Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23559
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 04:36

I thought twin catapult was B/S: http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/201 ... rtiste.jpg previous page. BUT! :doh: :devil:
France Started EMALS Talks with U.S. for its future PA NG Aircraft Carrier
16 Oct 2018 Xavier Vavasseur

"The French defence procurement agency (DGA) and the French Navy (Marine Nationale) started discussions with the United States regarding Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for the potential future French aircraft carrier. According to our information, the program will be known as "PA NG" (for porte-avions de nouvelle génération in French).

During the Euronaval 2018 press conference held on September 24, General Sellier, DGA's head of naval programs told Navy Recognition that discussions on EMALS with American counterparts started in the summer of 2018. While he stressed that those were preliminary talks and that no firm decision have been taken (about fitting EMALS on a future aircraft carrier) yet, he acknowledged that the discussions included technical aspects.

As we reported several times in the past, France's future aircraft carrier will likely feature EMALS by General Atomics. The French Navy was briefed by NAVAIR on both EMALS and AAG at the test facility in Lakehurst in 2017....

...During the Naval Group Innovation Days, back in June, Naval Group's CEO Hervé Guillou told Navy Recognition that there are two new factors, two "unknowns" that will impact the size of a future aircraft carrier: The first one being the EMALS. Guillou explained that technical details about the EMALS were necessary in order to design and size the aircraft carrier. The second factor being the air-wing: More than the FCAS (the future manned combat aircraft currently being developed by France and Germany) Guillou stressed that the real unknown factor is the future UCAV because drones have never been used aboard aircraft carriers before: Future carrier vessels will have to be sized taking into account the "unmanned aircraft" factor...."

Source: https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... rrier.html
Attachments
TWINfrogsPEAKing.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 14:00

It's ironic now that the roles have been reversed, France is leading the new stealthy Eurofighter design and the UK is doing the bespoke national product ;).
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 16:20

Ach, we Belgians are screwed anyway.

If we choose Tiffy? Will we also end up buying 128 to get 4 combat ready like Germany?

If we choose Rafale? Excpect a corruption scandal in 10 ears or so.

If we choose F-35? They are build in Italy.

So whatever we choose? ? ? ? We are screwed.
Offline

aasm

Banned

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 13:01

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 17:53

vilters wrote:Ach, we Belgians are screwed anyway.

If we choose Tiffy? Will we also end up buying 128 to get 4 combat ready like Germany?

If we choose Rafale? Excpect a corruption scandal in 10 ears or so.

If we choose F-35? They are build in Italy.

So whatever we choose? ? ? ? We are screwed.


MArcel Dasault is dead and french laws about corruption changed and are amongst the hardest in the world (can't plea guilty and pay a fine for example).
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 18:27

vilters wrote:Ach, we Belgians are screwed anyway.

If we choose F-35? They are build in Italy.

So whatever we choose? ? ? ? We are screwed.

How is being built in Italy a bad thing?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 18:29

SpudmanWP wrote:
vilters wrote:Ach, we Belgians are screwed anyway.

If we choose F-35? They are build in Italy.

So whatever we choose? ? ? ? We are screwed.

How is being built in Italy a bad thing?


Perhaps vilters drives a Fiat :D
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 18:44

His opposition to Italy is funny since Italy is also a Eurofighter partner.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 18:53

aasm wrote:For many of us, as i said somewhere, F-35 is both the paramount of fourth Gen (in terms of capabilities) and a premice to 6th (in terms of networking).


And for those "many of you" enlightened ones where those that leave the 5th gen?? So the F-35 is both 4th gen and 6th gen but apparently not a 5th gen, what a bunch of geniuses indeed... :roll:


aasm wrote:They think that future of combat is not only networked, but collaborative with an open architecture (vs F-35 being a closed ecosystem).


What the heck are you saying?? The F-35 has the most open architecture among any fighter aircraft developed so far and the vast majority of its systems are software based where many of its systems are even designed on an open and well known programming language, C++.
You can hardly get a more open architecture than the F-35 in a fighter aircraft. I guess you really new to revise your knowledge about ITs (information Technologies) namely about the concept of "open architecture".


aasm wrote:Anyone is free to think otherwise, no use being kiddish/rude...


Says the guy who often comes up with "schoolyards" and ignores everything that others post here that counters your own arguments.


aasm wrote:MArcel Dasault is dead and french laws about corruption changed and are amongst the hardest in the world (can't plea guilty and pay a fine for example).


Yeah right, the French are now and currently so free of corruption that instead of entering in competitions like the all other countries and their respective companies, they (the French) decide to try everything to bypass every national competition on military equipment purchase - That's for example this Belgium fighter aircraft competition (where the French decided to offer the Rafale but only if there wasn't any competition) and also the same thing happened with the Canadian Surface Combatant (where it offered the FREMM frigate but only if there wasn't any competition), and this just for you.
Smart and corrupt free that you French guys are indeed... :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 20:07

Corsair1963 wrote:Europe made a big mistake when they developed the 4.5 Generation Rafale and Typhoon. Instead of a 5th Generation Fighter like the F-22 and F-35....So, it better take a leap and not develop a 5.5 Generation Fighter or make the same mistake it made with the aforementioned. Thereby giving much of the fighter market to their competitors. (i.e. Lockheed Martin)


Things were/are way more complicated than you seem to mention up there.
At that time (circa 1980's) the European fighter aircraft industry was already lagging (and quite so) behind the US fighter aircraft industry. When the US were "pumping out" F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's, Europe's best efforts were the Mirage 2000 and Tornado which like it or not were quite less advanced in general regards compared to the US fighter aircraft.

As such, the Typhoon and Rafale were Europe's attempts to keep up and compete with those latest US fighter aircraft at the time (F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's) and never to be some sort of a next-gen fighter aircraft (as opposed for example to the ATF program which later became the F-22). Remember for example that the Rafale A demonstrator first flew in 1986.

Then came the end of the Cold War and with it major cuts on Defence spendings (which hit Europe much harder than the USA) which helped to dictate (among other reasons) that aircraft such as the Typhoon or Rafale which were supposed to enter in service in the 1990's, ended up entering in service in the 2000's (and with somehow limited capabilities at that time).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 21:50

Guys, Europe is an empty paperware box full of overpaid political nonsense.

Germany, France, UK and others are so "OWN Industry First" protective that a TRUE Eurofighter will NEVER happen.

Tornado disaster, a few tons of underdelivering aluminium compromises.
The split between Tiffy-Rafale.

Even if, and I say "IF" we could manage an airframe, we would discuss for AGES and AGES about engine, avionix, weapons, support. You name it, we would create a workforce for it to overpay the next generation of engineers.

And when they are done? ? ? The national politics take over again and we are back into the drawing board.

Europe?
As far as aircraft industry goes is a non-event, because Political National Industry Protections will ALWAYS come first.

Why? ?

Because there are elections, somewhere, ALL the time.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 21:53

Using that logic then the F-35 is the better choice militarily.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 21:56

SpudmanWP wrote:Using that logic then the F-35 is the better choice militarily.


The F-35 is the better airplane, and the most Europe - political - neutral.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 22:08

ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Europe made a big mistake when they developed the 4.5 Generation Rafale and Typhoon. Instead of a 5th Generation Fighter like the F-22 and F-35....So, it better take a leap and not develop a 5.5 Generation Fighter or make the same mistake it made with the aforementioned. Thereby giving much of the fighter market to their competitors. (i.e. Lockheed Martin)


Things were/are way more complicated than you seem to mention up there.
At that time (circa 1980's) the European fighter aircraft industry was already lagging (and quite so) behind the US fighter aircraft industry. When the US were "pumping out" F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's, Europe's best efforts were the Mirage 2000 and Tornado which like it or not were quite less advanced in general regards compared to the US fighter aircraft.

As such, the Typhoon and Rafale were Europe's attempts to keep up and compete with those latest US fighter aircraft at the time (F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's) and never to be some sort of a next-gen fighter aircraft (as opposed for example to the ATF program which later became the F-22). Remember for example that the Rafale A demonstrator first flew in 1986.

Then came the end of the Cold War and with it major cuts on Defence spendings (which hit Europe much harder than the USA) which helped to dictate (among other reasons) that aircraft such as the Typhoon or Rafale which were supposed to enter in service in the 1990's, ended up entering in service in the 2000's (and with somehow limited capabilities at that time).


No, Rafale and Typhoon were strictly answers/counters to Flanker and Fulcrum, what the US was doing with its fighters was really not considered which is why stealth took a back seat even if it had some input in the designs. It was not a bad decision either as Typhoon/Rafale are not facing F-22/F-35 but still the original and updated Flankers/Fulcrums/Foxhounds which is also why Meteor was developed. It's only now thirty years on will all the advances in aircraft design like stealth be fully considered in NGF/Tempest. NGF looks like a scaled down version of what PCA is expected to look like, tailless cranked delta with tvc nozzles. Tempest looks more like a scaled down F-22 so more intercepting and less penetrating. Just some initial impressions on what the respective designers may have had in initial mind.

p.s. competing with US fighters in export markets is really not a priority when the Soviets/Russians are aggressive neighbors. These have to be countered first in the design approach.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 00:13

marsavian wrote:No, Rafale and Typhoon were strictly answers/counters to Flanker and Fulcrum, what the US was doing with its fighters was really not considered which is why stealth took a back seat even if it had some input in the designs.


And since both Flankers and Fulcrums were strictly answers/counters to the US fighters (F-15, F-16 and even the F/A-18), so even if indirectly there was the intention for the Europeans to develop fighter aircraft that could match or even surpass the US Fighter even if "for the record" the main objective was like you said, to answer/counter the Flanker and Fulcrum.


marsavian wrote:It was not a bad decision either as Typhoon/Rafale are not facing F-22/F-35 but still the original and updated Flankers/Fulcrums/Foxhounds which is also why Meteor was developed. It's only now thirty years on will all the advances in aircraft design like stealth be fully considered in NGF/Tempest. NGF looks like a scaled down version of what PCA is expected to look like, tailless cranked delta with tvc nozzles. Tempest looks more like a scaled down F-22 so more intercepting and less penetrating. Just some initial impressions on what the respective designers may have had in initial mind.


I never said that developing the Typhoon or Rafale was a mistake, "per se" at least.
However due to a number of circumstances these aircraft came into service too late and that drastically reduced the relevancy that these aircraft could have had in the world's fighter business and aerial warfare and in the end this "delay" unfortunately resulted in the further widening of the gap between US and Europe's fighter aircraft industry, meaning that Europe's fighter industry is lagging even further behind the US counterpart, even more than in the past few decades, I'm afraid.
This will (unfortunately for Europe) directly reflect on any potential future European projects such as the mentioned NGF or Tempest which when they finally enter in service (if ever!) they won't likely be better than what will exist by that time (updated F-35s) and lag even further behind newly developed or in-development fighter aircraft such as the PCA.
Or resuming, it will be the same history behind the Typhoon or Rafale repeating all over again but the gap (between the US and Europe) would/could probably even be quite wider than currently is.
Well, my 2 cents anyway...


marsavian wrote:p.s. competing with US fighters in export markets is really not a priority when the Soviets/Russians are aggressive neighbors. These have to be countered first in the design approach.


I wouldn't minimize or discount the potential for exports (regarding the European fighters).
The French in particular relied quite a lot on exports. For example the Mirage III and Mirage F1 were a great (I would even say, "huge") export success. Even Britain's last own developed aircraft (which entered in service) the Harrier had some export success (despite being a very hard aircraft to fly).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 07:53

I believe there will be less delays this time primarily because the Brits are doing their own thing from the off and Germany has already ceded design authority to the French who can get cracking too. The only reason these aircraft will be behind is if European technology is just not up to latest US 5th gen standards which is still to be ascertained and determined and can be intimated but not proven either way yet. A perfunctory glance on the two proposed airframes show that the Brits are going for more kinematics and the French going for greater broadband stealth than your F-35 reference, whether that's achieved is TBD but that's what they are aiming for. Regardless the primary opponent is Su-57 which is not a high bar and they will be assured of some export sales anyway due to US politics. I agree both these aircraft are primarily about keeping national military European industries humming in the 21st century but let's not automatically assume the outcome will be inferior just because it's not US derived e.g. all the Euro-Canards are competent military aircraft which broadly met their specifications.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests