Britain May Consider buying French Fighters, Cancelling Joint Strike Fighter Purchase!

Originally posted by echoblade
Yep, we make average aircraft but have nice giveaways

That said the "proven in battle" argument doesn't stand for the JSF. On the other hand the Rafale has a proven buddy-buddy refuelling capacity, proven in battlezone... But I digress

Actually the Rafale is 'proven in comabt', it participated in strikes on Afghanistan in 2001. Not much of a high threat environment, but it has dropped bombs in anger.

www.strategypage.com...

I for one, have always been ever sp slightly over the choice of a/c for the Royal Air Force and what the exact role of the RAF is.

One supposes that little has changed since the dark days of WWII - Air Superiority thus delivering Air Supremacy; Ground Support; Forward Logistics and Early Warning.

Given that we are now at peace with those nasty French and their allies the Germans, there is nobody else left in Europe that we would want to pick a fight with.

Except Russia and maybe, just maybe, the former Warsaw Pact countries - if we prohibit them from joining the EU.

Now, who does that leave for our brave fighter pilots to fight? There does not appear to be much of a threat in Africa, but one can never count out the African Arabs - but then we'd just send a Gunboat - a Type 45 would do it, and they'd cave in. That leaves the Med.

Sardinia are our allies but only because my hero, 'Franco Zola plays footy there and at the last count, Corsica was owned by La Legion Etrangere.
Malta loves us, Cyprus needs us, Turkey wants to join us and the rest are too busy fighting amongst themselves - sometimes.

That leaves the Middle East. Now we're getting somewhere. The Iraqi Air Force is nonexistent, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Lebanon have air forces but they are not up to much.

The most serious threat to the UK in the region, is Israel. Now the Chel Ha Avir could knock the crap out of us, but their refuelling bill would be way too high. Anyway, they'd have to attack us before 2012 when we get those new French built carriers.

The US is allied to Israel and they would fight us if necessary. So I guess we need all these really expensive Typhoons or JSF's or Rafales in order to fight the Yanks!

It's all becomming much clearer now. The Chinese will side with the US/Israeli alliance and send their bombers against our bases in Scotland.

That's why we need all these expensive a/c. How stupid of me.

Originally posted by R988
Actually the Rafale is 'proven in comabt', it participated in strikes on Afghanistan in 2001. Not much of a high threat environment, but it has dropped bombs in anger.

www.strategypage.com...

Well that source is wrong. As a matter of fact, the Rafale version that is currently in service is of a standard that doesn't allow air to ground missions. The Rafale did take part in CAPs with F/A-18s over the Afghanistan-Pakistan border but it's its more "combat" oriented action to date.
Actually its participation in strikes has been limited so far to refuelling Super Etendards, so technically speaking it did take part in the raid but claiming it would be slightly far-fetched...

So what?

What has that got to do with us ditching that over priced piece of flying scrap iron, kicking Bush in the head and buying French a/c?

Anyway, they'd have to attack us before 2012 when we get those new French built carriers.

What gives you this (misguided) idea that we're buying French built carriers?

Might want to check your facts, Fritz.

[edit on 5/3/06 by stumason]

Looking at examples of UK/France aircraft collaboration (Jaguar/ Concord (e - ) it seems to me the two nations are ideally placed to develop superb aircraft / retain indigenous capabilities and give the US a run for its money in export markets.

If both could only get over Agincourt etc we could really help each other out - encouraging signs

If both could only get over Agincourt etc we could really help each other out - encouraging signs

We won Agincourt hands down, so we don't hold any Beef!

After that, they did manage to kick us off the continent when some little 14 year old led their Army!

Since then, we've had some serious neighbourly disputes, but the Entente Cordial sorted that out. Seems the French got fed up with losing and decided discretion was the better part of valour

Now we're like a couple of odd neighbours, having a tiff every now and then and making jokes at each others expense, but essentially we get on and have done some great things together.

Now it seems that they would like a British designed carrier. If that deal involves us taking some Rafales, then so be it, they're good planes. I said earlier that the F-35 probably won;t be online by the time the carriers are (2012-14) so unless we just want a huge, empty, floating airfield, we have to make up the Air wings with something.

The Rafale-M would probably be, at the least, a good stop-gap when/if the F-35 ever comes online. It may also be cheaper than re-designing the Typhoon to be able to operate on the Carriers..

Personally, I think we should scrap the F-35, as it has no benefit for us in the long run. We can't even get the Yanks to agree to share the technology, so we'd have to outsource support for the weapons back to them. That isn't very good for our Defence needs, really.

Go with the Rafale first, then have a mix of Rafales and Typhoons once the necessary modifications have been made.

What I still dont get is why you Tommies still insist so much on the STOVL concept. Basically you will get carriers three times the size of your current Invincible class and a completely new airwing for them - the perfect time to adapt to "new" technologies.

What I am saying is that I do not see a reason not to built the carriers in a STOBAR ("ski-jump"+arrestor wires) or CATOBAR configuration (the catapult+wire arrestor type) right away. You will need the more expensive F-35B version because there is no other aircraft to do the STOVL right now, and there is not a single other plane that could operate from the carrier (given the phaseout of the Harrier).

Furthermore you will either have to construct a new STOVL aircraft once the F-35 gets phased out (again leading to increased costs and less diversity of models) or go for a conventiuonal carrier a/c design, and though your CVF carriers could then be reconfigured to CA-/STOBAR launch layout, this will lead to a very expensive modification because of the technical implications and, even worse, a thorough retraining of the flight and deck and maintenance crews.

I agree that the STOVL technique has SOME tactical advantages, but I believe that it will lead the RN to more problems an a lot higher cost in the mid- to long term; in the timeframe when the CVFs are operational there will be several modern a/c capable of or adapdable to CATOBAR and STOBAR carrier operations - but only ONE STOVL option, and that one will cost more and have less operational capabilities than most of the alternatives.

[edit on 5/3/2006 by Lonestar24]

Good point - I don't know why either. A hang-over from the political decision to have through-deck cruisers?

Interesting article on this very point

PARIS --- How much of a premium is Britain prepared to pay to give its future combat aircraft a short take-off/vertical landing (VSTOL) capability it may not really need?

This, as much as the recent controversies about access to closely-guarded US technology or alternate engine programs, is what should ultimately decide whether Britain commits to the Joint Strike Fighter by year-end, or pulls out.

*SNIP *
Thus, the “STOVL Premium” is about $40 million per aircraft, which adds up to as much as $6 billion for Britain’s planned buy of 150 JSFs. In addition, Britain is expected to contribute another $2 billion in development costs, bringing this premium to $8 billion.

www.defense-aerospace.com...

I reckon we'll go for the Rafale and let the US have the JSF all to themselves

$8 billion? let the UK have another carrier instead.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
What I still dont get is why you Tommies still insist so much on the STOVL concept.

- It's a cold-war hangover. I'm sure you know the idea.

It's from the days when if there was a WARPAC attack in Europe it was expected all the big bases would be hit and all those big base-dependant planes we all had then wouldn't be able to fly because all the airfields were expected to be so badly wrecked.

Harrier was originally a 'tactical nuclear' weapon delivery system, if nothing else was capable of flying to deliver the 'big punch' to halt the expected massive armoured thrusts it was believed the dispersed Harriers could.
Probably very right thinking too.
That is why 'we' in the UK spent the best part of 15yrs perfecting the basic technology.

Obviously those days are gone.
The navy still has the 'carriers' from that era but with the much bigger new ones coming I must admit it does look as if things might be being reconsidered.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by stumason

Anyway, they'd have to attack us before 2012 when we get those new French built carriers.

What gives you this (misguided) idea that we're buying French built carriers?

Might want to check your facts, Fritz.

[edit on 5/3/06 by stumason]

Stu - please ansa your U2U.

Incidentially, I do believe the French won the contract to build the two British designed carriers or at the very least, fit them out. (My source is the in-house IDR magazine, prepared, edited and published by Strategic Studies Institute/DI5/DI6)

This week is going to be interesting, a US Senate Committee is holding hearings on the plan to kill the alternate engine, and now UK Defence procurement minister Lord Drayson said the US MUST share critical technological information "if it [the UK] is to proceed with the project."

The last paragraph of the article is most interesting:

Drayson has said the MoD is also developing a 'Plan B' option that would involve prolonging the life of RAF Harriers, eventually replacing them with either Eurofighter Typhoons or French Rafale aircraft.

The Observer