MMRCA - has Rafale been illegally subsidised?

[Jackonicko]

There are a number of definitions of Supercruise.

1) The ability to reach and sustain supersonic speed without recourse to afterburner

2) The ability to sustain supersonic speed without recourse to afterburner (though reheat may be necessary to reach such speed)

In either case, the ability to do this is a huge advantage (and not 'merely marketing hype') as it allows an aircraft to cruise at higher speeds while consuming less fuel than a rival aircraft that cannot supercruise.

Some aircraft cannot supercruise at all.
Others can supercruise only in very favourable conditions.
Others supercruise, but only at relatively low Mach numbers.
Others supercruise, but only when completely clean.
Relatively few aircraft supercruise at higher Mach numbers, and while carrying a meaningful loadout, and Typhoon is demonstrably one of them, and it was this that drew Swiss praise.

[Jackonicko]

A number of posters have referred to the Swiss report highlighting Rafale's 'MMI'. Where exactly was this? I saw references highlighting the excellence of Rafale's sensor fusion, and the way in which this enhanced situational awareness, but this is not quite the same thing, though good sensor fusion can be one important element within the MMI.

[Bomberboy]

I'm done.
.

Really,,,oh excellent. Fantastic!!
An absolute bargain
So we finally arrived at the final conclusion, but hold on wait a mo further upgrade suddenly coming (not allowed for in the costing).

Now as I said, €50 to €55 for 10 years of use against similar number for 30 to 40 years of use make any claims of the Typhoon been cheaper laughable. These number will have to be compensated by other solutions (UAS or F-35). And again the tax payer (that include me) will have to bare the cost.

B***er we hadn't allowed for another statement when he'd already told us he was done!!!!
Is that how it's done?
If you say you're done, then do so. Don't say you're done and then start with another bit.

As a non (jet knowledgeable) person I find this whole thread 'discussion' disappointing.
I have tried to read through all this thread in a vein attampt to try and pick up some good info (for my personal deliberations) and really find myself only a very little more informed than when I started.
I even tried to get some kind of answer to the thread title which was furnished to a degree by one poster. (not the one who probably thinks it was them though).
I read one thing and somebody counters it from the other side.

There are many on here that pick out info and quotes from various sources probably both good and bad on both sides and yet I wonder exactly how many of you on here actually have anything to do with any of the topics that are constantly being poured over time and time again, ie; how many of you are actually involved in either of the programmes?
I'll wager not many, rather only a very few if any, yet there seems to be so much 'expertise and expert witness' type topics in the thread.

However, the above poster here who resides in the UK, would appear to be stating/posting, what a number of other posters keep referring to as drivel and the like.
Ironically, this poster does not appear to be very well supported by his fellow supporters.
If this poster is so anti-british engineering-esk or some other reason, why carry on working and living in the UK?
This tells me much and so I would ask this poster to read carefully before they do post even what looks to a non jet person like me, to be drivel.
Thank you.

At the end of the day, if the Indians have prefferred bidder status on the Rafale as being the cheapest, (I dieliberately avoid the use of the word best as unlike most of the posters on here, I am in no way qualified to say anything else, but which I at least recognise), then good for them.
I still believe that there will be something in the UK for this deal through various subcontract works.

Mention of subcontract works does make me ask a question for all you 'self appointed experts' out there.
With companies such as Martin Baker who IIUC supply the seats for the Rafale, how are these taken into deal consideration?
I'm sure that Dassault will not be in any authoratitive kind of position to be able to negotioate on behalf of MB, so do I take it that MB would have to be involved all the way along, particularly if the Indians are to end up building there own production of Rafales for example?
What about the cost for the future servicing?
Would these also be taken into any whole life costs?
I appreciate these types of cost would be applicable regardless of who supply the Indians their new fighter.

[seahawk]

I wonder what there is left to discuss:

Switzerland says: Rafale is better
Korea said: Rafale is better
India says: Rafale is better

See a pattern?

[snafu352]

I don’t think you’re an Anglophobe, MilDave/Fonk. I think that you’re either a troll (or possibly a half wit). The reason that I think that you’re a troll, MilDave, is that you take any source that is positive about Rafale, or negative about Typhoon, and believe it absolutely and uncritically, you fail to engage your critical faculties, and you dismiss out of hand any evidence of Rafale weaknesses or Typhoon strengths, and there are plenty of both.

You are also incapable of understanding that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and via clarifications obtained via FOIA and other mechanisms. It’s not a matter of ‘twisting’, it’s a matter of explaining and putting in context – as TMor has endeavoured to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures emanating from different sources when it comes to Rafale pricing.

Jack , whilst i don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments here and i do completely agree with the fact that both the Rafale and the Typhoon are fine aircraft, both with their strengths and weaknesses i do feel that many of the characteristics and faults you point out for Mildave could equally be leveled at yourself.

This is what causes the sometimes less than thought out respones to your postings.

Please don't go off the deep end and claim no such thing; i'll simply reply by posting examples of your bias which i genuinely do not wish to highlight any further.

[Jackonicko]

I wonder what there is left to discuss:

Switzerland says: Rafale is better, but we prefer and are buying Gripen
Korea said: F-15 is better, and that's what we're buying
India says: Rafale is cheaper

See a pattern?

There, fixed it for you.

[Jackonicko]

Jack , whilst i don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments here and i do completely agree with the fact that both the Rafale and the Typhoon are fine aircraft, both with their strengths and weaknesses i do feel that many of the characteristics and faults you point out for Mildave could equally be leveled at yourself.

This is what causes the sometimes less than thought out respones to your postings.

Please don't go off the deep end and claim no such thing; i'll simply reply by posting examples of your bias which i genuinely do not wish to highlight any further.

Snafu,

Thanks for your input, which is as predictable and as useful as always. (Eg utterly predictable and of no use whatsoever).

It's becoming tired and boring that whenever the Rafale fanboys can't answer substantive points they choose to shoot the messenger, and to play the man, and not the ball.

I have frequently acknowledged weaknesses in Typhoon and strengths in Rafale, and the same cannot be said for most of my detractors.

The reason that I provoke such ire is that I dare question their assertions of Rafale's supposedly absolute superiority, and contradict the more nonsensical claims when they are made. And the fact that I don't accept their crude and nonsensical characterisation of Typhoon, Gripen and F-35 (indeed of anything that isn't 100% French).

As to the criticisms I make of Mil Dave, I'm afraid that they can't reasonably be applied to me (though plenty of other criticisms can be levelled, of course).

I question all sources, whether they are positive or negative about Rafale, or Typhoon, and I do not believe anything absolutely and uncritically. I always try to engage my critical faculties, and I have frequently and often acknowledged evidence of both Rafale strengths and Typhoon weaknesses. The Rafale fanboys are nothing like as open minded.

I have pointed out that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and I acknowledged that that applies to both aircraft, and I tipped my hat to TMor for his work in endeavouring to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures when it comes to Rafale pricing. The Rafale fanboys are nothing like as open minded.

Feel free to argue with my points, but my supposed bias? Give it a rest.

[merlin2]

What's certain for the next 5 years :

1- Typhoon production pace is going to slow down while rafale production pace is going to increase (within 5 years the rafale production pace could be twice higher than typhoon if not more)

Does your above assessment include the 108 Rafales manufactured in India or the French production only?

[merlin2]

My turn.

Disclaimer: I'm French & in favour of the Rafale (and know more of this aircraft than of the Typhoon). Nevertheless, I try to be objective/non partisan when comparing both fighters.


Very true


Indeed.


That's one (good & relevant) reason. I'm not sure it's the only reason. I think the political mic-mac with the four partners in Eurofighter also delayed Typhoon's progresses.


Yes, but because of
- the above mentionned political issues
- and the incertainty with the F-35 procurement (UK, Italy),
I feel unsure (as for now) that the Typhoon will catch its target level.


I agree with the first part. I'm not able to comment on your view that the Typhoon's CAESAR will be vastly superior than the Rafale's RBE2-AA. I think CAESAR will have more range. I fear it will be more expensive to maintain and/or more prone to failure because of the mecanically movable antenna (which will give on the other hand an advantage in performances).


Indeed, Typhoon's pure performance is better. It's more powerful, and it's a better aircraft for Air-to-Air fight with:
- a radar which sees farther (CAPTOR range > RBE2 range)
- missiles which go farther (AMRAAM range > MICA range)
- more thrust & aerodynamics optimised for high altitude / high mach
On the other hand:
- the Rafale seems more at ease at low altitude / low speed (namely its nose-pointing capabilities seems excellent in this area, and better than Typhoon's)
- with its current lower pure performance, the Rafale is also more fuel efficient, giving it more range and/or more loitering time; one has to balance each avantage & disadvantage.
- should it be deemed necessary, the 9t M-88 could be fitted on the Rafale; with such an upgrade that could be made, I'm not sure one can write that Typhoon's performance will always be superior. In fact I don't know if 9t engines is enough for the Rafale to cath up with Typhoon on the aerodynamics performances chapter, but it may reduce the difference to a non significant parameter. NB: Personal opinion/guess: I don't think 9t engines will one day be fitted on french AdlA/MN Rafales, and accept therefore your statement that Typhoon's performance will always be superior.


That's a highly debated topic. I don't know the MMI of the Typhoon, but have had the chance to play some time with the Rafale's one, which seemed excellent to my untrained eyes (ergonomics & sensor fusion). I also remember lots of Rafale pilots praising that topic of their aircraft.
Was the Typhoon MMI upgraded since the swiss contest in 2008? IIRC the swiss report ranked the Rafale's MMI as superior, but at the same time it ranked the Typhoon better in terms of pilot's workload.


Indeed. And like all fighters which don't have one, Rafale people keep saying it's not so important and/or Rafale can catch up with other tricks (namely: MICA capabilities). Perhaps, perhaps not, what is sure is that Rafale would be better than it is now with a good HMS. And if retaining the other "tricks", what an aircraft!
On the IRST, I cannot comment the perfomances of the Typhoon's one. I know the Rafale's one is not a success. Let's wait for it to be upgraded (if it will indeed be). I dare hope for a good IRST with the OSF-NG, because french industries have assets in such technologies.
But you must not forget the excellent TV channel of the OSF, which gives an edge to the Rafale in both Air-to-Air and Strike roles.


I totally agree

Cheers
AZ

One of the best Rafale versus Typhoon assesments I have ever seen ! very objective and balanced . Kudos to you mate .

[Jackonicko]

Latest reports from India (see the India Times) suggest that Dassault may have offered a potential shift of Rafale manufacturing from France to India, just as BAE has effectively moved all future Hawk manufacturing to HAL.

That would naturally cost some French jobs (and would generate a massive reaction from French Unions and maybe the French public), but the benefits would be huge. Production costs would be dramatically reduced, and the price of Rafale could be lowered to a degree where arguments about the relative cost of Typhoon would be rendered moot, giving the aircraft a decisive advantage on the export market, and markedly reducing the cost of later Rafales to the French taxpayer.

It would also give Dassault a low-cost manufacturing capability on future programmes.

The process would not be immediate. Even after the first 18, French built Rafales are delivered to India, it will be some time before India is able to manufacture Rafales from raw materials. A further batch of aircraft will be assembled in India from major sub assemblies, and then more will be built from 'knocked down' kits. Further aircraft will incorporate locally built sub-assemblies, and the proportion of locally built components will progressively increase. And at some point the cost of Rafale will really drop, thanks to the lower cost of labour in India.

At that point, I wouldn't want to be a Typhoon salesman.

[Witcha]

I believe the option for 63 more Rafales is in fly-away condition, similar to the additional Su-30 buys over and beyond the original 180(140 of which were to be HAL-built).

As such Dassault still has a good chance of retaining jobs via domestic production if HAL's production rate isn't as fast as the IAF would like... All the more loss for the Typhoon, of course. 18 + 63 fighters would have been larger than any other export order they're likely to get anytime soon.

[Witcha]

Latest reports from India (see the India Times) suggest that Dassault may have offered a potential shift of Rafale manufacturing from France to India, just as BAE has effectively moved all future Hawk manufacturing to HAL.

That would naturally cost some French jobs (and would generate a massive reaction from French Unions and maybe the French public), but the benefits would be huge. Production costs would be dramatically reduced, and the price of Rafale could be lowered to a degree where arguments about the relative cost of Typhoon would be rendered moot, giving the aircraft a decisive advantage on the export market, and markedly reducing the cost of later Rafales to the French taxpayer.

It would also give Dassault a low-cost manufacturing capability on future programmes.

The process would not be immediate. Even after the first 18, French built Rafales are delivered to India, it will be some time before India is able to manufacture Rafales from raw materials. A further batch of aircraft will be assembled in India from major sub assemblies, and then more will be built from 'knocked down' kits. Further aircraft will incorporate locally built sub-assemblies, and the proportion of locally built components will progressively increase. And at some point the cost of Rafale will really drop, thanks to the lower cost of labour in India.

At that point, I wouldn't want to be a Typhoon salesman.

And wait... What? The latest Hawk 128 LIFT variant is being built in the UK; the Indian assembly line is only for the Indian Hawks, and HAL has no re-export rights for the same.

I don't think we asked for any re-export rights for the Rafale either, which is a great shame given we could easily have gotten it if Brazil could do so for its much smaller order.

[swerve]

You may not have asked for any re-export rights for Hawk, but I think you'll find that the only Hawks currently being built are in India. If any new orders are obtained, it'll be interesting to see how production is organised.

Rafale is different. France wants to keep the domestic assembly line open for its own needs, & would like to fulfil export orders from that line, where possible, to keep it economically viable.

[Witcha]

If there any new orders I'd think the British MOD would prioritize its own industry over outsourcing production to India. Besides the Indian Hawks are the older mk.115Y variants(renamed to mk.132) and not the new mk.12x series being offered as a LIFT. There are significant differences between the two configurations including nose, fuselage and sections of the airframe.

[Bomberboy]

Rafale is different. France wants to keep the domestic assembly line open for its own needs, & would like to fulfil export orders from that line, where possible, to keep it economically viable.

So, on a simple footing, would this pose a problem if the Indians insist they want to build more of the Rafales for themselves?
I know that there are varying build numbers being quoted, but if the French only end up building a relatively limited number, can we assume that the production line longevity will struggle?
Of course any pending further orders that they are sucessful with would more than likely change that anyway?

[Mildave]

If you say you're done, then do so. Don't say you're done and then start with another bit.

That statement was addressed to Lindermyer.

If this poster is so anti-british engineering-esk or some other reason, why carry on working and living in the UK?

I live in the UK because I've just finished my master degree in computing science and information system if you're interested. I'm working in the UK because with an UK diploma and work experience I can then choose to work in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia etc. quite easily. I thinking about moving to Canada soon, or Switzerland. I haven't made up my mind yet.

[Mildave]

The idea that the supposedly short life of T1 aircraft makes the Typhoon price invalid is simply infantile and stupid.

You've a problem differentiating between you personal opinion and facts. At the end of the day weather the T1 still has potential in them or not doesn't matter much. The fact is that as of today, the RAF is planning on retiring them between 2015 and 2018. If they go through with such a measure then the price of acquiring Typhoon T1 cannot be compared with any other jet that will be used over a much longer period of time.

In any case, the supposed obsolescence centres around the processors, which can easily and cheaply be replaced, and a Tranche 1 > Tranche 2 conversion is possible, practical, and has been undertaken on a number of aircraft in the test fleet, and was planned (free of charge) for Austria when Austria was due to take a mix of T1 and T2 jets.

Until you kindly provide us with any "official" info backing up your claim, that's your opinion. Because an M2k was used as test bed for many of the Rafale electronics doesn't mean you can upgrade an M2K fleet with them at a technical and cost effective way.

(Indeed the T1 to T2 conversion is a great deal more practical and viable than a Rafale F1 upgrade, as the Aéronavale is finding out).

Personal opinion.

The idea that T1 jets are going to be thrown away in 2018 because they are no longer fit for purpose is, frankly, risible and beneath contempt. The fact is (and the RAF do not want to hear this, fearful that their tiny T3 allocation will vanish) that the Tranche 1 jets remain fully viable, and upgrading them would be a cost effective solution.

I don't know if they'll no longer be fit for purpose, but fact is the RAF is actually planning to get rid of them. Rumours has it, Spain is discussing with an potential buyer in South America (well rumours are usually not very serious but still). The RAF already gave away some of theirs to SA, and Germany to Austria. I'm keeping an eye in SA to know more about how upgradable these variant really are.

As to air-to-ground, it’s simple, though some of you knuckleheads seem incapable of grasping it.

1) It is entirely normal and routine for aircraft to enter service with only a portion of their planned capabilities, and indeed operating in only one of their planned roles. Look at the F1 Rafale Ms. Look at the later introduction of LGBs on AdlA Rafales.
2) It was always planned that Typhoon would enter service in the air-to-air role and that this would be the FOC standard. All Typhoon operators had a more urgent need for air defence aircraft than for air-to-ground, since there was a fleet of F-104, F-4, Mirage F1 and Tornado F3 fighters to replace, but there were Tornado IDS, F/A-18 and other types able to fulfill the air-to-ground role, at least in the short-to-medium term. It was always planned that in the 2012 timeframe, Tranche 2 jets would start to introduce elements of the planned air-to-ground capability at EOC. That work is proceeding according to plan under P1E/CP210. The RAF brought forward its own Air-to-Ground capability under CP193.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for any as official as possible statement about all the wonderful thing you said. Statement 1 is moot. You're saying a general statement that nobody contest, and then you add your own opinion. Example: the sky is blue, the sea is blue, black matter is blue. You hope to convey consensus since everybody will agree on the first to assumption, but very few could say whether the last is true or not. Journalistic maybe, scientific ? Certainly not.

The reason that Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA is that it has:
1) A bigger antenna and more power
2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

Point and case:
1)True.
2)False.
3)True. But not all the truth is to be find here. Off boresight can be compensated by other technologies (see F-22).
4)False. And utterly based on your opinion.

I don’t think you’re an Anglophobe, MilDave/Fonk. I think that you’re either a troll (or possibly a half wit). The reason that I think that you’re a troll, MilDave, is that you take any source that is positive about Rafale, or negative about Typhoon, and believe it absolutely and uncritically, you fail to engage your critical faculties, and you dismiss out of hand any evidence of Rafale weaknesses or Typhoon strengths, and there are plenty of both.

That's all right. I don't think you're an dishonest person who lack basic politeness and any form of professional courtesy and skill.

You are also incapable of understanding that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and via clarifications obtained via FOIA and other mechanisms. It’s not a matter of ‘twisting’, it’s a matter of explaining and putting in context – as TMor has endeavoured to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures emanating from different sources when it comes to Rafale pricing.

According to you all public documents in the UK are flawed except your opinion...

[Bomberboy]

I live in the UK because I've just finished my master degree in computing science and information system if you're interested. I'm working in the UK because with an UK diploma and work experience I can then choose to work in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia etc. quite easily. I thinking about moving to Canada soon, or Switzerland. I haven't made up my mind yet.

Thanks for that information.
I am indeed interested for the following.
I'll make an assumption that your obviously not and old chap early to mid 20's which means you have spent much time on the learning path you have selected and would wish you all the best with that.
Having said that, you would therefore not have been able to spend the time researching and will therefore likely not have much actual hard evidence and certainly no involvement in the subject matter, other than from selective reading.
You have then bombarded and berrated a number of people on here that MAY, (I do not say that they do, because I know not a single one of you on this forum, but again I make an assumption), have much more knowledge on the subject than you do. They MAY even have involvement, but that has not made you stop and think.
It is likely that typhoon fanboys are Brits and that Rafale fanboys are French, so it's easy to get drawn into nationalistic drivel.
As a Frenchman, you realised and therefore made a decision that in order for you to percieveably have bigger / better / more opportunities whatever, in this world, you realised that to get qualifications and experience in the UK was the answer. What does that tell you, particularly about UK engineering relative to French engineering and I spose to a degree, the qualifications from the faculties within our two countries and their acceptance around the world?
I really do not see why you give the impression that French manufactured kit is in many / some / allways superior to UK made kit, because I doubt you actually have any decent sizable comparison experience to work with and FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, it is not! Just like some UK kit is Rubbish.

The UK is at the end of the day your host nation which you decided to come to so please be more gracious to that nation because I suspect you will personally benefit from having spent your time here as a result.

[Mildave]

So, on a simple footing, would this pose a problem if the Indians insist they want to build more of the Rafales for themselves?
I know that there are varying build numbers being quoted, but if the French only end up building a relatively limited number, can we assume that the production line longevity will struggle?
Of course any pending further orders that they are sucessful with would more than likely change that anyway?

The Indian can buy/build as many Rafale they want and keep their production line open til 2050 if they so wish.

Small and medium companies in France are already complaining about offset requirements. There is not a chance before 2025 of seeing the Rafale production relocated in India. That would be politicly suicidal, and I haven't find a single source stating such a possibility contrary to what has been said.

Dassault might choose later on to outsource its supplier in India, but that will have to be seen.

[Mildave]

Thanks for that information.
I am indeed interested for the following.
I'll make an assumption that your obviously not and old chap early to mid 20's which means you have spent much time on the learning path you have selected and would wish you all the best with that.
Having said that, you would therefore not have been able to spend the time researching and will therefore likely not have much actual hard evidence and certainly no involvement in the subject matter, other than from selective reading.
You have then bombarded and berrated a number of people on here that MAY, (I do not say that they do, because I know not a single one of you on this forum, but again I make an assumption), have much more knowledge on the subject than you do. They MAY even have involvement, but that has not made you stop and think.
It is likely that typhoon fanboys are Brits and that Rafale fanboys are French, so it's easy to get drawn into nationalistic drivel.
As a Frenchman, you realised and therefore made a decision that in order for you to percieveably have bigger / better / more opportunities whatever, in this world, you realised that to get qualifications and experience in the UK was the answer. What does that tell you, particularly about UK engineering relative to French engineering and I spose to a degree, the qualifications from the faculties within our two countries and their acceptance around the world?
I really do not see why you give the impression that French manufactured kit is in many / some / allways superior to UK made kit, because I doubt you actually have any decent sizable comparison experience to work with and FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, it is not! Just like some UK kit is Rubbish.

The UK is at the end of the day your host nation which you decided to come to so please be more gracious to that nation because I suspect you will personally benefit from having spent your time here as a result.

I never said A SINGLE time, that there is something wrong about UK's engineering. I said about the Typhoon that the program is badly managed, has been badly managed leading to a "potentially great" but in reality flawed aircraft. If you have any experience in this country you will know that it's not the first time a "potentially great" design has been scr* up because of bad management.

Bad management is one of this country biggest problem and if I'm Anglophobe for just stating that, then so be it. But then you should listen to my co-workers.

Let's be honest, any person with real knowledge of defence program would not be posting here. All those present here are fanboy with too much time on their hand basing their opinion of their experience in their respective field. So unless you can find someone here able to leak a classified document (and willing to take that risk for the greater good) to prove his/her point, you can only rely on whatever information that leaks through evaluations and air forces practices.

I'm not an aeronautic engineers and I cannot look at both plane and tell you that and that. But claim are been made by our forum's "experts" they cannot back up with hard evidence. So they will try and talk you into some nebula they only have the secret.

You can only have a sensible discussion is you take into account data everybody can look at and study. I've heard about active cancellation for the Rafale and I've seen some evidence of study by MBDA and Thales that could sustain such a claim, but because I've no proof what so ever I won't come here and call names on other people because they will be sceptical.

So until then, you either provide proof, or you accept someone can have a different opinion. And so far all the claims by Jackonicko&Cie have been lacking in substance or based only on his secret knowledge...

[Kovy]

The UK is at the end of the day your host nation which you decided to come to so please be more gracious to that nation because I suspect you will personally benefit from having spent your time here as a result.

That must be the most desperate argument I've ever read

[Lindermyer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The idea that the supposedly short life of T1 aircraft makes the Typhoon price invalid is simply infantile and stupid.

You've a problem differentiating between you personal opinion and facts.
As do many people including youreself

At the end of the day weather the T1 still has potential in them or not doesn't matter much. The fact is that as of today, the RAF is planning on retiring them between 2015 and 2018. If they go through with such a measure then the price of acquiring Typhoon T1 cannot be compared with any other jet that will be used over a much longer period of time.

Should you not apply that to the F1 Rafale then as well
But You
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
In any case, the supposed obsolescence centres around the processors, which can easily and cheaply be replaced, and a Tranche 1 > Tranche 2 conversion is possible, practical, and has been undertaken on a number of aircraft in the test fleet, and was planned (free of charge) for Austria when Austria was due to take a mix of T1 and T2 jets.

Until you kindly provide us with any "official" info backing up your claim, that's your opinion. Because an M2k was used as test bed for many of the Rafale electronics doesn't mean you can upgrade an M2K fleet with them at a technical and cost effective way.

I would suspect that if it was planned to upgrade austrian T1s to T2s then there is no reason RAF ones cannot be upgraded, this is certainly indicative that Jacinocko is correct here.Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackonicko
(Indeed the T1 to T2 conversion is a great deal more practical and viable than a Rafale F1 upgrade, as the Aéronavale is finding out).

Personal opinion.

I offer no opinion I do not know and nor do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The idea that T1 jets are going to be thrown away in 2018 because they are no longer fit for purpose is, frankly, risible and beneath contempt. The fact is (and the RAF do not want to hear this, fearful that their tiny T3 allocation will vanish) that the Tranche 1 jets remain fully viable, and upgrading them would be a cost effective solution.

I don't know if they'll no longer be fit for purpose, but fact is the RAF is actually planning to get rid of them. Rumours has it, Spain is discussing with an potential buyer in South America (well rumours are usually not very serious but still). The RAF already gave away some of theirs to SA, and Germany to Austria. I'm keeping an eye in SA to know more about how upgradable these variant really are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
As to air-to-ground, it’s simple, though some of you knuckleheads seem incapable of grasping it.

1) It is entirely normal and routine for aircraft to enter service with only a portion of their planned capabilities, and indeed operating in only one of their planned roles. Look at the F1 Rafale Ms. Look at the later introduction of LGBs on AdlA Rafales.

2) It was always planned that Typhoon would enter service in the air-to-air role and that this would be the FOC standard. All Typhoon operators had a more urgent need for air defence aircraft than for air-to-ground, since there was a fleet of F-104, F-4, Mirage F1 and Tornado F3 fighters to replace, but there were Tornado IDS, F/A-18 and other types able to fulfill the air-to-ground role, at least in the short-to-medium term. It was always planned that in the 2012 timeframe, Tranche 2 jets would start to introduce elements of the planned air-to-ground capability at EOC. That work is proceeding according to plan under P1E/CP210. The RAF brought forward its own Air-to-Ground capability under CP193.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for any as official as possible statement about all the wonderful thing you said. Statement 1 is moot.
You're saying a general statement that nobody contest, and then you add your own opinion. Example: the sky is blue, the sea is blue, black matter is blue. You hope to convey consensus since everybody will agree on the first to assumption, but very few could say whether the last is true or not. Journalistic maybe, scientific ? Certainly not.

Point 2 isnt personal opinion or journalistic, why can you not comprehend the typhoon was allways supposed to have a2G abilities, but A2A was priority and A2G has been (sales wise fatally delayed). :[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The reason that Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA is that it has:
1) A bigger antenna and more power
2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

Point and case:
1)True.
2)False. How do you know its false, it is entirely probable if it is based on newer technology

3)True. But not all the truth is to be find here. Off boresight can be compensated by other technologies (see F-22).

Agreed but the F22 is yet to get its Cheeks, and not all aircraft will have that capability so generally speaking its an advantage

4)False. And utterly based on your opinion. Again you have no intimate knowledge of the system so you cannot say its false, it could well be based on a better Radar II am not familliar with the 2 systems. You can however point out its only Jackinockos opinion unless he can validate the statementQuote:

:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
You are also incapable of understanding that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and via clarifications obtained via FOIA and other mechanisms. It’s not a matter of ‘twisting’, it’s a matter of explaining and putting in context – as TMor has endeavoured to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures emanating from different sources when it comes to Rafale pricing.

According to you all public documents in the UK are flawed except your opinion...

No the man said some are flawed, some require clarification and some are not representitive of all the facts, a point Tmor has also made.

[COLOR="blue"]Again you are displaying an inability to comprehend any fact that doesnt fit youre hypothosis, inconvinient facts are branded false, that is in effect you accuse people of lying.

I point out the latter because that may not be youre intent but it is the way it appears sometimes. COLOR]

[Kovy]

Quote:
Should you not apply that to the F1 Rafale then as well

No, for 2 reasons :
1- the Rafale F1 (only 10 a/c BTW) are all Rafale M so they are out of the scope of the cost comparison with the Typhoon
2- they are currently being being upgrade to the last standard and as such will serve for another 20-25 years

Again you have no intimate knowledge of the system so you cannot say its false, it could well be based on a better Radar II am not familliar with the 2 systems. You can however point out its only Jackinockos opinion unless he can validate the statement

The Swiss air Force which has assessed both planes during real trials put the PESA RBE-2 (And also the SFO and spectra BWT) in the strong points of the Rafale but didn't bother mentioning the captor M in the typhoon ones...

The conclusion of this, is that it takes much more than a big moving dish and Jackonicko opinion to get the best radar setup.

[Colibri]

The Swiss air Force which has assessed both planes during real trials put the PESA RBE-2 (And also the SFO and spectra BWT) in the strong points of the Rafale but didn't bother mentioning the captor M in the typhoon ones...

The Swiss Air Force also forgot to mention the 'superior' PIRATE. :diablo:

But, the Swiss Air Force did mention that DASS was crappy though.

[Kovy]

The Swiss Air Force also forgot to mention the 'superior' PIRATE. :diablo:

But, the Swiss Air Force did mention that DASS was crappy though.

Please, Colibri, One step at a time.
We must be very gentle with the sensitive Typhoon boys

[Mildave]

Since I can already see some arguing that the Swiss evaluation was specific to Swiss need, I can consider that the pure range performance wasn't a important factor due to the limited air space. However I can understand the RBE been rated highly due to its versatility, resistance to jamming and over all performances (other than range).

[Mildave]

BTW Jackonicko since you seem to have quite a bit of privileged knowledge poor lad like me don't have, do you think you could provide me with an estimate cost of Rafale M vs Typhoon "M" ?

[TooCool_12f]

So, on a simple footing, would this pose a problem if the Indians insist they want to build more of the Rafales for themselves?
I know that there are varying build numbers being quoted, but if the French only end up building a relatively limited number, can we assume that the production line longevity will struggle?
Of course any pending further orders that they are sucessful with would more than likely change that anyway?

I might add that, for as long as India want to produce more fighters for themselves, Dassault will agree (as they'll charge royalties even if they don't produce a single piece of equipment anymore)

However, when it comes to exports, that is another story, as said by another poster, the french state can use exports to keep Dassault busy while delaying the introduction in the french forces, (for budgetary reasons), so those will most certainly be kept by the french for the french assembly line. the possible exception being brasil which has been offered the south american market in the package, but there dassault probably considered that different nations were either likned too strongly to a supplier like USA or Russia, or just too broke to be able to envision a rafale buy (at least if built in France with "french price"

Now, considering that the cost to make the aircraft (not charging the development) is less than $80M in France, one may wonder how much cheaper it may be to be produced in Brasil, allowing it, maybe, to compete for a few markets in S. America

[Lindermyer]

There will not be a Naval Typhoon, nobody really believes that to be a good idea.

As for costs well initial estimates are probably a 1/3rd what rafale M costs.


However strengthening will be more complicated than origionally envisaged so double that figure.
Stobar is worst of both so attempts to make it CATOBAR will double the previous figure.Add the previous 2 together to revert to Stobar.
After which it will either be cancelled or we will buy 6.

[EELightning]

BTW Jackonicko since you seem to have quite a bit of privileged knowledge poor lad like me don't have, do you think you could provide me with an estimate cost of Rafale M vs Typhoon "M" ?

Why don't you work on areas where you have no clue about rather than bringing up something that is irrelevant? You're struggling enough as it is.