MMRCA - has Rafale been illegally subsidised?

[Breguet]

I don’t imply that Rafale has been subsidized, I just reported that Le Canard had suggested it.

Here is what you implied on the very first post of this thread, Mr Lake:

You'd expect the export price to be at around this level, perhaps with a small profit margin and perhaps an export levy. Lower than this and it does look as though there has been a subsidy.

Having trouble with consistency aren't you?

[AlphaZulu]

Jackonicko,

Thanks for your reply.

Perhaps it's a translation/acception issue, what you call MMI (I think) is what I call UI. For me, MMI is larger than UI. MMI can be assessed for a whole aircraft, UI will be about IT systems (navigation, attack, communications) aboard that aircraft (displays, menus, inputs... and so on).
But, OK, for the sake of the argument, let's talk about what you call MMI and what I call UI.

That said, I disagree when you said:

Secondly, if one MMI is inferior until people are used to it, familiar with it and trained to use it, then it's an inferior MMI, albeit one whose inferiority may be partly compensated for through experience and exposure.

Such an MMI/UI will be less "user-friendly" at first glance. I think it may be the case for the Rafale. But I also think that what count when ranking MMIs/UIs is their final efficiency:
- If you have to train harder/longer, but are more efficient (or can do more different things) in the end, then the MMI is superior.
- If you have to train harder/longer, and are as efficient in the end, then the MMI is inferior (but assuming you're trained, that won't be an issue when operationnal).
- If you have to train harder/longer, and are less efficient in the end, then the MMI is clearly inferior.

MilDave has posted a nice comment on that just above (post #416), I won't repeat it, just say I agree with it.

I'll be brief: your arguments didn't convince me that Typhoon's superiority in that domain is a sure fact. I accept the possibility, I accept that you trully believe it (and that you may have good reasons/sources to do so) but in the end I'm not sure/convinced, so I can't agree with the the description of this superiority as a fact.
And after that post, I think I'll leave the MMI/UI topic here, with the fact that we do not agree, because as you said:

I have to confess that I find arguing about MMI irksome.

So let's not talk about it, thank you again for your replies so far, and let's move along.

PS: By cake slice, I just mean the shape of the radar scan, emanating out from the nose.

Thanks!

Cheers
AZ

PS: My apologies to all posters, for participating in a clear drift of the thread far from its original topic. Will try to behave better, next time

[Nicolas10]

Nic,

Thanks for the clarification on Le Canard.

I don’t imply that Rafale has been subsidized (though that would explain how such a lower price was offered), I just reported that Le Canard had suggested it.

“Either Rafale is sold at an inflated price for the French, or this is dumping, special discount under cost" states the magazine.

Well as a journalist the first thing to do should have been to check the source, and its political stance. Failing that your posting in this forum appears to serve a purpose, for instance propagating a baseless rumor from a leftist paper, but giving it more credibility by multiplying its origins, for instance putting it on the web, and then god forbid letting Jon Lake base an article on some interweb rumors and french magasines

I’m not trying to undermine Rafale, I’m just trying to get a better quality of debate, with more openness on your side, and an acknowledgement that some of your side’s long and deeply held convictions are actually nonsensical.

And on price, it is clear that the difference between the aircraft is wafer thin, as my figures and TMor’s figures show only too well, and Rafale is not, as has long been claimed, significantly cheaper than Typhoon.

Dassault made a superb job of keeping cost increase at 4,7%, if of course you exclude the addition of extra capabilities, which is completely natural.

There is no way that Dassault would sell at a loss, as evidenced by the comments of the UAE when they said the Dassault offer was unworkable. Why would Dassault try to milk the UAE, which is a huge Dassault customer, but would lower its pants to sell to India?

Besides the canard doesn't even mention that most the Rafales will be built in India, hence at a much cheaper cost than if they were built in France. Talk about partisan journalism.

Nor am I rabidly anti-Rafale, in fact it’s a programme I rather admire. I’m just not as rabidly and blindly pro-Rafale as some of your side. And it may surprise you to know that one reason for that admiration is precisely because Rafale is indeed “a proof that a national industry can still in this day and age develop a top of the line and successful fighter itself.”

I agree.

You have estimated wrongly on my attitude to TSR2, as well.

Glad to know this.

And that’s why I rate Gripen as being an even greater achievement, as it is the product of an even smaller nation, and one that has been pretty successful to date.

It is indeed a great achievement, despite the Gripen being dependent on US goodwill, and isn't the fighter of choice if you want to be independant from the US (US engine, US radar (until AESA), US weapons mostly).

I have argued myself that Rafale is a success precisely because it meets French requirements so brilliantly, and is giving such good service to the MN and AdlA. Nor do I underestimate its importance in helping to retain not only critical industries but also high value manufacturing jobs (and lots of them) in France.

I must have missed that. I don't remember reading it in your posts.

And I am indeed jealous that Britain has not done the same, though I believe that the collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain has, on the whole, produced a successful aircraft, and has resulted in a programme that was more resistant to cancellation, which was always a danger in the 1980s and 1990s in the UK.

I agree, a single UK project could have been cancelled to the profit of an all JSF fleet. Then again why not spend the 2bn spent on the JSF on the typhoon instead to give it real multirole capabilities (CFT, Brimstone, EPW II->IV, Storm Shadow), and use the rest of the fund to accelerate the development of the stealth UCAV for 1st day of war strike to accompany the Typhoon? The fighter hasn't been cancelled, but it's not what it should have been anyway, until 2018 at least.

Nic

[kirtap]

It is indeed a great achievement, despite the Gripen being dependent on US goodwill, and isn't the fighter of choice if you want to be independant from the US (US engine, US radar (until AESA), US weapons mostly).

Not that it's that relevant to the point you where making, but just to be a nitpicky bezzerwiser: Gripen's radar is actually based on a brittish one, i.e not a US design.

[AlphaZulu]

Hi snafu352,

Anecdotally i spoke to French Mirage 2000-5F pilots last year who stated that at present the RDY they employ is "better" than the RBE2 PESA on the Rafale for a2a.
(I guess they would say that being fighter pilots )

Actually, I heard that one too, and more than once. In fact, it was about range: RDY has apparently more range than RBE-2 and/or is more efficient at long range (all of that in A-to-A, of course).

AZ

[Nicolas10]

Not that it's that relevant to the point you where making, but just to be a nitpicky bezzerwiser: Gripen's radar is actually based on a brittish one, i.e not a US design.

Oh I thought it was an evolution of the APG65. My bad.

Nic

[Kovy]

I'm not sure whether the RBE2 offers more AA functions than the Captor, but its range of AG modes is definitely more comprehensive and the ability to interleave some functions is a plus in operational flexibility. What favours the RBE2 and any other ESA radar for that matter is the beam agility. In AA the ability to scan the entire FOV several times a second is a great plus for Situational awareness and reduces the probability that potential targets slip through the radar coverage. The ability to update target tracks more frequently has implications on track stability and reliability, which I think is the main reason why the Rafale scored better in the acquisition domain in the evaluation. Potential implications on ECM resitence are another factor as is the greater greater compliance to LPI requirements, though a PESA is still restricted in comparison to AESA solutions.



Argueably there was just that single person who insisted this. However, the evaluation doesn't in state one radar being better than the other as such, the PESA was reportedly praised, but the "sensor" weaknesses could be linked to other sensors on the Typhoon as well and the score charts talk about the general abilities of detection etc., it's repeatedly stated that the MET for detection includes the ability to detect a target with all sensors. Details like this must be kept in mind. Over at starstreak I made an attempt to elaborate on the meaning of the MET scores, I can't say whether my interpretation is right or not, but I'm missing a somewhat more serious and analytical discussion from all sides.



Both aircraft are similar in a number of areas, but differ in details. Depending on the scenario and what tactics are chosen either aircraft can best the other. I rate both among the worlds best fighters, which one deserves this or that rank I don't know and I'm subsequently not argueing about it at all.






Dunno wether all of them could be regarded as Typhoon fans as such, but of course there are several people who argue along similar lines, but that's true for both sides. Interestingly people love to refer to a single person when it comes to the critics. "Jon Lake like" was a response to me and I wondered whether people consider his claims as being unique and his only. There are points where I agree with Lake and there are those I disagree with or challage. The other way round many quickly assert that this or that Rafale fan must be Sampaix, that's equally delusional.




Lol well if you had been on the other side I'm not sure whether everyone would have been that moderate.



Well either side has its black sheeps, it's just a pity that those are often regarded as representative by the other sides.



It's unfortunately often the case. In a lot of cases I would even be satisfied if people can reasonably explain there arguments. But that often insists a level of knowledge and understanding that is often not given.



Of course, but there is always a risk wrt future developments and rating certain future capabilities is certainly not easy.



I could name a couple, but I prefer to leave it at that. Why are we wasting so much time to debate people anyway? My vote goes for a subkect related debate, possibly elsewhere as this thread is pointless and dead as far as the original topic is concerned.

Cheers

+1000

[Kovy]

Hi snafu352,


Actually, I heard that one too, and more than once. In fact, it was about range: RDY has apparently more range than RBE-2 and/or is more efficient at long range (all of that in A-to-A, of course).

AZ

One should be carefull when comparing range of MSA and ESA radars

MSA radar Range is not a constant it depends on many factors, especially the number of targets tracked at a time and how spread those targets are in the sky.
As pointed out by Scorpion MSA radar enjoy a raw wider scan volume but when when you put time (scanning speed) in the equation this is the other way around. For a given amount of time, an ESA will always scan a much much greater volume of sky than a MSA (albeit with narrower FOV limits) at a potentialy longer range depending on the numbers of targets managed by the system.

Conclusion : for single target interception, MSA will do the job... but for multiple bogeys management and complicated A2A picture, ESA is the way to go.

[snafu352]

it's really not very compelling or inviting.

So don't keep going on about it then and start posting fact based opinion.
Pretty simple.

Oh and stop attacking the man and throwing fanboy or troll around when confronted with fact that you don't find palatable.

For the upteenth time, Rafale and Typhoon are both good aircraft; for some users one has more advantages than the other and vice versa.

I've said that several times previously, it has always been my opinion and position so i don't appreciate you attempting to paint it as anything different and portray me as a fanboy or troll.

Attempting to portray somebodies opinion as different to the recorded fact is actually the activity of a troll.

It was your opening post that set the elements for debate; to try and now paint these (your own) parameters as not being the point for debate exposes the flaw in the opening post.

Again so perhaps it'll go through into your consciousness my opinion is that both Typhoon and Rafale (and Gripen for that matter) are great products. However i will not stand quiet whilst people make un-substantiated allegations and proceed to try and defend those primarily by throwing out insults towards those who challenge the factual accuracy of said allegation.

There is an element in play here of reaping what you sow, if you don't like the harvest don't sow the seeds.

[swerve]

It is indeed a great achievement, despite the Gripen being dependent on US goodwill, and isn't the fighter of choice if you want to be independant from the US (US engine, US radar (until AESA), US weapons mostly).

Nic

As already said, the PS-05/A radar is based on a British design (to be precise, the excellent Blue Vixen), but it had considerable input in its development from Ericsson (now owned by SAAB), & I think they make the entire radar. The ES-05 Raven is a similar joint British-Swedish development, by the same (after mergers & takeovers) companies as the PS-05/A developers.

Its dependence on US weapons is exaggerated. For example, it currently has three IR-guided & two active radar AAMs integrated: one of each is American. It was designed to be easy to integrate new weapons on Gripen, & the South Africans have shown that SAAB achieved that aspect of the requirement.

[AlphaZulu]

@ Kovy, re: your post #428.
Thanks, I should have mentionned I meant maximum range. I'm aware an ESA has advantages in A-to-A, as posted in my #402:

OTOH, in the pure A-to-A role, ESA also have inherent advantages. For example the agility in conducting track while scan functions, particularly on multiple targets.

Conclusion : for single target interception, MSA will do the job... but for multiple bogeys management and complicated A2A picture, ESA is the way to go.

Nothing to add

AZ

[Jackonicko]

@AZ/Kovy,

This is something of an over-simplification. For the most complex scenarios, with very large numbers of bogeys, and assuming no MIDS and no AWACS, the AESA does theoretically have advantages in some Air-to-Air scenarios.

However, in less complex (but still multi-bogey) engagements, the wider 'look' angle of the mechanically scanned array (MSA), coupled with greater gimbal limits, longer range (and especially longer range at those limits) give the MSA compelling advantages in many (some would say most) real world air-to-air scenarios.

Certainly to suggest that the MSA has advantages only in 1 v 1 intercept scenarios is so grossly simplistic as to be effectively incorrect.

@Swerve,
Indeed. And the ability to integrate third party weapons on Gripen (eg Israeli or FSU/Warpac) was always a design driver for the export market, and is a capability that is not matched by either Rafale or Typhoon.

[Kovy]

@AZ/Kovy,

However, in less complex (but still multi-bogey) engagements, the wider 'look' angle of the mechanically scanned array (MSA), coupled with greater gimbal limits, longer range (and especially longer range at those limits) give the MSA compelling advantages in many (some would say most) real world air-to-air scenarios.

You are underestimating the loss of FOV and range of MSA radar in TWS modes.

[Blue Apple]

the wider 'look' angle of the mechanically scanned array

Width of an ESA is programmable, it would be trivial for an AESA to perfectly match the antenna pattern of a MSA.

Secondly, if one MMI is inferior until people are used to it, familiar with it and trained to use it, then it's an inferior MMI

By this single sentence you demonstrate that you don't understand anything about the matter at hand.

We're not talking consumer electronics where intuitiveness of the interface is important, this is about complex systems that require intensive training from their users (as misstakes may litterally kill them) and the steepness of their learning curve doesn't matter because the pilots will either leran to master it or not be allowed to fly.

What matters in a MMI is not how easy to use at first but much more complex criterions (and difficult to judge if you have not studied them fully).

E.g. is the model presented to the pilot internally consistent? Do the same actions lead to similar results in different situations? Is the information displayed in a consistent way through the different menus/screens? What happens in a degraded situation (battle damage, major system malfunction)? Does the workload increase exponentially? Is the pilot swamped with data risking overload?

The only ones that could have a meaningful opinion on which MMI is the best between Typhoon and Rafale would be exchange pilots qualified on both.

It's a common thread among people who've flown Rafale who are familiar with Typhoon that the pilot has to work harder to achieve the same ends. That marks it as an inferior MMI

Workload in normal condition is definitely not the most important criterion, making everything automatic is not that difficult but it will quickly remove the pilot from the loop and when the proverbial excrements hit the fan, there's a good chance he won't be able to recover.

Your comments remind me of "journalists" asking Boeing-qualified pilots about Airbus flight deck philosophy even though the whole extent of these pilots experience with Airbus planes is a couple of ride in a jumpseat. This always results in the same articles with testimonies about how Airbus is crap, their planes work in weird ways, prevent "real flying", are unintuitive...

Funnily enough, once you talk to someone qualified on planes from both makers they have much more nuanced opinions and they come to appreciate the strength of the Airbus MMI even if it's different from everything else and required them to "unlearn" old habits.

[Loke]

Ooops seems I did not read what was qouted.

Let me say this instead:

[akj]

@AZ/Kovy,

This is something of an over-simplification. For the most complex scenarios, with very large numbers of bogeys, and assuming no MIDS and no AWACS, the AESA does theoretically have advantages in some Air-to-Air scenarios.

However, in less complex (but still multi-bogey) engagements, the wider 'look' angle of the mechanically scanned array (MSA), coupled with greater gimbal limits, longer range (and especially longer range at those limits) give the MSA compelling advantages in many (some would say most) real world air-to-air scenarios.

Certainly to suggest that the MSA has advantages only in 1 v 1 intercept scenarios is so grossly simplistic as to be effectively incorrect.

@Swerve,
Indeed. And the ability to integrate third party weapons on Gripen (eg Israeli or FSU/Warpac) was always a design driver for the export market, and is a capability that is not matched by either Rafale or Typhoon.

If MSA was so good, nobody would have opted for ESA. The fact that Russia and France opted for PESA versions for thei main fighters (even before development of AESA versions) after having successful MSA point otherwise.

[glitter]

If you can do it without using afterburner, then not burning all of that extra fuel is a good idea.

Efficiency, as I wrote.
Using 5 secondes of AF is more efficient than 30 secondes of full military thrust.

If you're going to criticise others on the basis of their supposed bias or lack of objectivity, it's a bit inconvenient if they can demonstrate that they are more objective and less biased than you are.

Do you really think you have demonstrated anything here ?

BTW, I noticed you changed your mind about the "obvious superiority" of the captor over the RBE2.

[eagle1]

MSA and PESA have by design strenght and weaknesses.

As already said the scanning speed of ESA radars allow true "track while scan" and "iterlacing" modes will give you a better SA once you are engaging your ennemy as you can still monitor the tactical situation much more efficiently.

This feature is probably what allowed the RBE2 PESA to gain swiss praises and to allow the rafale to score well in detection and Situation awarness.

Add to the gain of SA the inehrent versatilty liked to ESA radar and a better resistence to jamming and you get a very capable radar. Of course AESA radar in the next step, but the PESA was the smartest path toward AESA especiallyfor an aircraft that wants to boast true multirole capabilities.

The idea of caracterizing a radar as superior as anotherone when the approach is not the same is just oversimplistic. Only JLake went this way and was proven wrong by the swiss.

[swerve]

Efficiency, as I wrote.
Using 5 secondes of AF is more efficient than 30 secondes of full military thrust.

That's why Concorde had afterburners. It could, as it showed in tests, go supersonic on dry thrust, but the time spent getting through the high drag transonic zone was such that it burned less fuel by accelerating with afterburners from M0.95 up to M1.7 or so. They were then switched off as it continued accelerating to M2, & continued in dry thrust for the rest of the flight.

[glitter]

+1000

+1001.
After writing that, and since I don't want to offend any Typhie-fan (and since Jacko just shown how little he understand of the concept of MMI) I will leave that thread , now pointless.

[OPIT]

If MSA was so good, nobody would have opted for ESA. The fact that Russia and France opted for PESA versions for thei main fighters (even before development of AESA versions) after having successful MSA point otherwise.

That's soooooooo obvious !
It's a complete mystery how some folks still attempt to argue against a logical move. Maybe that's because they didn't have a decent fighter for decades so their new toy need to be much better than anything else, no matter what ?

[obligatory]

No, it's because it's still too pricey, i'd rather wait another five years for refit of the whole fleet, by then i expect the cost to have imploded.

[TR1]

If MSA was so good, nobody would have opted for ESA. The fact that Russia and France opted for PESA versions for thei main fighters (even before development of AESA versions) after having successful MSA point otherwise.

To add on, you can also have the wide angels of MSAs. See Irbis/Bars, both electronic and mechanical steering.

[pascal]

for your reflexion ...

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/02/10...dia_14807.html

[Jackonicko]

what a lot of utter tosh

[Bomberboy]

for your reflexion ...

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/02/10...dia_14807.html

Sorry to thread jack a little.

I have to say I am particularly interested in the claim "Indias new 300 ship navy that it is building".
What breakdown of asset types will it likely consist of?

[Sintra]

See Irbis/Bars, both electronic and mechanical steering.

The N011-M Bars?!
The Irbis does have mechanical steering, but AFAIK the Bars antenna is fixed.

Cheers

[Trident]

Yup, Bars can slew mechanically in azimuth only, while Irbis (thanks to the rotary mount of the antenna) can be moved in both horizontal and vertical planes.

[Breguet]

what a lot of utter tosh

Britain’s Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has left no room for ambiguity. In December 2011, he said the aid was “also about seeking to sell Typhoon jets".

n Bribery

The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bribe

Jackonicko, what's the title of this thread again?

[Nicolas10]