Military Aviation News and Discussion
- Thread starter ngatimozart
- Start date
Ananda
The Bunker Group
There's no official information from Bhangladesh or Leonardo on the LoI target. Those USD 7 Bio 20 Brand New Eurofighter come from their forum enthusiast.
Italy do have 24 Tranche 1 that recently going to be replace by similar number Tranche 4. So if they aim to that Italian Tranche 1 with upgrade packages, it is still possible.
Italy do have 24 Tranche 1 that recently going to be replace by similar number Tranche 4. So if they aim to that Italian Tranche 1 with upgrade packages, it is still possible.
Leonardo also offered the Philippines up to 32 Tranche 5 Eurofighters to fit their budget. Reportedly, the Philippines budget was USD 7.5 billion. I believe it would involve long term loans/financing. The same should have been offered to Bhangladesh.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A review of the GAO report on the V-22 Osprey with statistics claiming the accident rate isn’t all that bad. Some fair points for debate but I guess it is up to people who actually have to fly in these machines to decide if they are any worse than helicopters.
The V-22 is a first generation of the new aviation capability which clearly offers advantages. Hopefully the second generation V-280 offers superior reliability and safety that can be utilized in a future V-22 version 2.0.
sldinfo.com
The V-22 is a first generation of the new aviation capability which clearly offers advantages. Hopefully the second generation V-280 offers superior reliability and safety that can be utilized in a future V-22 version 2.0.
Putting the Osprey in the Dock: What the GAO Gets Wrong on V 22 Safety and the Real Drivers of Mishaps - Second Line of Defense
By Robbin Laird The GAO’s recent report on Osprey safety draws attention to real mishaps and genuine concerns, but its framing, methods, and omissions risk reinforcing an outdated caricature of the V‑22 rather than illuminating the actual safety problems the force faces. A more rigorous and...
sldinfo.com
Ananda
The Bunker Group
When one of the partner manufacturer have an idea to keep FCAS ongoing, is by making two seperate jets version. Well this is just the same on saying German and France should make their own seperate ways.
Yes there could be some arrangement to have common parts sharing, but I doubt it will save cost much compare going seperate ways. Either way, the arguments shown much similarities when French decide to build their own Rafale, rather then join Euro Fighters.
Which is what Airbus (as the German partner) has been pushing for for years in order to actually be able to make money off of the project.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
France needs a naval fighter, Germany does not nor does it make sense for Germany to put money into a French requirement. Perhaps Spain does. In any event, two jets seems to be the path forward. The less (very) likely scenario is Germany jumping into GCAP.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Unless the French start giving out Catbar Aircraft carriers like World of Warships promotion.
“Sign up now for FCAS use Promo code BAGETT on the French Ministry of Defense website to get a special. Buy 50 FCAS get a PANG for free and all the Bagetts you can cart away!”
Please note that is sarcasm not a real offer.
It’s a very unlikely thing for the Spanish Navy to be able to take advantage of FCAS.
The Spanish use Matador a variant of the Harrier. They use a Carrier designed for Jump jets. The logical next step on that line would be F35B. Buying FCAS for the Spanish Navy would require a significant paradigm shift.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Spain is contemplating the acquisition of a CATOBAR carrier similar in size to the Charles de Gaulle, and have contracted Navantia to study building a conventional powered 40K ton carrier.
But yeah, near term Spain's pressing need would be post Harrier plans for Juan Carlos I. Since last summer they've been looking at non-F-35B options
With plans to operate Harriers to 2032 even if Spain made final decisions tomorrow they are faced with a prolonged period in the '30s (and on) of not having naval fixed winged options, other than possible drones
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It is unfortunate that the UK and France couldn't get on the same page wrt carriers. Spain and Italy could have been potential partners in a CATOBAR fighter and carrier (albeit a carrier likely their own design). Now, other than France, all are saddled with a non-Euro F-35B for future naval aviation.
The Indian INS Vikrant (STOBAR) is exactly that conventional powered 45k ton carrier. They are probably going to end up with the same dimensions, size and displacement.
Why go for CATOBAR design with the added cost and complexity when the Spanish Navy is hardly a Tier 1 force that needs to be very concerned about air power generation/sortie rates? The Indians operate MiG-29Ks (not an option for Spain) but are transitioning to Rafale Ms, which they had tested to be capable of STOBAR launches since both of their carriers are STOBAR.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
If heavier Flankers (whether Su-33 or J-15) can be operate from STOBAR, then any Euro Land origin Fighter can be adjusted for STOBAR. Spain can maintain their Harrier (or buy ex Marina Military Harrier for Spare Parts), in theory up to a decade at least. Enough time to develop their own 40-50K tons STOBAR carrier, using Rafale M as initial choice toward what French aim as Rafale replacement after 2040+.
Well considering that catapult tech knowhow basically at this moment being cornered by US and China. Considering also the talk currently in Euro Land more rellieance on Euro own tech. STOBAR perhaps also better venue to pursue.
Well considering that catapult tech knowhow basically at this moment being cornered by US and China. Considering also the talk currently in Euro Land more rellieance on Euro own tech. STOBAR perhaps also better venue to pursue.
Last edited:
Terran
Well-Known Member
As they say no such thing as a free lunch.
Operating STOBAR comes at the cost of the payload of your fighter. Less weapons or fuel. The Jets also need to build up speed in their roll up to take off speed and the Ramp it’s self eats decks space so a lot of space is lost meaning a slower tempo of sorties.
All this and STOBAR still has equipment cost. The recovery wires, hydraulic Chock, Blast barriers, emergency nets are on the deck all need to be maintained and replaced regularly. You just don’t have the Steam cat or EMALS.
The Aircraft also have to be navalized anyway. The gear and tail hook beefed up due to the stresses of landing hard short on the deck as well as the throttle up to launch stressing the lead gear.
So really You have most of the Costs only a few of the benefits and more detrimental aspects. You get the larger recovery weight and that is it. If I haven’t made it clear I think STOBAR is stupid. It only really makes sense for small light aircraft like early carrier planes and some smaller drones.
So why go half arsed?
The Three STOBAR Navies all operate such because they got the design more or less second hand from the Soviets.
Russia only had one Carrier really, they didn’t have the Doctrine for a proper carrier. The Kuznetsov is more Guided missile Cruiser that moonlights in launching aircraft. They nearly lost it to Ukraine at the break up of the USSR. With the Russian crew basically stealing the ship. Its sister ship couldn’t move so she ended up in Ukraine until they sold it to China. The Successors couldn’t be built because Russia lacked the dry docks (Ukraine) and /or funding.
China operates STOBAR because they got the Second Kuznetsov class and Su33 from Ukraine and more or less reverse engineered the rest. They are now trying to transition to CATOBAR and more advanced fighters and their own Hawkeye knockoff.
India is STOBAR because the two carriers they have operate MiG 29K and one the INS Vikramaditya was a Russian VTOL Cruiser converted to a STOBAR. It even operated with the Russian Navy for a while. The Vikrant being built to use the same aircraft it made sense to be STOBAR. Yet the Indians too long planned to transition to CATOBAR with the long planed (and trapped in development hell Carrier intended to host Rafale.)
Operating STOBAR comes at the cost of the payload of your fighter. Less weapons or fuel. The Jets also need to build up speed in their roll up to take off speed and the Ramp it’s self eats decks space so a lot of space is lost meaning a slower tempo of sorties.
All this and STOBAR still has equipment cost. The recovery wires, hydraulic Chock, Blast barriers, emergency nets are on the deck all need to be maintained and replaced regularly. You just don’t have the Steam cat or EMALS.
The Aircraft also have to be navalized anyway. The gear and tail hook beefed up due to the stresses of landing hard short on the deck as well as the throttle up to launch stressing the lead gear.
So really You have most of the Costs only a few of the benefits and more detrimental aspects. You get the larger recovery weight and that is it. If I haven’t made it clear I think STOBAR is stupid. It only really makes sense for small light aircraft like early carrier planes and some smaller drones.
So why go half arsed?
The Three STOBAR Navies all operate such because they got the design more or less second hand from the Soviets.
Russia only had one Carrier really, they didn’t have the Doctrine for a proper carrier. The Kuznetsov is more Guided missile Cruiser that moonlights in launching aircraft. They nearly lost it to Ukraine at the break up of the USSR. With the Russian crew basically stealing the ship. Its sister ship couldn’t move so she ended up in Ukraine until they sold it to China. The Successors couldn’t be built because Russia lacked the dry docks (Ukraine) and /or funding.
China operates STOBAR because they got the Second Kuznetsov class and Su33 from Ukraine and more or less reverse engineered the rest. They are now trying to transition to CATOBAR and more advanced fighters and their own Hawkeye knockoff.
India is STOBAR because the two carriers they have operate MiG 29K and one the INS Vikramaditya was a Russian VTOL Cruiser converted to a STOBAR. It even operated with the Russian Navy for a while. The Vikrant being built to use the same aircraft it made sense to be STOBAR. Yet the Indians too long planned to transition to CATOBAR with the long planed (and trapped in development hell Carrier intended to host Rafale.)
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Photos of a newly delivered Mi-28NE combat helicopter from the armed forces of Iran have appeared on the internet.
Evidence Of Mi-28 Havoc Attack Helicopters Delivered To Iran Grows
It is still unclear how many Mi-28NEs are delivered and how many will follow, but at least 3 seems to be in Iran's fleet.
Mi-28 attack helicopters delivered to Iran
Evidence Of Mi-28 Havoc Attack Helicopters Delivered To Iran Grows
It is still unclear how many Mi-28NEs are delivered and how many will follow, but at least 3 seems to be in Iran's fleet.
Mi-28 attack helicopters delivered to Iran
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Circulating on line for this couple of days. The model of Navalized Typhoon that Euro Fighter put against Rafale M, F-18 E/F, Mig 29 N, on India carrier fighter program. Off course the winner already got by Rafale M.
Still what if India choose this, will that also put other Euro Fighter user like Germany or Spain on the path building their own STOBAR or even CATOBAR carrier ? Interesting pondering on 'what if'.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Suddenly coming with a navalized EF2000 doesn't make sense at all. Not for the Indian carrier program, and also not for the European countries. Even if India choose to wait a decade for the development of this EF2000 variant, someone also has to pay for the navalization. It is better for India to wait for the FCAS or HAL Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF).
And i don't think European countries will suddenly start CATOBAR-carrier programs because of this naval variant from a jetfighter designed in the '80s.
Besides that, looking to the image above: Conformal Fuel Tanks, more EW-equipment, TVC... this navalized EF2000 will become much heavier than the normal one.
And i don't think European countries will suddenly start CATOBAR-carrier programs because of this naval variant from a jetfighter designed in the '80s.
Besides that, looking to the image above: Conformal Fuel Tanks, more EW-equipment, TVC... this navalized EF2000 will become much heavier than the normal one.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Another Euro carrier, only if France wants a second ship IMO. Only Spain would consider this and they can’t afford one. Other European nations have zero need and Italy has F-35Bs for their ships. Therefore, zero European market for a naval Typhoon, just my two cents though.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
It's just a scale model.
Eurofighter consortium is not interested in naval market.
Eurofighter consortium is not interested in naval market.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
It is the model that Eurofighter put to compete in Indian Navy bid, so they are interested in Naval Market. Off course in the end it is eliminate on first round together with Mig-29N. Rafale M and Shornet goes to final round and Rafale M win.
From India media and forum, it is been talk both Navalised Mig 29 and Eurofighter being eliminate on first round, as India will not going to finance the development costs of both type. Even tough India Navy use Navalised Mig 29, but the ones that Russia offer was more advance variance that use many Mig 35 aspects. In short both are non existence/concept naval fighter, while Rafale M and Shornet are operating naval fighters.
This is just what if scenario, as what if India choose Eurofighter Naval and willing to bear the costs on developing them. Long shot and close to unlikely from begining, but at least there were the interest from the consortium to try their luck on Naval Fighter Market.
From India media and forum, it is been talk both Navalised Mig 29 and Eurofighter being eliminate on first round, as India will not going to finance the development costs of both type. Even tough India Navy use Navalised Mig 29, but the ones that Russia offer was more advance variance that use many Mig 35 aspects. In short both are non existence/concept naval fighter, while Rafale M and Shornet are operating naval fighters.
This is just what if scenario, as what if India choose Eurofighter Naval and willing to bear the costs on developing them. Long shot and close to unlikely from begining, but at least there were the interest from the consortium to try their luck on Naval Fighter Market.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Let's just say that I had the opportunity to talk with several people working in the Eurofighter program in those years and this "naval" thing was first talked about several years ago.
It's not serious. They don't have any expectations and also don't want to build a naval eurofighter.
It's just market, they build a plastic scale model and there you get free advertising. People will talk about it: its business.
Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH is currently busy with almost 200 new jets to deliver and the tr.4 and tr.5 updates.
They also just launched the AMK program (Aerodynamic Modification Kit) that will be quite a challenge (main customer is the BAAINBw).