Eurofighter grounded!

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...

Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
Typhoon is an interceptor.
I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
good
multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.


This is nonsense.

Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...

Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
Typhoon is an interceptor.
I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
good
multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.


This is nonsense.

Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.


The A-10 is a CAS aircraft not a bomber and Rafale is optimised as
a fighter too.

Keith

"Mike" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
"Mike" wrote in message
...
Certainly for this last point,but because of money,and never because of
technics.
This program (Rafale),has never had any of the numerous problems of the
typhoon,still going on...
So maybe we can think we were right not to gor for it....

If it is so much better than Typhoon,

Did I say it was better than Typhoon?
These are two quite good aircrafts,differents,Rafale is better for this,and
Typhoon for that.
I did not say it was better,but that Typhoon has had really many technical
difficulties,what is
absolutely not true for the Rafale program.

None whatsoever? That would be a first...let's see:

+ Original flights had to be conducted with alternate engines (GE
F404-400's) because the SNECMA M88's were behind schedule.

+ "In the case of Rafale, the justification of the qualification of
this flight is the French government's guarantee, but we have to know
that Dassault is still developing the air-to-ground function for the
Rafale and they are not ready to deliver to customers for some years,"
he said. "French newspapers, including Le Parisien, also raised some
engine problems with the proposed Rafale fighters."
www.clw.org/atop/newswire/nw083101.html

Sometimes it is easy to say there are "no problems" when you in fact
are talking about an aircraft that does not even *exist* yet, as
is/was the case with a true "multi-role" Rafale.

The only difficulties we've had with it are financial.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Your financial problems can
be linked to lack of success in the export market (ironic, since one
of the reasons that France bailed *out* of the joint Eurofighter
program early on in favor of pursuing Rafale was that it wanted a more
marketable aircraft--only to see Typhoon beat it out in export sales
to date), and the lack of export sales is a reflection of the fact
that customers are (a) not impressed with being offered a multi-role
product that has yet to prove multi-role capability, and (b) see
problems that you claim don't exist.

As Defense Systems Daily phrased it back in July 2001:

"Now, there tends to be a rule of thumb: if there are that many
changes in a programme, then wait until the home customer has taken
delivery of the system and has discovered all the bugs. This could
mean that potential clients wait until well after 2005 before looking
at Rafale."


Both are late,Typhoon because of technics,Rafale because of money.
So we can think we may have been right,but that can be discussed,i
agree.Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
Typhoon is an interceptor.

Whoah there. Typhoon is every bit as multi-role as is Rafale. Both are
really in the "unproven" category as far as multi-role is concerned.

I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a good
multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.

Which is why Typhoon *is* a multi-role platform.

Finally,having difficulties in exporting an aircraft does absolutely not
mean it's a bad one.Look at what happened in Korea for an example.

OK, let's do that. The ROKAF turned down an offer of a Rafale that as
of then was completely unproven as a true multi-role platform in favor
of an advanced derivitive of an already proven multi-role platform
that, oh-by-the-way, happened to also offer greater commonality with
its most important military ally, and at least one ROK insider
commented about concerns over the Rafale engines (hey, that seems to
be a growing factor--ISTR Dassault has laso now offered an uprated
powerplant option to Singapore after they also expressed some concern
over Rafale power availability). Does this mean that Rafale is "bad"?
No. But it sure does not support the idea that it is supposedly any
*better* than other offerings that are available, either.

Brooks


why, despite repeated attempts,
has it not yet received an export order, even losing out to Typhoon in
a couple of competitive selections IIRC? One major reason that France
has difficulty affording rafale is the distinct lack of export success
(exports would drop the unit cost of the aircraft the French want to
buy for themselves). It appears that the Singapore competition is the
rafale's last major opportunity to redress this problem (especially as
the Brazilian F-X program is now more or less moribund); I'd imagine
the various competitors are keeping a close eye on that situation in
light of the rather dubious marketing ploys Dassault attempted during
the ROKAF competition that was eventually lost to the F-15K.

Brooks





"Kevin Brooks" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
"Steve Davies" wrote in message
...
According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but
there's
no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!

Shoddy work? You mean shoddy as to the article, or the airplane...?

It is rather surprising that the paper decided to have France
participate in the program and procure the aircraft so many years
after it bailed when it became apparent that the Rafale-route was not
going to be chosen path of the consortium, especially as France has
experienced significant difficulty in funding the still rather paltry
procurement of Rafale to date!

Brooks


--
Steve Davies
snip

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...

Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
Typhoon is an interceptor.
I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
good
multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.


This is nonsense.

Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

Brooks

On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.

A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
direct cannon fire at a target.

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.

Whoah. That "optimized for fuel efficiency" Tornado has legs just a
bit shorter than that F-15E I mentioned. And no, it was designed from
the outset as a multi-role aircraft--there was a reason it had the
nomenclature MRCA when it was originally developed.


A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
direct cannon fire at a target.

That makes it primarily a CAS platform. Now why would you expect other
strike platforms to "look like" the A-10? Does the F-111? Or maybe the
A-7? How does a B-58 meet you "looks like" criteria, versus the old
BUFF?


F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
been, within the USAF (with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role. At the
very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
gestation.

Brooks

On 17 Oct 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
been, within the USAF

It was designed as a low-cost airv superiority fighter to counteract
the USSR's large fleet of fighters and fighter bombers.

(with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role.

That's because the USSR doesn't exist any more, and the USA has
tended to fight enemies with less capable air forces.

At the
very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
gestation.

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.

Er, my whole point was that the A-10 isn't particularly good at
shooting down other auircraft. (But IIRC an A-10 once shot down a
helicopter).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 17 Oct 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
been, within the USAF

It was designed as a low-cost airv superiority fighter to counteract
the USSR's large fleet of fighters and fighter bombers.

That was only during its very early stages of design; it was developed
for multi-role use before it ever entered into operational service.
The USAF was smart enough to realize that the usefulness of an
aircraft restricted to day light air superiority use was rather
limited, and design changes were implemented during the prototype/EMD
stages to rectify the situation and make it a multi-role platform.


(with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role.

That's because the USSR doesn't exist any more, and the USA has
tended to fight enemies with less capable air forces.

Nope. The F-16 was spending more of its training time in the mud
moving role from the day it entered into active service, while the
USSR was still a going concern. Stop trying to revise history to suit
your less than accurate analysis. The F-16 entered operational use in
1980, but:

""...The General Dynamics YF-16 being declared the winner in January
1975 [of the LWF competition], but even at that early stage customers
were asking for more capability. As a result, a Westinghouse APG-66
multi-mode radar was added, as well as carrying capacity for
air-to-surface weapons, while wing and tail area were increased, and
the fin made taller and the fuselage longer...by the 1980's what had
started as a lightweight fighter had become a multi-role
middleweight." (Modern American Weapons, ed. David Miller, 2002)


At the
very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
gestation.

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).

Your "look like" criteria just does not cut the mustard.

Brooks