The French may lose again

LeEnfield said:
To redesign the Typhoon to operate from carriers would have added billions to the development figure and just how many of these types of plane would we have been able to sell world wide. Britain was already committed to building the JSF STOL type with America, and as the country that would have required the Typhoon Naval version was France I can't why we should pay all that extra money for a couple squadrons of aircraft for the French Carriers.
Click to expand...

Nobody said Britain should invest in the carrier version of the Typhoon. As you said, it was not in your national interest. But by the same token it wasn't in France's interest to investment heavily in an aircraft that its Navy couldn't use. They would have been stupid to continue on the Typhoon project. The Typhoon didn't suit France's needs, so they went with a design that did. They did what was to act in accordance with their own national interest. Show me a country that wouldn't act the same.

You can be sure Britain would have done exactly the same if the situation is reversed.
 
LeEnfield said:
To redesign the Typhoon to operate from carriers would have added billions to the development figure and just how many of these types of plane would we have been able to sell world wide. Britain was already committed to building the JSF STOL type with America, and as the country that would have required the Typhoon Naval version was France I can't why we should pay all that extra money for a couple squadrons of aircraft for the French Carriers.
Click to expand...

I think you have hit the nail on the head from the French perspective as well why should they pay the extra money for an aircraft that doesn't suit all their needs either.

On the whole I am not sure what the argument is here both the Typhoon and the Rafale are excellent aircraft and designed to meet the needs of the nation using them.

Oh and Mmarsh you do realise that putting people on ignore means that they get to post unchallenged?
 
MontyB said:
I think you have hit the nail on the head from the French perspective as well why should they pay the extra money for an aircraft that doesn't suit all their needs either.

On the whole I am not sure what the argument is here both the Typhoon and the Rafale are excellent aircraft and designed to meet the needs of the nation using them.

Oh and Mmarsh you do realize that putting people on ignore means that they get to post unchallenged?
Click to expand...

There is no argument. I was just clearing up a certain misconception as to why France dropped out of the Typhoon-II project. In fact both aircraft are nearly identical, both aircraft were designed from the same technological study. The Typhoon is slightly faster but the Rafale is more manueverable. The Rafale might be better oriented toward AtG whilst the Typhoon might get the nudge in AtA capability.

As for the last point, is it because someone is too afraid to defend those opinions from scrutiny? Speaks volumes of how utterly worthless those opinions are.
 
Last edited:
LeEnfield said:
To redesign the Typhoon to operate from carriers would have added billions to the development figure and just how many of these types of plane would we have been able to sell world wide. Britain was already committed to building the JSF STOL type with America, and as the country that would have required the Typhoon Naval version was France I can't why we should pay all that extra money for a couple squadrons of aircraft for the French Carriers.
Click to expand...

Because it is France. They want every thing to be done for them by the rest of Europe or perhaps the world. Their aircraft carriers are very much like Americans. Thats why they got F-8 Crusaders. The CAT system of their carrier was designed by Northrop Grumman.

Btw, Am I right to think that France is not going to get Typhoon? I never saw they r going to get it.
 
Carrier

I think the decisions to split might have been the correct one if it was based on producing a carrier version of Typhoon. England doesn't operate large carries and the US Navy would never buy it so why waste money and time on producing one.

mmarsh I read in a few different forums long threads about the EF2000 vs. Rafale and you seem correct, there based off the same study. Both sides claiming this does this better and so forth and to me reading them they seem pretty even. Pilot skill and who fields an AESA radar first might give one side a little edge. France getting the Rafale a little combat time might help with sales down the road.

I found this
Russian, French combat aircraft to leave Dushanbe - Tajik official
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69363646.html
I would be cool seeing Russian and French types on one base I couldn't find pictures or much else anywhere. I think there was a chance that Rafales and Mirage 2000 + Flankers were there but can't confirm it. You would think somebody would take a few pictures of such a rare treat. Maybe the base is too secret to let anything get out I don't know much about French forces in that region.
 
rock45..........England is about to build to large carriers but they will be using the JSF which they have payed a large chunk of it's development costs
 
Enfield

You know if the UK-JSF deal had fallen through last year the most likest outcome would have been that the RN purchase Rafale's from France.

Just the thought of French airplanes rolling off British warships, Lord Nelson would have been spinning in his grave.
 
mmarsh..............Sorry to have to disagree with you but every thing is going ahead with JSF so we wont need those out dated French aircraft.
 
mmarsh said:
Enfield

You know if the UK-JSF deal had fallen through last year the most likest outcome would have been that the RN purchase Rafale's from France.

Just the thought of French airplanes rolling off British warships, Lord Nelson would have been spinning in his grave.
Click to expand...
I think that's true and it's likely that Britain will never field any exclusively French produced military hardware ... if they can at all help it. Has the potential to become a bad blind side of course.

I think that the JSF provides a lot of advantages that the Ratalle simply cannot. Formost among them: Extreme adaptability and greater stealthiness. In the end, the Ratalle is a good fighter. In general, it seems that French military hardware is largely UNDER-rated (they produce better hardware than much of the world is willing to give them credit for.)

The fact that Morocco is buying F16's over Ratalles is a lot simpler than people are making it. It's the same reason that Russia's armored units are still predominantly old T-72's and older: Russia and Morocco both decided to go for cheaper. Wake me up when we're talking about a military contract with a nation that is DETERMINED to get the best equipment possible ... like Israel for instance.

BTW, why did this turn into a flamewar?
 
Last edited:
Instead of looking at this as "which plane is better" I think the issue is/should be "which plane better fits our need". Morocco isn't exactly surrounded by technically advanced nations that are engaged in a constant arms race, the situation they are in is, while not more relaxed, nothing like the Israeli/Arab situation from 1948 to Present with each side trying to constantly one up one another. The F-16 is a more than capable air craft that can handle pretty much any task it is given and without any hostile neighbors who possess 4th generation fighters of their own why would the Moroccan government need to spend the extra $500 million for 12 fewer but more advanced planes? When you're a high school kid you don't need a brand new Cadillac every three years, a used Ford will get the job done, when you're a high level executive in a fortune 500 company you do need the new car because image counts for so much. That's the situation in Morocco, they don't need the Rafale, they may want it more, but if they can buy more for less why not? Plus the F-16's have proven very reliable in service around the world for decades and just last month Israel proved that they are still a very potent weapon when used properly, personally I think it's a no brainer, go with the aircraft that is cheaper and has proven itself time and again.
 
Carriers and the Rafale program

Hi LeEnfield
I don’t think England’s carrier will be on the same scale and size as a US Navy carrier. I think the F-35 bought will be F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant, and not the F-35C, carrier based (CV) variant. I don’t think a carrier model of a Typhoon will be built for cost reasons mainly, I think it could be done overall. Because of the F-35 stealth features F-35 should be able to get closer to an air target without being seen to make better use of its missiles and so doesn’t need to be the greatest burner and turner. The F-35 in some forums is getting flat out nasty things said about them which to me make little sense. Not being seen is a better asset to have therefore shooting first in battle against aircraft like Rafale’s, and Flankers will serve England’s F-35s very well. The F-35 is built after the F-22 and can only benefit from F-22 program 110 percent, I can’t see how anybody can knock an aircraft not even finished yet and based off of specs that are going to change. Besides most of the F-35 data is and will be classified anyway.
The Morocco deal to me might be one of the most important baby steps needed to be taken by France to get this program going. Besides giving it away France needs to make this happen. Because of its stealth I think the F-35 is going to slaughter the Rafael and even EF2000 fives years from now once most public testing is done and more information released. Every F-16 user and more are going to jump on the F-35 bandwagon once this program gets going. The weapons packages, sensors, and cockpit layouts, are just too good it’s 5th generation. Sadly I think France has less then three years to get some Rafale sales made or. Don’t get mad at for saying it but I think France will break the no trade agreement on selling advance weapons/aircraft to China. Too much has been invested into the Rafale program for France to just sit by and lose to America’s future F-35 program, waiting for it to kick into high gear. It’s already losing to F-16s an aircraft it can beat I think in most types of combat except maybe pure air to ground something needs to be done. Some combinations of J-10 Block II creation / Rafale merge or flat out Rafale’s sales will be made to China with tech transfer. France is too eager and can’t lose the money and time invested and the Chinese and French navy training is just the beginning. I hope I’m wrong and France fines some other way. Once the pre-construction begins for the F-35 and more is released basically 4th ++ generation aircraft sales will end. It will sink home when in a few short years the F-16 lines will close and customers turned away.
 
LeEnfield said:
mmarsh..............Sorry to have to disagree with you but every thing is going ahead with JSF so we wont need those out dated French aircraft.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I said "IF". But supposing the deal had fallen through (which it almost did) you Brits would have been in a pickle.

BTW I am not sure Nelson would have liked a mostly-American bird rolling off the deck of a RN ship any better than he would a French one.

Secondly the Rafale is outdated? Its not as Modern as the F-35 but its hardly outdated...
 
mmarsh said:
BTW I am not sure Nelson would have liked a mostly-American bird rolling off the deck of a RN ship any better than he would a French one ...
Click to expand...
The United Kingdom (specifically England) and France experienced the longest mutually hostile relationship between two great world powers in human history. There's still an undercurrent of ill feelings. Admiral Nelson was from that era of extreme British/French mutual hostility. I believe that is more what's being stated by people.

As the UK has had a large role to play in the development of the JSF (much as they did with the Harrier) I don't think they're going to view it as "an Amercian bird." They helped created it. On the other hand, the Ratalle is pretty much all French.

It does seem extremely odd to me that there are no 5th generation fighters coming out (that I'm aware of) from anywhere but the USA (and the UK via partnership.) Does anyone know of anything in the works that I've not heard of?
 
Last edited:
godofthunder9010 said:
The United Kingdom (specifically England) and France experienced the longest mutually hostile relationship between two great world powers in human history. There's still an undercurrent of ill feelings. Admiral Nelson was from that era of extreme British/French mutual hostility. I believe that is more what's being stated by people.

As the UK has had a large role to play in the development of the JSF (much as they did with the Harrier) I don't think they're going to view it as "an Amercian bird." They helped created it. On the other hand, the Ratalle is pretty much all French.

It does seem extremely odd to me that there are no 5th generation fighters coming out (that I'm aware of) from anywhere but the USA (and the UK via partnership.) Does anyone know of anything in the works that I've not heard of?
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------
Its not as bad as you think, its mostly exaggerated. There is a cultural rivalry but I wouldn't call it hostile. Its a bit like the USA and Canada. They agree more than they disagree. Of course there are those on both sides with chips on their shoulders, but by and large its a good relationship.

For those who think there is animosity's should consider the following:

1. There are lots of Brits who live in France (its now extremely popular retirement amongst British retirees) and there are lots of French who go live+work in London.

2. The French and British haven't fought a war against each other for over 200 years. Yet after Napoleon they have fought 5 wars (Crimea, WWI, WWII, Suez and Gulf War) side by side.

For the British Carrier program is case in point. What Enfield failed to mention is that it is a JOINT carrier program with the French. There are 3 ships that are going to be built 2 will go to the RN the 3rd will go to the French. The only real difference is that the British ships will carry the JSF and the French will carry the Rafale. Thats about it. The companies building the ships are BAE (British) Thalyes (French) and EADS (French-German). The Names of the ships are HMS Queen Victoria, HMS Queen Elisabeth, and the French sister ship most likely be named the FN Cardinal Richelieu although the final name has yet to be decided right now its code name is PA2. (Porte-Avion #2, Trans. Aircraft carrier number #2)

Lastly the Typhoon and Rafale are considered Generation 4.5. They were designed in the late 1980s but have been upgraded to fit into a gen5 role. So while the F-35 is *slightly* newer the design is only about 5 years newer (which is nothing in aircraft development years).

The F-35, Rafale, a Typhoon, and the Gripen are very similar aircraft. They all have advantages and disadvantages. The Typhoon and Gripen are probabaly better in the AtA whilist the Rafale and F-35 are slightly better in the AtG role.

Finally there is one more Gen5 aircraft, the Russian SU-47 Berkut.
 
Last edited:
Leaving out the stealth part

Hi mmarsh
At the bottom of you post your leaving out the most important part of the F-35, it's stealth capabilities. You seem to group the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen with the F-35, I don't think that's correct and is wishful thinking. The F-35 has a lot smaller RCS then any of the above aircraft which is a huge advantage as a weapons platform. Another I thing I read and I'm looking for to post is fuel load I believe only the Su-30 Flankers carries more fuel. I think the F-35 will have a greater range then the above aircraft a good asset to have. I'm not at home and don't have my files to look through but I would like to think there's more then five years between a Rafale and a F-35. You have the F-117 and then F-22 and then the F-35. To me the EF2000 and Rafale are 4th generation designs built to be better then 3rd generation. Where the F-35 is 5th generation built to be better then 4th generation, see the difference? The stealth built into the F-35 should allow it to see all the above aircraft before they see it, which means first shot on the Slammers. When more is released were know better I just think the F-35 is going very good it's basically built after the F-22. Changes and things learn from the F-22 program are going to help big time. I also feel a whole new line of stealth weapons will follow making even harder to stop this and other stealth platforms. Until a way is created to detect and target stealth it's the biggest thing in aviation since single wing aircraft became the norm.
icon7.gif
 
First of all the Rafale and Typhoon both have limited stealth capability.

Secondly, I am not convinced of the importance of stealth anymore. Stealth is not a garentee of non-detection, especially when you you are dealing with countries that have a good Air Defense System. The Serbs were able to destroy a F-117A with a 30 year old radar and a SA-3.

It might be helpful against weak 3rd world countries but already countries are designing new systems to detect such aircraft. Electronic listening (detects EM noise) for example will not be effected by stealth technology.
 
Last edited:
F-117

mmarsh
The Serbs were able to destroy a F-117A with a 30 year old radar and a SA-3.
Click to expand...
Didn't the unlucky F-117 basically fly over the radar/battery and shot down with a golden bullet here? Its not like they tracked from 20 miles out and did something nobody else could do.

You may be correct that systems are being design to track them but how many of those systems are operational? mmarsh do you think all those fighter hungry F-15C pilots trained to be the worlds best air to air killers from day one want to be shot down? You kind of make stealth sound like it's not proven or not as effective as it is. The F-22 has over 100 kills (training) against not F-15C but others as well and from different countries. Do you think F-22 and soon F-35 haven't tested against advance SAM systems? All it would take to test against a live enemy SAM net would be like Syria (just pick off the top of my head) just fly a F-22 onto the edge of there net and move a little closer. See if your pick up, see if there's any reaction? Remember the good stuff isn't going to released which is the way it should be.
icon7.gif
 
Last edited:
Nothing I ever read

Hi Damien435
I read about this in about three other aviation based forums and the Serbs story on this has changed so many times it's difficult to know the truth. Just the Serbs SA-2 radar was able to track a F-117 where no other radar to date was able to. I find that unlikely and wasn't used before that night and it never tracked before and/or shot down. Maybe the Serbs are or were better trained on how to use there equipment then the Iraqis but hundreds of SAMs and different radar's were painting the skies in 91 and nobody got one there. Doesn't it seem like it a lucky shot? Who knows maybe the pilot turn into it by mistake. The aircraft could have been damaged or even the pilot hurt by AAA fire and he couldn't avoid the missile? There could have been many different reasons is what I'm saying. Remember the US Air Force isn't going to just say by the way with this radar system mixed with this and positioning a radar here, the F-117 can be spotted? That's not going to happen so we wait 20 years or how ever long it is when they can release stuff like that. I think one shot down in all it's missions is pretty good. The aircraft served the US Air Force very well and nobody knows how many special missiles it flew and where over the years.
icon7.gif
icon12.gif
icon10.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top