It may be a stupid question, but why does Greece have such an incredibly powerful air force (compared to its population)?

long story:rolleyes:

Any updates on Greeks modernizing their CAS and maritime strike abiliites? The threat of Bulgaria is too immense for Greece to go unnoticed. I heard Bulgaria is updating some of its systems as we speak

….threat of Bulgaria?????

Anyway recent info, insists that an decision for a new purchase is imminent.
More chances for the EF2000 or the F-16B52 or B60

I wasnt alive in 65, but IICR the aussies picked the F-111, because at that time, Britain had had the same pick!
Initially they wanted the TSR2.

No, the M88-ECO with the 9t setting will have the same caracteristics in terms of servicability (maintenenance, fuel consumption, life span…) as the current M88-2E4 in service, which are already design to last the for the entire rafale carrer (7500hrs per engines if I remember well).

Then what is the catch?

You do sense something is missing here, arthuro, dont you?

greg,

the 9t version of the m88-ECO is exactely the same but with different software limits.

Something which is hard to explain is that power is not the only factor (despite it is a 100% masculine forum this bias is not strange;) ).

Sustainability is one of the most important factor. a design is always a compromize and the rafale enjoy a significant edge in terms in range compred to the typhoon for instance. In the latest exercises (tiger meet and TLP), pilots praised the fact that of all the participants, (tornados, typhoons, f16, F18…)the rafale was the first airbone and the last to land which was a testament to its great endurance.
range allow you to engage your ennemy when you want and harass your adversary till the point he will be short of fuel. In modern air superiority warfare aircrafts rarely go directly head on against each others. At least each party will try to capitalize on its strenght..
-Fuel allow you to gain energy so a design with a T/W ratio of three altough nice on the paper will lack this “fuel” which is needed to gain energy. So there is a limit in comparing trust T/W ratio greg.
Also remember that today with all aspects off bore sights missiles coupled with HMS, extreme performance is no more needed : the F35 is a case in point. Stealth, EW, 360° situation awarness are decisive factors.

The rafale can already reach 40000ft in less than 2min, supercruise with a representative combat load, accelerate to supersonic speed in less than 30s from low speed and sustain 9g more than the pilot can withstand. It has already proven superior to all the teen fighters in dogfighting as well as the gripen…Perhaps the typhoon is a little bit better than that in this area…But this is already an outstanding performance when you see that we have reach the limits in terms of airframe performance since the 80s. (it is not an area where huge progress have been made).
And dogfighting is no more reprensative of aircraft performance in modern air warfare. We always talk about air superiority when it represents less than 0,00001% of combat sorties.
Indeed there is a bias when comparing aircrafts because of the masculine “mine is bigger than yours” syndrom. Most of the time (99,99999%) these fighters will do bombing…Like in afghanistan, iraq, kosovo…But people here just think “my aircraft will kill yours”. Speaking about power out of context of modern air warfare is useless…

to conclude :

So when judging rafale airframe design don’t forget rafale exeptional carrying capabilities (around the same as the SH but with 5t less of airframe), its endurance and the fact it had to be navalized. All these qualities or requirements weren’t done at the detriment of its air superiority performance which is still first class.
Few aircrafts can boast such a performance. Some of them can equal or surpass marginally the rafale in one area, but when you look the broader picture of what it can do, I think it is probably the best design:D

You clearly misunderstood me.
Reliability (or sustainability as you say) is THE most important factor in warfare. Along with easy of maintenance. Pure numbers come afterwards.

This is why I still believe Scecma meant something else by saying “…feasibility of increasing…”.

But if you say 9t eco is a matter of software tuning, I ll take your word for it.
If this is the case, then it is something like the “war settings” of the EJ200, and a couple of others. Modern wars lasts a few weeks, or days, so a customer might like to tune his M88 for best performance during this period. This is an advantage, but then the M88 should be compared with the 9t+15% EJ200.

On the other hand, as you very correctly wrote, classic dogfights are almost over, or should I say very rare.
Today’s air theater turns from a Aircraft Vs Aircraft scheme into an Aircraft Vs Missile.
Which means that sheer power is still very important but must be used in a different way. The F-35 is not a good example. It was designed primary for a2g no matter what our american friends in this forum like to believe.
Take a look at the F-22. More power more thrust better T/W, SS aerodynamics, and …M1.5 supercruise! That’s the way.

Apparently you’re the only one who thinks the Rafale needs more power that badly, because the AdlA sure doesn’t seem to think so. So they decided to go for better fuel consumption and longer engine life instead of going for more power.

The fact that the AdlA doesn’t want to buy the 9T version does NOT mean that an export customer can’t order a Rafale with 2x 9T engines.

Nic

Never used the word “badly” or something close to that.
But still TWR is clearly behind the competition. And that was always the case with French fighters, since the days of the F1, and the M2000.
Brilliant design, countered the weak engines, but that doesnt happen any more. As far as aerodynamic design the competition is at least as brilliant, and in some speed regions even more effective.

If a customer chooses the 9T version what would the price be?
And I am not talking about the money value. Any engine can get 50% more power (even Rom_un’s 2CV), but if that means major spare parts replacement every 30 or 50 hours, that doesnt really count.

I really dont believe Snecma is saying something like this.
I believe that what they mean by the phrase “checked out the feasibility of increasing M88 engine thrust to about 20,000 lb” is that they could do it by either increasing the size of some components or by using more advanced materials that somehow are not currently available.

But they havent done it yet!

Just my 2 cents:)

The M2000 is one of the very few fighters that are cute from every angle!

http://www.fatsimare.net/profile/video/video.php?v=071129688e8qw

a scramble from the best aircraft of the HAF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dBbLWeUT-Y

and an other one

greg,

I don’t think Rom un is lord/Global whatever…!

If so, I ll have to apologize.