If I remember rightly, there was some speculative talk a while back about navalized Typhoons for the newly acquired Indian carrier (INS Vikramaditya). However, nothing proved conclusive and in the end, the Indian Navy went along with MiG-29Ks.
Should the US Navy supplement with the Rafale?
- Thread starter Turian Pride
- Start date
the eurofighter had a naval version back in the 90s but was dumped as there was no intrest, the indian migs had already been ordered but not for the new carriers being build but for the russian they have brought, this was anounced on the website as a offer on the defence news website in jan
firstly the bow sections have been completed, the cost of the carrier conversion has already been built into the project so there is no real cost in the conversion, as to the aircraft the DOD today anounced that the JSF will now intodays Dollars cost 135 million each, note without source codes, the operation costs are also double that of the F18 , eurofighter, the grippen and the rafale are even lower per unit based on current costs.
while yes the JSF is 5gen plane the cost is still rising the USN/Marines have already said they will now be revising there unit requirements based on the defence budgets, the Australian airforce while they have anounced they will only buy intially 14 aircraft, however not a single confirmed order has been placed. norway ,denmark are now looking more and more towards grippen.
as to training deck crews you seem to forget the uk perfected carrier operations and still retain skills from the carriers we have currently, so deck training is not an issue as such, part of the issue the UK has while wanting stovl verson to replace the harrier it also offers the option to cross deck with other naval warships such as ocean , albion, insupport of commando operations.however this verson is to cost more and as such the UK options would be to have the same verson as the RAF though navalised for consistancy in parts and training ect.
the F18 has been reported to have a airframe crack issue though not on the b,c,d versions and in the states they have grounded some 138 todate, and checks are on going on the others, the fighter has to fit into each countries budgets as the intial costs were agreed in 2002 at 2002 prices, before the world financal problems and constant cost overruns.
as a result rafale grippen are looking a better cost effective option while they are 4.5 Gen they are offered with full source codes, JSF may out price its self, mean while the US are now looking at the F18 life extenshion as a result of the continued delays and costs increse. this may well also extend to the RAAF, and other users.
while rafale have no other current users they have already been offered to the UK at a considerable discount with agreed upgrades which would be required by the RN. at the current rate the two carriers will be comissioned some two years before they see the first JSF
while yes the JSF is 5gen plane the cost is still rising the USN/Marines have already said they will now be revising there unit requirements based on the defence budgets, the Australian airforce while they have anounced they will only buy intially 14 aircraft, however not a single confirmed order has been placed. norway ,denmark are now looking more and more towards grippen.
as to training deck crews you seem to forget the uk perfected carrier operations and still retain skills from the carriers we have currently, so deck training is not an issue as such, part of the issue the UK has while wanting stovl verson to replace the harrier it also offers the option to cross deck with other naval warships such as ocean , albion, insupport of commando operations.however this verson is to cost more and as such the UK options would be to have the same verson as the RAF though navalised for consistancy in parts and training ect.
the F18 has been reported to have a airframe crack issue though not on the b,c,d versions and in the states they have grounded some 138 todate, and checks are on going on the others, the fighter has to fit into each countries budgets as the intial costs were agreed in 2002 at 2002 prices, before the world financal problems and constant cost overruns.
as a result rafale grippen are looking a better cost effective option while they are 4.5 Gen they are offered with full source codes, JSF may out price its self, mean while the US are now looking at the F18 life extenshion as a result of the continued delays and costs increse. this may well also extend to the RAAF, and other users.
while rafale have no other current users they have already been offered to the UK at a considerable discount with agreed upgrades which would be required by the RN. at the current rate the two carriers will be comissioned some two years before they see the first JSF
Are you suggesting the catapaults and arrestor gear are free? The basic design may have incorporated space for these items to be fitted, but the costings and design as it stands today to not include slots in the deck to accommodate the catapaults etc. It's not as simple as hiring an angle grinder from Coates Hire and cutting one. I don't even know if there are steam pipes or are they considering electromagnetics? If they are then we are again looking at cutting edge technology - cheap airframes - thundreds of millions of dollars wasted on developing the catapault.firstly the bow sections have been completed, the cost of the carrier conversion has already been built into the project so there is no real cost in the conversion,
Yes, although the overall purchase costs will be quite a bit higher so will the capability. And it may mean you get an airframe less likely to be obsolete as quickly. If you get 35 years of use out of the F-35, then you are going to be better off than buying a half price alternative that will only be 'front line' capable for 15 years before needing to be replaced.as to the aircraft the DOD today anounced that the JSF will now intodays Dollars cost 135 million each, note without source codes, the operation costs are also double that of the F18 , eurofighter, the grippen and the rafale are even lower per unit based on current costs.
All recent defence purchases seem to be much smaller than forcast - the numbers of B1's, B2's F 22's and so on have all been delivered at less than half of the numbers planned. The RAAF will not just be stopping at 14 airframes - I believe the second tranch is for 59(?) airframes - more a budgeting reason than lack of faith in the airframe. When it comes to Norway and Denmark - I thought Norway had virtually dismissed the Grippen and was virtually certain to order the F35?while yes the JSF is 5gen plane the cost is still rising the USN/Marines have already said they will now be revising there unit requirements based on the defence budgets, the Australian airforce while they have anounced they will only buy intially 14 aircraft, however not a single confirmed order has been placed. norway ,denmark are now looking more and more towards grippen.
as to training deck crews you seem to forget the uk perfected carrier operations and still retain skills from the carriers we have currently, so deck training is not an issue as such
No, I haven't forgotten that the poms vertually invented carrier aviation. What the UK has lost is the operating experience, maintenance experience, aircrew capability to use a conventional carrier Its a bit like the situation the kiwi's face - now they have lost their fast jets getting that capability back is not a simple or inexpensive process.
Not sure what you are getting at here.., part of the issue the UK has while wanting stovl verson to replace the harrier it also offers the option to cross deck with other naval warships such as ocean , albion, insupport of commando operations.however this verson is to cost more and as such the UK options would be to have the same verson as the RAF though navalised for consistancy in parts and training ect.
the F18 has been reported to have a airframe crack issue though not on the b,c,d versions and in the states they have grounded some 138 todate, and checks are on going on the others, the fighter has to fit into each countries budgets as the intial costs were agreed in 2002 at 2002 prices, before the world financal problems and constant cost overruns.
Can you explain why this is important?as a result rafale grippen are looking a better cost effective option while they are 4.5 Gen they are offered with full source codes,
RAAF has implemented HUG 3.1 with minor structural mods, HUG 3.2 the centre barrel replacement was stopped after 11 airframes. The purchase of the 24 Super Hornets as a stopgap and an improved way of managing the existing airframes should see the existing fleet fine until the F-35's arive.JSF may out price its self, mean while the US are now looking at the F18 life extenshion as a result of the continued delays and costs increse. this may well also extend to the RAAF, and other users.
Providing the carriers are on time - how many recent programs have been ontime?while rafale have no other current users they have already been offered to the UK at a considerable discount with agreed upgrades which would be required by the RN. at the current rate the two carriers will be comissioned some two years before they see the first JSF
There has never been a naval version of Eurofighter. There have been proposals for a naval version, but they've only been paper aeroplanes, more back of fag packet sketches than serious designs.the eurofighter had a naval version back in the 90s ..
No steam pipes. No steam generating plant. Powerplant is diesels & GTs, driving an integrated electric propulsion system.Are you suggesting the catapaults and arrestor gear are free? The basic design may have incorporated space for these items to be fitted, but the costings and design as it stands today to not include slots in the deck to accommodate the catapaults etc. It's not as simple as hiring an angle grinder from Coates Hire and cutting one. I don't even know if there are steam pipes or are they considering electromagnetics?
IEP would go very well with EMALS. The current set-up doesn't have excess power, but there's room for another GT, & installation of that would enable EMALS to be powered alongside powering the ship flat out.
That is, of course, dependent on EMALS working. I'm sure it will eventually, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are delays & teething troubles. I'm glad CVF isn't dependent on it.
Marc you are correct in this respect however the design has been costed for both options, and the contract allows for this change and there is a revised cost, should at the construction stage the RN change there mindsAre you suggesting the catapaults and arrestor gear are free? The basic design may have incorporated space for these items to be fitted, but the costings and design as it stands today to not include slots in the deck to accommodate the catapaults etc. It's not as simple as hiring an angle grinder from Coates Hire and cutting one. I don't even know if there are steam pipes or are they considering electromagnetics? If they are then we are again looking at cutting edge technology - cheap airframes - thundreds of millions of dollars wasted on developing the catapault.
Yes, although the overall purchase costs will be quite a bit higher so will the capability. And it may mean you get an airframe less likely to be obsolete as quickly. If you get 35 years of use out of the F-35, then you are going to be better off than buying a half price alternative that will only be 'front line' capable for 15 years before needing to be replaced.
i do not doubt in anyway the capablitiy of thr JSF however the whole thing will come down to overall cost, in 2002 they were estimated at soemwhere around 43 mill, 2003 this went up to around 53 million now were already at 135 mill and im sure austrlaian defence budget will not go far on this basis nor will many other countries.
All recent defence purchases seem to be much smaller than forcast - the numbers of B1's, B2's F 22's and so on have all been delivered at less than half of the numbers planned. The RAAF will not just be stopping at 14 airframes - I believe the second tranch is for 59(?) airframes - more a budgeting reason than lack of faith in the airframe. When it comes to Norway and Denmark - I thought Norway had virtually dismissed the Grippen and was virtually certain to order the F35?
Norway is still in the programme like eveyone else but is looking because of the cost, its defence budget is very small and they are also buying new warships and AFV.
yes agreed however the carriers are currently ahead of sheduleas to training deck crews you seem to forget the uk perfected carrier operations and still retain skills from the carriers we have currently, so deck training is not an issue as such
No, I haven't forgotten that the poms vertually invented carrier aviation. What the UK has lost is the operating experience, maintenance experience, aircrew capability to use a conventional carrier Its a bit like the situation the kiwi's face - now they have lost their fast jets getting that capability back is not a simple or inexpensive process.
Yes for cat operations we have not had the experiance since the late 70s when ark royal was decomissoned, but i dont belive it would take much to relearn the required skills.
Not sure what you are getting at here..
Can you explain why this is important?
RAAF has implemented HUG 3.1 with minor structural mods, HUG 3.2 the centre barrel replacement was stopped after 11 airframes. The purchase of the 24 Super Hornets as a stopgap and an improved way of managing the existing airframes should see the existing fleet fine until the F-35's arive.
Providing the carriers are on time - how many recent programs have been ontime?
Last edited by a moderator:
A.Mookerjee
Banned Member
The Rafale is made to French requirements/specifications, also, the Rafale does not meet the requirements of the U S Navy, which is, a fifth generation stealth fighter. I would give a contract to a U S firm, if I was the U S Navy. The costs of manufacturing a fifth generation stealth fighter, must be brought down. The Russians perhaps, do not have the same levels of finance, as the United States, but they are jointly developing a fifth generation stealth fighter with India. The big aeronautical firms of the U S have a certain idea, as to what the United States Navy can afford to pay. The United States is perhaps putting a premium on technological edge over the other nations.This is a quick question. I'm new and don't know a lot about military strategy and how this would affect us but... I heard that since the F-35 cost is going up, our numbers of buying them would (Or could) go down. And I was thinking that if the cost is going up. Should we buy some Rafales so we don't have to rely on a low number of fighter jets in the navy?
The US Navy is currently pursuing what resembles a "high-low" mix with F-35Cs and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The F-35C is the most advanced of the two, having more comprehensive VLO (very low observability)/"stealth" improved sensors, sensor fusion, etc. and the Super Hornet, although an advanced fighter in its own right, fulfills the lower end of the mix.The Rafale is made to French requirements/specifications, also, the Rafale does not meet the requirements of the US Navy, which is, a fifth generation stealth fighter. I would give a contract to a US firm, if I was the US Navy.
The Rafale could theoretically fit in the slot currently occupied by the Super Hornet; but it clearly isn't going to supplant the F-35C. The Rafale has some radar signature reducation measures, like the Super Hornet, but these do not a VLO/stealth fighter make.
The Rafale simply wasn't design from the onset to be a "stealth fighter," it was designed to be a strike fighter with enough of a reduced radar signature to improve its chances of penetrating and surviving enemy air and ground radar and a defense networks. But simple measures like slapping RAM (radar absorbant material) and tinkering around with a few features like sawtoothing are by no means the same as an aircraft (the F-35,in this case) which was designed from the onset to be highly VLO/stealthy.
If anything, the Rafale would be an F/A-18E/F replacement/supplement, rather than an F-35C replacement.
in one word
no
theres no point the us buying them
reason one
political, if america got rafeles then there would be less people making f35c so people would lose jobs in the us
second
why reinvent the wheel the united states has a perfectly good f 18 series that are good for improvements and redesigns for some time yet
also someone mentioned the uk getting them instead of the f35b or c
reason one political just like the above
we also have the typhoon which is better than the rafale ( no fanboy arguments please)
and i believe under the current conservative government we will be allying closer to america than europe so f35 will be order of the day
unless they get scrapped by cuts :/
no
theres no point the us buying them
reason one
political, if america got rafeles then there would be less people making f35c so people would lose jobs in the us
second
why reinvent the wheel the united states has a perfectly good f 18 series that are good for improvements and redesigns for some time yet
also someone mentioned the uk getting them instead of the f35b or c
reason one political just like the above
we also have the typhoon which is better than the rafale ( no fanboy arguments please)
and i believe under the current conservative government we will be allying closer to america than europe so f35 will be order of the day
unless they get scrapped by cuts :/
Juramentado
New Member
The Dutch parliament voted on withdrawing from the JSF program. Right now, it's 50/50 because of the temporary status of the coalition therein, but if they elect a government that's interested in cutting the budget, well, it could be the beginning of a "domino" effect of participants bowing out...
Dutch Vote to Cancel Order for F-35 JSF
Quite frankly, the F-35 cost per unit is very high (given Nunn-McCurdy, some would say excessively so), even accounting for the supposed "4x better" factor against any other current inventory a/c out there. Given the global economic state, a lot of governments should take a longer look at JSF and then make the calculus about 4x @ 135Mil versus modernizing to a "2x better" factor at a much lower cost using more conventional solutions. In reality, the biggest consumer of JSF is still the US. While it would be fabulous to have the latest technology in one's inventory, MRFs are not a rare bird - there are very reasonable alternatives to it, including Rafale. Just because JSF makes sense (does it?) for the US, doesn't mean it applies to all parties...
Dutch Vote to Cancel Order for F-35 JSF
Quite frankly, the F-35 cost per unit is very high (given Nunn-McCurdy, some would say excessively so), even accounting for the supposed "4x better" factor against any other current inventory a/c out there. Given the global economic state, a lot of governments should take a longer look at JSF and then make the calculus about 4x @ 135Mil versus modernizing to a "2x better" factor at a much lower cost using more conventional solutions. In reality, the biggest consumer of JSF is still the US. While it would be fabulous to have the latest technology in one's inventory, MRFs are not a rare bird - there are very reasonable alternatives to it, including Rafale. Just because JSF makes sense (does it?) for the US, doesn't mean it applies to all parties...