Less than 5%…? I knew the Rafale was cheaper but by that little? I never really thought so.

Just to mention, a Tranche 3 Typhoon with development & production costs etc are (last time I checked) stated to be around £120-£125 million. Take away 5%…Well, do the math.

Theres really nothing in it.

Depends. India could be involved as a full partner in Eurofighter GMBH, or as a full partner in the Eurofighter Typhoon. They’re not the same thing.

I believe they’re offered full partnership in Eurofighter GmbH. However, I’m not 100% sure so I’ll have to dig around in my folder of ‘Useless Information!’ for some details.

However still, weither it’s Eurofighter GmbH or Eurofighter Typhoon, India could still be a part of the South Koreo’s F-X programme. Bernhard Gerwert stated that India would become a global production & R&D partner. So who knows, maybe they could play their part.

The one and only reason …Typhoon has already lost the Swiss contract just because of this…

Theres been no official reports suggesting so yet. So until then its just rumours as is Typhoon’s “elimination” from Japan. And if the recent report stating the ‘less than 5% figure is anything to go by, then Dassault might have a bit of a problem.

I kind of think though, the way this competition has been run so far – to avoid any claims of favoritism – the political factor or strategy factor (as commonly known) may be ignored and only the detailed cost breakdowns + offsets used to make the decision.

I don’t believe for a moment political and especially strategic benefits will be ignored. Those as well as industrial benefits are a huge part of this Indian tender. The latter two are what India very much needs to help boost their aerospace industry and security to India and it’s people, too. Political benefits are also important for India.

I didn ‘t remember I said that (honest) , I usually keep it for myself but since you called me …

Really?… :rolleyes:

So yes I think the Typhoon aerodynamic design is indeed from the 80s . Give the M2000-5 a 12,000kg thrust engine (2,300kg more than the actual engine) and you end up with a M2000 probably capable to rival the Typhoon ‘s manoeuvrability and sustained turn rate at high mach .

I very much doubt it. Speaking of airframe design alone, the Typhoon’s is way more superior to that of the Mirage’s.

Dassault ‘s people often said that the Typhoon ‘s design is not what it should be for a high altitude interceptor (because IT IS an interceptor) .

Have you got quotes from them stating that and the reasons why they believe so? A laugh won’t go a miss.

Please, go into detail about it being an interceptor.

Typhoon ‘s design was a bit more flexible than that and some multirole capabilities were outlined from the begining , but that ‘s it .
I say again , when one build a true multirole fighter he/she keeps in mind very important things like heavy weapon load and great range .
Do I have to repeat again that the Typhoon only has 3 (three) true heavy hardpoints (and not 5) if it wants to carry an heavy load far away ?

The Rafale has 5 (five) true heavy hardpoints , all of them wet and all of them usable for real , unlike the Typhoon because of its crazy gear system .
Since we are on externals , the Typhoon ‘s CFT can take 1.500l of jet fuel when the Rafale CFTs (called fast pack) can take 2.3000l of jet fuel .

Yes, I’m aware of the hardpoints, wet points, how many litres of fuel both carry etc. In this regard I think rather high of the Rafale for this and an area where I would give it an advantage, no question about it. But let me explain (AGAIN) something wrt design and priority & their philosophy.

To keep it short and sweet. Both designed with multi-role in mind, from the start. But sadly, you can’t have everything of both for A/A & A/G, this goes FOR BOTH of the fighters in hand. One is designed with more of A/A in mind the other with more of A/G in mind. However, that is not suggesting anything at all that they aren’t any good in the opposite roles. Its just a matter of, ‘for one to gain an advantage one has to sacrifice in other areas.’

I also heard that the Typhoon was recently cleared for 24.500kg MTOW when the Rafale ‘s margin is 27.000kg but it ‘s not in use to avoid stress fatigue .

I believe the Rafale’s MTOW is around the same to that of the Typhoon’s?

Since we talk about external load , what is the Typhoon ‘s “bring back” capability ?
The Rafale M landing on a carrier with a 6.5m/s sink rate can bring back 15.7 tons (which translate into 5 tons of external load) .

Figures are frosty for the “bring back” cabability of the Typhoon, I’ll need to look that up in a short while. But studies for the Naval Typhoon at least, studies indicate that it would land with weights up to 18.5 tonnes (40,785lb).

All of this to say that the Rafale is extremely strongly build and can emport more than the Typhoon while weighting a ton less for the same size .
It is telling much .

Again, comes down to design. See above.

Again , it is YOU who should look it up . Do I need to point at some very various studies on closed coupled canards designs ? For cry out loud !

I don’t really know what you’re on about or what your actual intentions are…You’re talking so much cr*p as usual!

It’s been discussed so many times already that the Rafale’s closed-coupled canard design and it’s particular engines are most probably best suited from low to mid altitudes. Where as the Typhoon’s design and engines are most probably best suited from the mid to high altitudes. Theres no right or wrong about it, its design and priority. If the Typhoon’s design is “wrong” then so must the Rafale’s.

Yes the Typhoon Team managed to get the aerodynamics wrong , or at least not optimum . I wish that I knew enough math to explain the claim but I can only follow the Dassault people who have been designing canards equipped fighters for more than 40 years .
A good example is the Mirage IIIS :

Thats your problem as you just unintentionally pointed it out. You “only” follow Dassault people, blah blah blah. Nice of you to finally admit it. And being a native Englishman, I understand the difference between fact and opinion & your English is riddled with opinion with not much fact, and your nonsense that Eurofighter GmbH got the Typhoon design “wrong” just shows your opinion.

And your math knowledge is the very least of your worries…

It is all about instantaneous turn rate and not about sustained turn rate . Turning inside the other is the idea but I already said that .

Once again…And again & again *yawn*…Aircraft design, performance, speed, altitudes etc. They all play their part in whom gives a particular fighter the advantage.

““The operational part of the ‘Exercise Indradhanush-2007’ began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties… The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI’s observed superior maneuvering in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated.“
From :
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/typhoon-vs-su-30mki-the-2007-indra-dhanush-exercise-03470/

And? At what altitudes, speeds…What?

Watch various Typhoon displays and use your eyes . Check how it does barrel-rolls and verify the longitudinal axis during the manoeuver , it is more than obvious . If you ask yourself why , go again to canards aerodynamics .

The various videos of Typhoon’s performing barrels varys at various speeds, some are usual at slow speeds and some at high. Videos don’t come to a conclusive answear.

You can load the Rafale like a mule , it will always have 4 missiles . It is YOU who doesn ‘t see the philosophy EE . And please stop arguying on external load since the Typhoon can ‘t even compete .

I know, and you can load a Typhoon like a mule and it will always carry six missiles, two more than the Rafale. But this due to design philosophy. See what I mean now? No, obviously not because like I stated before, you’re just too ignorant to realise.

Eh? Was I suggesting the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale wrt to external loads? Nope! Just merely pointing out to narrow-minded, minions such as yourself that it ain’t a one and a half-ar$ed trick pony some people think, or want it to be.

Just one question : Are the Typhoon ‘s CFTs really cleared for operational use and if so , since when ?

Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons have the modifications already to accept CFTs. As far as I’m aware scale model (and 1/1 scale too I believe) wind tunnel tests are as good as completed. So its just a matter of getting some fitted for flight testing. However they’re not actually needed as of yet so expect them to be integrated very soon with the likes of Storm Shadow coming online the next 3-4 years.

To make it short : Lower RCS , better radar , excellent passive sensors , better offensive electronic warfare suite , Mica IR , better aerodynamics .

How does it have a “better” radar with less TR modules and with such a small konk area, & how come it has a “better” offensive electronic warefare suite?

So what about Mica IR?

Aerodynamics, well. Depends on altitude, speed, performance etc, the normal blah…

I said that I was a Typhoon fan , I know the jet well . It is YOU again who think that I don ‘t know what I am talking about .

You don’t know what you’re talking about wrt the Typhoon and I think recent discussions with between yourself, Scorpion82, amonst others and myself backs up your little knowledge regarding this very well.

Won’t it be too difficult ? Is it not part of the Typhoons integrated sensor suite and all that. I would like the MKIs to have a proper HMDS though something like the Top Owl will do.

Well, the HMSS allows the Typhoon pilot display primary flight information & enables him/her to be locked and prioritised multiple targets in both air and ground via various aircraft systems. So the pilot is plugged into the aircraft itself, quite literally actually. So some enhancements to the MKI’s systems will likely need to be undertaken. I would say its do-able and would be quite a wise investment. Providing the IAF feels the need to anyway.

And I think you are getting a bit too far ahead of yourself. Rafale may yet win.

Not at all. I still wouldn’t place a bet.

It’s the upper ceiling for 189 fighters.

The $10-Billion figure is a decade old estimation and even back then it was reported that it could increase by 50% by time they make the desicion.

Yeah particularly for AMCA and their indigenous UCAV. I’ve said it before, India is looking for a strategic industrial partner and the member nations of EADS can deliver much more than Dassault. The ‘difficulty of dealing with multi nations’ argument- is a none starter.

I’ve more or less been saying those things for a long time. Which seems to have been a touchy topic for some of the Rafale camp.

One is wondering. India seem to be keen to integrate Meteor onto their MK1s. I wonder if they would be interested in integrating Typhoon’s HMSS, too? If possible.

Or possibly India is being totally professional and do want to give the appearance of bias in MMRCA.

If India talked with various officials about the MMRCA during various conferences, how would that be unprofessional? The way I see it they (India) have every right to discuss the MMRCA. I see no harm in that.

Well CFTs are not a yes please but a definite must if you want to carry big heavy stuff around (like 2 Storm Shadows).

Agree. They might not be a must for A/A but I would certainly want them for A/G.

Actually with 7500 KG MTOW, I don’t think you can carry all that much weapons after you get all that fuel. And still, such a loadout means no Storm Shadow or Taurus.

You won’t always need Storm Shadow or Taurus for every A/G mission. It was just an example. For instance; why not have 3x 1,000 litre drop tanks, 2x 1,500 litre CFTs, 4x Meteor, 2x ASRAAM/IRS-T and 4x Brimstone (12 missiles in all). Having a couple of Typhoons on CAS/CAP with such a load is quite something isn’t it not.

– in terms of industrial offsets. Edelstenne acknowledges that the “compensation is really very tough. It will be very difficult to answer to this request.” However, he’s not scared. “We will negotiate,” he says. “First of all, I want to be chosen, and then we will negotiate.”

It never occured to me before…But did he just more or less say; ‘Chose the Rafale then we can discuss offsets.”? Or have I just read it wrong? If he is stating that, it really isn’t that attractive & I would find that suspicious…

So what do we have:-

Rafale ahead on unit cost. (Marginally < 5%)
Typhoon ahead on offsets (maybe significantly)
ToT ??? (But I favour Typhoon here.)
Lifecycle costs (roughly equal)
Strategic value ???

Cheers

Unit cost; I would say the Rafale was cheaper but not by much. 5% would seem about right.

Offsets: Eurofighter GmbH by quite a margin.

ToT: Both are willing to offer a comprehensive amount as we know, but with EADS leading the way for the Typhoon bid and their determination to get a foot print on Indian turf. I believe they would have the advantage.

Lifecycle costs: Not much difference between them.

Strategic value: I would put the Typhoon at an advantage here. India’s intentions to use this tender as a long term security boost for their country plays into EADS’ hands IMO. With Cassidian a part of EADS and the Eurofighter programme and a base already set up in Bangolore would put the Typhoon in a solid position. Plus, EADS’ offer of being a major player of other projects is a big plus.

Idustrial benefits: Similar what I mentioned above.

Political benefits: One country vs four. Speaks volumes.

EE, do you have any pic showing this config?

Where does the LDP fit in that sort of combat load?

Centre station. RAF Typhoons operated with this configuration over Libya.