Germany to cancel order for 37 Euro fighters

[Yzd Khalifa]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?

I'm aware but I still highly doubt it would ever happen.

But then you guys do have money to burn......

Money isn't everything. We don't buy everything, we only look for the best, and let the crappy stuff burn not the money.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?



Money isn't everything. We don't buy everything, we only look for the best, and let the crappy stuff burn not the money.

Of course but what I mean is that you have the resources to pursue the lest fiscally responsible policies (as I said from a finial pov it would make the most sense to merely go for the EFT for your navy). But no doubt, for Maritime strike the Rafale is leagues ahead of the EFT and more suited to that role.

 

[waz]

Not a surprise. Budgets have to justified and current fleet projections are fine for any requirements the Germans may have.

 

[Nishan_101]

No way. What would be the point? The EFT and this batch especially offer ZERO advantages offer the F3R+ Rafales the IAF is getting. They would be just adding a logistical nightmare to the IAF to maintain such small numbers.


Things are not going to well for the EFT program of late.....


Who will be funding their future roadmap?


+Rafale.

That would be quite a spectacle- the Rafale and EFT in the same military. Although it would make more economic sense to go for EFT for the Saudi Navy considering the amount of infrastructure you've invested in the EFT.

Have the deal being signed and for how many of them. Last time heard that IAF is looking to have about 200++ of them. Also there were some reports regarding buying additional platform may be JASE/F in small numbers or ex-FAF Mirage-2000s.

Maybe our Navy will buy the Rafael.

Although KSA and UAE is missing the chance in every way! They should have joined with S.Koreans on T-50 with its single seater along with EF-2000 program in the start but for UAE better to have just T-50 single and dual seat.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Of course but what I mean is that you have the resources to pursue the lest fiscally responsible policies (as I said from a finial pov it would make the most sense to merely go for the EFT for your navy). But no doubt, for Maritime strike the Rafale is leagues ahead of the EFT and more suited to that role.

One of the reasons to be taken into account is that the nasalized version of the EFT hasn't been out yet, while the French have theirs in hand already.

Have the deal being signed and for how many of them. Last time heard that IAF is looking to have about 200++ of them. Also there were some reports regarding buying additional platform may be JASE/F in small numbers or ex-FAF Mirage-2000s.



Although KSA and UAE is missing the chance in every way! They should have joined with S.Koreans on T-50 with its single seater along with EF-2000 program in the start but for UAE better to have just T-50 single and dual seat.

Missing the chance? = \ ..

T-50? No, thanks. I'd rather work with the PAF on the J-17 program.

 

[Donatello]

Hmm, good. Who is Germany going to fight? Smart nation. Very smart.

 

[Abingdonboy]

One of the reasons to be taken into account is that the nasalized version of the EFT hasn't been out yet, while the French have theirs in hand already.

.

But surely the existence of the Rafale-M and the fact the Sea Typhoon has not been developed is irrelevant? The Saudis have no Air Craft carriers so you aren't looking for a navalised fighter but a shore-based maritime strike fighter.

 

[Nishan_101]

One of the reasons to be taken into account is that the nasalized version of the EFT hasn't been out yet, while the French have theirs in hand already.



Missing the chance? = \ ..

T-50? No, thanks. I'd rather work with the PAF on the J-17 program.

Then we welcome you to join the Block-II and even Block-III program along with K-8s.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

But surely the existence of the Rafale-M and the fact the Sea Typhoon has not been developed is irrelevant? The Saudis have no Air Craft carriers so you aren't looking for a navalised fighter but a shore-based maritime strike fighter.

A shore-based maritime strike fighter falls into the category of a navalised version though.

 

[Nishan_101]

KSA Al-Salam can produce about:
110 JF-17 Block-IIs
110 JF-17 Block-IIIs
70 K-8 Block-II

 

[Abingdonboy]

A shore-based maritime strike fighter falls into the category of a navalised version though.

Not quite. A navalised fighter/version usually applies to a fighter capable of operating from a Aircraft Carrier ie the Rafale-M, Sea Gripen, N-LCA, F-18, Sea Typhoon, MiG-29K etc and will in some cases be designed from the ground up as a naval fighter and some will be designed as a shore based fighter later adopted for carrier operations (Sea Typhoon/N-LCA/MIG-29K). Navalsied fighters will have certain inherent differences from their land based counterparts that will usually include arrestor hooks, folding wings, strengthened landing gear etc. Now a maritime strike fighter is usually only a shore based fighter that has been adopted for to fight against maritime targets such as the Jaguar IMs of the Indian Air Force. Now these maritime strike fighters will not feature such inherent design characteristics as naval fighters and won't be able to operate from Aircraft Carriers. They will have the ability to launch anti ship missiles and will likely have certain different modes for their radars. However these days with swing-role fighters the differences between the shore based fighters and dedicated maritime strike fighter variants will be this is less apparent if non-existent ie the Rafale can do it all, the only thing you need to do is place the appropriate set of weaponry on it and relevant data cards.

 

[Commander T]

then Germany was surrounded by "Enemy States"..do you see any "Enemy States" around them now???

ya, let me give you a hint, the ENEMY will may divide in 2014

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Not quite. A navalised fighter/version usually applies to a fighter capable of operating from a Aircraft Carrier ie the Rafale-M, Sea Gripen, N-LCA, F-18, Sea Typhoon, MiG-29K etc and will in some cases be designed from the ground up as a naval fighter and some will be designed as a shore based fighter later adopted for carrier operations (Sea Typhoon/N-LCA/MIG-29K). Navalsied fighters will have certain inherent differences from their land based counterparts that will usually include arrestor hooks, folding wings, strengthened landing gear etc. Now a maritime strike fighter is usually only a shore based fighter that has been adopted for to fight against maritime targets such as the Jaguar IMs of the Indian Air Force. Now these maritime strike fighters will not feature such inherent design characteristics as naval fighters and won't be able to operate from Aircraft Carriers. They will have the ability to launch anti ship missiles and will likely have certain different modes for their radars. However these days with swing-role fighters the differences between the shore based fighters and dedicated maritime strike fighter variants will be this is less apparent if non-existent ie the Rafale can do it all, the only thing you need to do is place the appropriate set of weaponry on it and relevant data cards.

Well, that's what we're looking for.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Well, that's what we're looking for.

Precisely so you won't need the Rafale-M or Sea Typhoon and the very fact the latter hasn't been developed yet is, thus, immaterial.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Precisely so you won't need the Rafale-M or Sea Typhoon and the very fact the latter hasn't been developed yet is, thus, immaterial.

I actually was pinpointing to the radical difference you laid out in comparison between the carrier-based jet and the shore-based maritime one. Although there isn't much of a real difference between both - as you stated - but we might take some specifications in the navalised version into the aircrafts the Navy may assign to carry a shore-based maritime operations/missions on.

Thanks for taking time pointing out the differences between both ...