Multi-Role Fighter

[klagldsf]

No it does not. And on a side note, I think NationStates is a complete and utter sham.

"Sham" implies some sort of duplicitous falsehood for unscrupulous monetary gain. NationStates is just a hobby - a ridiculous one, yes, but a hobby, just like Shipbucket.

Well 2005-2010 means that you can still buy into the F-35 program, but the first aircraft are the better part of a decade away.

It's also potentially expensive, at least if you want a slot anytime soon (which may indeed be a decade).

The Navalized Gripen doesn't exist in any other form than dirty paper as far as I've been able to tell, and with that size, buying into the HAL Tejas program would probably be a less-bad purchase (think about that for a moment).

In all honesty Navalized Gripen exists (even on paper) solely to increase its attractiveness to the Indians. It didn't, so the chances of Navalized Gripen actually being built can safely be said to be zero (Navalized Rafale fits neatly into the same niche for all the exactly one other nation that would have any use for it).

A Navalized F-22 is on the other side of plausibility relative to us from the navalized Gripen (it would be an all new airframe).

In all honesty Navalized F-22 gets you into NationStates.

That leaves us with the Rafale or the Super Hornet.

Hmmmmm....

Such a decision would come down to a lot of factors including who offers the better overall package and who is less likely to cut you off if you start going weird.

I can tell you right now the very last criterion automatically tips it in favor of the French

In terms of technological level (the type of armaments that can be carried, stealth, all the "sexy" BS that fanboys care about) the Super Hornet and Rafale are practically in a dead heat. You can go wrong choosing one over the other, but not in the "you're automatically going to lose the war" kind of way. More likely it'd create logistic headaches in the long run but it won't cripple your air force.

On the topic of a navalised F-22, may I direct your attention to this link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html

Carlo Kopp is a fanboy. At one point he was a legitimate one-man think tank. So was Michael Sparks. They're both just fanboys now.

And since someone will bring it up, Abraham Gruber is a man who let his own credentials and life experience get to his head - to the point where he now is, yes, a fanboy of fanboys.

[gordo8000]

Nice rhetoric there, Klag.

[TimothyC]

Such a decision would come down to a lot of factors including who offers the better overall package and who is less likely to cut you off if you start going weird.

I can tell you right now the very last criterion automatically tips it in favor of the French

In terms of technological level (the type of armaments that can be carried, stealth, all the "sexy" BS that fanboys care about) the Super Hornet and Rafale are practically in a dead heat. You can go wrong choosing one over the other, but not in the "you're automatically going to lose the war" kind of way. More likely it'd create logistic headaches in the long run but it won't cripple your air force.

Why do you think I phrased it like that . You do have to be careful about the French making you pay through the nose later on however.

One thing I do think needs to be stated is that both the Super Hornet and the Rafale were designed from the word go to be naval aircraft, and there was no "navalization" in the design process of either one.

Nice rhetoric there, Klag.

On the topic of Kopp and Sparky, he's partially right (Sparky always was a bit odd). I don't have enough experience with Gruber to say one way or the other.

[klagldsf]

On the topic of Kopp and Sparky, he's partially right (Sparky always was a bit odd). I don't have enough experience with Gruber to say one way or the other.

I knew him from another board. I'll admit he knows his stuff but...he came off as a bit of an ass, especially when it came to defending Kopp.

And he's hardly the only person to know his stuff.


BTW, another option to consider would be used airframes (this would almost strictly limit you to Legacy Hornets - and the number of such frames suitable for refit are dwindling).

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

between the Rafale & the Super Hornet, I'd have to with the Rafale, but just by a hair.

The Rafale has more development potential, as it was a clean sheet design. While the Super Hornet has a design lineage going back to the F-5! xD Otherwise, avionics & other stuff of that sort is a tie, with a possible exception with the Rafale's SPECTRA and it's hinted Active Cancellation features.

[Thiel]

Out of interest, why have you included the F-14 on a list of multi-role fighters?
I'm aware they managed to shoe-horn some limited air to ground capability into it, but that was all it ever amounted to.

[travestytrav25]

On the topic of a navalised F-22, may I direct your attention to this link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html

Interesting article. However, I think it's way too far into the theoretical realm with little to no real-world data to back it up to put much credence into it. Also, when picking a carrier-based fighter, one must factor in the threats they're likely to face and where they'll be operating. Building a carrier battle group, that could take on a swarm of Flankers, Bears, and Backfires is just not realistic for most navies. Really, only the US Navy is the only one that could even attempt to do so. Also, as Klag pointed out, the founder of Airpower Australia has very little credibility these days, and he's been heavily critisized in the past for making statements that emperical data simply don't support.

BTW, another option to consider would be used airframes (this would almost strictly limit you to Legacy Hornets - and the number of such frames suitable for refit are dwindling).

That is an option, however, I think it's a very limited one since all you could get is A-D model hornets, and most navies and air forces don't get rid of their planes until there's virtually no life left in them. If I were going to do that I'd get aircraft from air forces that use the Hornet from land bases, not former US Navy airframes that have been overworked and put through the rigors of extended carrier use. Either way, I'm not sure you could get enough safe and effective use of the old airframes to make it worth the investment. It would however be a good option for an interim carrier air wing force until you could obtain new F-35Cs.

[klagldsf]

between the Rafale & the Super Hornet, I'd have to with the Rafale, but just by a hair.

If you're serious about looking at it from a national perspective, at the very least you'd look up the Wikipedia infoboxes of both aircraft and decide which is a better fit.

If you're all too aware that this is an AU, you'd go with whichever one appeals to the most tacticool aspects.

The Rafale has more development potential, as it was a clean sheet design. While the Super Hornet has a design lineage going back to the F-5! xD

Very not true. Yes, the Super Hornet is ultimately derived from studies spun off from the NA-156 (which ultimately resulted in the T-38/F-5) but at least 80% of the Super Hornet is a CAD-created "clean sheet" design. The remaining 20% is pretty much nose/cockpit shape (I'm unsure if I could even claim structural commonality).

And the nose of the Super Hornet has a better aspect ratio than the Rafale. That means it can fit a bigger radar, if you're in the Kopp Kamp.

Out of interest, why have you included the F-14 on a list of multi-role fighters?
I'm aware they managed to shoe-horn some limited air to ground capability into it, but that was all it ever amounted to.

It could carry PGMs which is about as much air to ground capability as there is anymore. But it's a moot point as the only flyable airframes left are in Iran.

Interesting article. However, I think it's way too far into the theoretical realm with little to no real-world data to back it up to put much credence into it. Also, when picking a carrier-based fighter, one must factor in the threats they're likely to face and where they'll be operating. Building a carrier battle group, that could take on a swarm of Flankers, Bears, and Backfires is just not realistic for most navies. Really, only the US Navy is the only one that could even attempt to do so. Also, as Klag pointed out, the founder of Airpower Australia has very little credibility these days, and he's been heavily critisized in the past for making statements that emperical data simply don't support.

They have also done studies to navalize Typhoon. Since they weren't smart enough to do this back when EAP itself was on the drawing board (or more likely, the other multinational partners objected to it on costs grounds, which was smart and wise of them) they ultimately determined that it was far better to sign up on the F-35 program, or if worst came to worst, buy Super Hornets or even Rafales.

BTW, Rafale is about as close as you're going to get to an "export-optimized designed" carrier aircraft as you're going to get that's actually flying, and most of that is a consequence of being a sister design to the land-based version, which was designed for export potential. There is only one nation on Earth that has a carrier but not an indigenous carrier aircraft, and that's Brazil (India has Tejas, mind you).

That is an option, however, I think it's a very limited one since all you could get is A-D model hornets, and most navies and air forces don't get rid of their planes until there's virtually no life left in them.

A-D Hornets are still quite capable especially for a smaller airforce, and there are some remaining (though I already noted they are relatively few) - but I also just remember that they'd honestly be far more useful if they remained ground-based. You'd wear them out quickly if you launched them from a carrier. As travestytrav25 points out in the subsequent paragraph, most of these will have been land-based to begin with.

[Kilomuse]

Out of interest, why have you included the F-14 on a list of multi-role fighters?
I'm aware they managed to shoe-horn some limited air to ground capability into it, but that was all it ever amounted to.

It was a good photo-reconnaissance platform with the TARPS pod and the -14D proved to be an excellent precision bomber and fast FAC as well over Iraq and Afghanistan. Not bad I'd say.

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

If you're serious about looking at it from a national perspective...

Did you just call me French?