things they have now)
BITE! I wondered how long it would take :D

Seriously, though, I doubt there are many pilots in FAA who have ever carried out an arrested conventional carrier landing. We would have to go to the French or the Yanks to train... :oops:
 
#20
My comment about Navalised Typhoons was not really supposed to be a serious one. I am aware that BAe investigated the possibility and that it has been suggested as a way forward if F-35 either doesn't materialise OR the septics won't give us the code.
So basically we'll strut about threatening not to buy an F-35 if we're not given the codes by a bunch of jumped up septics.
I'm not as sure J-35 will go ahead, but I'm not as update as a lot of people on this thread appear to be. Everything I hear is about over-weight, under-performance, lockheed being gits with the coding and ISDs moving back and back and back...
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top