Puffadder@Ja Worsley
Hi Ja
the current issue of Flight Int. mentions the sale of the 4 C17s to Australia and quotes a contract price of $1.48 billion which works out at around $370 million per plane which seems a bit steep. What exactly are you getting for $1.48 billion?
In the same article it is mentioned that the USAF is now reconsidering their previous resistance to buying more C17s. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are eating into the planes. Part of the $67.9 billion budget supplemental for 2006 will pay to repair C17s that have been damaged during hard landings.
Better check out the planes when you get them 🙂
PuffadderIf a Navalised Eurofighter was an option and beefed up undercarriage and wing spars were required. Might they be tempted to go for an all new folding wing ?
AFAIK the Typhoon and Rafale share similar wing architecture. Dassault decided not to go for a folding wing because of the composite/metal hinge junction. It would have been heavy, added thickness to the wing, complicated the leading edge and increased maintenance demands. I assume that the same would apply to the Typhoon.
PuffadderA navalised Typhoon is possible, BAe says it can be done and it was one of the 3 original options studied for the CVF, it would just cost more than buying the Rafale M of the shelf.
Sure it can be done. The question is- what kind of plane do you end up with?
The undercarriage itself has to be changed. Then the fuselage attachment points need to be strengthened. This would mean considerable changes to the intake area which is already complicated.
Because the main gear is attached to the wing spars and not directly to the fuselage as with the Rafale, the wing spar, wing root and fuselage root area would require hefty strengthening to allow a sufficient bringback weight, irrespective of the sea state. Which brings us to the final phase of the recovery- the arrested landing. The rear fuselage would need to be strengthened to accomodate a hook and retraction mechanism.
The Rafale was designed from the outset as a CVF capable plane- that explains why it looks like it does. The M version is about 500 kg heavier than the AdlA version.
Would you agree that a Navy Typhoon would easily weigh about 1500 kg more than the land-based version?
PuffadderJSF will never be seld in the number they are counting … once Eu drops out ..price per unit goes up even for US and then the number dance begin ..(see F-22)
Although the numbers quoted by some observers and commentators in the late 90s were/are absolutely Utopian the F35 will still be the most significant manned fighter programme for the next few decades. I think that the total production run will not exceed about 1800 planes but it will still comfortably beat the combined total of the Euro gen 4 fighters.
UK, Spain and Italy have Harriers. They’re pretty knackered and will need replacement. The UK could conceivably go for the Rafale( a navalised Typhoon is not possible) but Spain and Italy have no choice- it is F35 or bust.
The Gripen would be an excellent Nordic solution- common training, common support and maintenance.
PuffadderSingleseaters and twinstickers
Hammer
when Flight Int. originally reported the M2K C model sale last summer they stated that the fleet would consist of ten C models and 2 B models. Is this still the case?
The report also indicated that further airframes could be transferred.
Puffadder@Janissarie
Do you have a link to any official site where the $70 miilion unit price is mentioned?
IMHO either the price is incorrect or it includes a mass of spares and support equipment. The price seems to be unrealistically high.
@Glitter
When the UAE received their 2000Es in the ’80s they where already equipped with a datalink called LU. In 1992 the datalink was modified to the current standard called LU2
In 2000 Thales received a contract to equip the Blk60 with the LU2 terminal. Now, M2K and Blk60s can transmit data to each other seamlessly and LU2 transmits data from the M2K and Blk60 EW suites to the groundstation.
There seems to be this myth that Link16 is somehow useless, or at least inferior to the Swedish system. The Link16 system is very capable. It is often criticised for being a one-way system. It isn’t, it is simply the case that when an AWACS plane and a fighter communicate, the AWACS operator will be giving the fighter target information. The fighter will not be giving the AWACS any useful information. As regards fighter to fighter data exchange, L16 is a fine system. Pity that it has taken so long to implement.
PuffadderFor the economical side, as long as Europe don’t want to waste too much money into their army, the USa can save lots of margins because of the raw number.
It’s not about economics (if it were we could close down the European defense industry and switch off the lights) it is about independence- to wit: Venezuela and the C-295 or Gripen and all the export customers. The Meteor will be the premier Western BVRAAM in the coming years.
PuffadderHi Hawkdriver
a comparison between the Herk and A400M is perhaps an unfair one, just as a C17/A400M comparison is unfair. However the 130J and A400M are more closely priced than the A400M is to the C17.
The 130 has is a fine plane but the J model brings no improvement to the cargo volume available to a loadmaster. And that is exactly what the A400M is going to do. The A400M will carry 3 M113 carriers or two LAV-25. A C130 pilot cannot begin to think of that kind of load. The C17 is an excellent plane but it is very expensive and does not deliver the airliner type despatch rate originally envisioned. Also it’s ability to operate from soft surfaces is very limited. The engines suck up dirt like crazy during the landing/ braking phase.
And it is interesting to note that there is little enthusiasm within the USAF for extra C17’s. They prefer the sealift option.
What’s with the 50 year thing. You want to tell a theatre commander “forget it pal- you can’t have your APCs and attack choppers- they weren’t needed fifty years ago so just get used to it”? A bit silly isn’t it?
PuffadderHi Hammer
lots to get through there!
1. The M2K will be in service for the next twenty years at least- AdlA. Greece,Taiwan, India and the UAE will also be flying the type for many years yet. The AdlA will certainly modify it’s fleet- absolutely no question. Right now the D’s are being modified. The others will follow. I think you are being unduly influenced by the Australian experience with the F111. They truly were left with a frontline type being operated by no-one else. This is most certainly not the case with regard to the M2K- not even close. The C17 production line for example, will soon be closing down. I read this week that Germany is considering a purchase while the plane is still available- they’re not worried. The service experience that has been accumulated over the last twenty years shows that the M2K airframe and engine are very durable.
2. 12 fighters not worth an upgrade programme ? I have to disagree- unless the FAB is only planning to keep the planes for five or six years.
3. I don’t understand your point regarding the MICA. No BVRAAM manufacturer will pay to integrate their missile into your fleet. I will however suggest that the MICA/M2K combination will not prove to be a major challenge.
Any BVRAAM will require an integration effort. The MICA has the advantage of not weighing as much as an AIM-120, thus it would be a good choice for aircraft in the AMX/F5 weight category. AFAIK the FAB does not yet have a BVRAAM and I’m keen to know who, if anybody, has offered to integrate their missile into all the FAB types at their own expense. (You guys are paying 52 million to develop a dogfight missile ? Why? Better idea. $52 million will easily cover MICA integration into anything you’ve got flying 🙂
4. Datalink. The datalink that France sold to the UAE in the 1980’s was not a NATO system. Because Link16 and HAVE Quick III are only available to a small group of countries Dassault has for years been offering an equivalent to customers not qualified to receive the 16. Datalink architectures are broadly similar, so just how difficult can it be to integrate your own local datalink interface into the M2K?
5. Cross-fleet commonality. The AMX is a single engined plane and the F5E is a twin engined plane. Just how common are the cockpits? Do you have pictures of the HOTAS grips found in both types? I’m going to go on a limb and suggest that the components having the same part number in both cockpits is very, very low. Why do you have common cockpits? The F5E has little A2G capability. Thus the AMX (I imagine) is your primary mud-mover and the F5E the dogfighter. Are your fighter pilots cross-qualified?. All cockpits should have the same frequency-hopping secure comms- but that is truly no problem. And the datalink should share information equally between all tactical platforms. Here again I refer to the UAE. The M2K-9 and Blk 60 can transfer data seamlessly- courtesy of Thales. Am I right in thinking that the AMX and M2K have the same cannon? That kind of commonality is useful. Cockpit avionics don’t break down that often nowadays.
The AMX and M2K cockpit bays and cockpit coaming are so similar that a “common cockpit” shared by these two fighters is very realistic. You mentioned the modernised F5E- do you guys actually replace the dorsal longeron- the life limiter on the F5 series? That is not cheap either.
6. I take your point regarding the F16 and “gratis” tankers. You’ll agree that the tankers would have been fairly knackered and that they are probably ex ANG models with the old TF33 engine (or were the Yanks offering newer planes with the CFM 56 engine). The M2K will refuel from a C130- no extra planes needed.
7. The Rafale M would certainly be an excellent choice. I’m sure you are not suprised that I agree with you on that point 🙂 Order a couple of carriers from Britain as soon as possible!
Hammer, more generally I’m suprised that you show so little faith in the long term viability of the Mirage- or the Gripen for that matter. Around 630 Mirages have been ordered with about 600 in service. The Gripen is Sweden’s only frontline fighter- there is no “Plan B” for Sweden. The Gripen’s future is assured. You place great faith in the Russians. What are their simulators like nowadays? They used to be rubbish! How about mission simulators? Can they offer anything? And what about digitised mission planning equipment?
Can the Russian Air Force offer any assistance? Oh, I forgot- they’re broke. They don’t have two cents to rub together and their pilots get to fly around 40 hours a year, thanks in part to the fantastically affordable MiGs and Su’s that they fly. Thank goodness they sell their planes to the Indians. The INDIANS? They take 15 years to choose a trainer- and even then it’s a trainer with a two thousand hour wing that cannot adequately simulate the fighters that they are currently operating, not to mention whatever they are going to choose as their next fighter for the 126 plane order- assuming that they actually choose anything in our lifetime!
I retract my comment regarding the competence of the FAB. Thanks for explaining why and how the Flanker series got involved in a possible fighter purchase. Now things make sense.
I hope this forum will be around for many years to come.
I am confident that you’ll one day say ” you know, Puffy was right- the M2k is an excellent choice for us and the MICA fits perfectly onto the AMX and F5E. A pity we spent 52 million on developing a missile hardly better than the datalinked IR thrust vectoring MICA and introduced ten years later” 🙂
PuffadderHi Hammer
I wondered how long it would take for you to join the “dogfight” here.
You know that I’m the Dassault salesman on this forum 😀 and thus it won’t suprise you that I believe that the M2K will be an excellent choice for the FAB.
It is not the first time that I have expressed my doubts about the competence of the FAB. Don’t feel insulted- please. The Su-35 and Gripen represent opposite ends of the size spectrum. They are so completely different in size, performance, purchase price and operating costs that it is not clear
a: what the FAB requirement is
b: if the FAB knows how much money is available to support fighter ops.
The M2K, in the iteration that the FAB will receive, does not have a modern BVR capability- but that can be changed. The MICA only needs a datalink. Ultimately, the RC400 radar would be most desirable. Remember, the M2KC can be upped to full MkII standard- funds permitting.
The M2k that you will soon receive can be refuelled in the air. This would not be possible with the Gripen A/B. Only new-build C/D Gripens are AAR capable. An F16 buy would require you to to for a boom tanker. They aren’t exactly thick on the ground.
The M2K has been flown with many types of guided munitions. Gripen is still qualifying some A2G stores. The Gripen A does have a datalink, but Dassault can easily fit one- the UAE E models were delivered in the ’80s with a datalink that gave the UAE a network capability that no European NATO country had- and was 20 years ago!
With the exception of instantaneous turn rate the M2K actually matches the the Gripen fairly well. The M2K has a greater payload and flies further than the Gripen. Can you rationally explain the obsolescence of the M2k? The aircraft will be in service for at least the next twenty years. It is quite likely that future Gripen avionics developments will be sourced from common European developments that will be available to the M2k as well although the French avionics industry can easily match anybody else’s.
The Su 27 is usually peddled with “someone else’s” avionics.
PuffadderC-295 + C-17 or AN-124 or even 747F makes sense
The C-27J is an alternative just a bit more expensive and complicated
The C-130 is the typical medium solution
A-400 is not yet a really large and heavy freighter and not a medium anymore, kind of jack of all trades, master of none.
Above them are the jet powered airlifters. With the C-17 being expensive but yet having a tactical role, while the rest are strategic types.
The A400M is going to lift 35 tons against the 17+ tons of the 130J. The cruise speed is expected to be 422 kts which is considerably faster than a 130J. The A400M is going to lift a Patriot and launcher. Or two Pumas. Have you ever seen a helicopter being carried in a Herk. I once saw a picture on an A109 (I think) being transported in a Belgian C130. The A109 had be be disassembled prior to loading.
The A400M is certainly not going to be a rival to the C17. It’s cargo capability will however exceed that of the C130 and C160 by a considerable margin.
The AN70 would have been an excellent basis for the A400M and we would have saved millions- but then, you all know that.
PuffadderThe A400 will be a good aircraft……but befor putting the C-130 down, please consider that it has been in continuos(sp) production for about 50 years……….when the A400 reaches that milestone, then I will concede its a superior aircraft.
Hi Hawkdriver
I’m not putting down the 130. It’s track record says it all. But at $67 million a copy the J is very expensive. PhantomII alludes to the modern avionics suite and it is very good- autopliot formation flying, HUD, GPS- all great stuff, but the cargo volume hasn’t changed. You cannot say that the A400M will be a better plane only when it has been in production for longer than 50 years. That’s ridiculous.
PuffadderHi SteveO
you like the 130J? I think it’s a waste of money. It cannot actually carry more than the current 130. The cargo cabin isn’t bigger than it’s predecessors. The idea of a hi/lo mix is very sensible but then I believe it should be a CN295 and the A400M. The A400M will carry considerably more than any J model.
Aahh, EADS military 🙂
Puffadderc-seven
buying the aircraft carriers and Type 45 frigates/destroyers directly from British production would be very sensible.
The Hawk? Remember what happened when the Aeronavale expressed it’s preference for the F-18 A ? Dassault will quickly dust off it’s plans for an Alphajet M.
Puffadder[QUOTE=Jackonicko]
C Seven, Puffadder, Glitter,
You French blokes won’t acknowledge the strengths of any programme unless it’s French, will you?
As a Brit, I’m happy to give credit where it’s due, and it’s certainly due to Gripen.
If you look at my 800 + posts over the last six years you’ll see that I’m actually quite a fan of the Gripen. Glitter can speak for himself, but you’ll see that he isn’t some raving patriot either.
The Gripen is a fine plane and will probably do well in some of the Scandinavian fighter replacement programmes that are fairly imminent. The airframe, although a bit small offers a blend of capability, maintainability and excellent handling that makes it a serious rival to the far bigger European canard fighters as well as the Mirage 2000.
If you seriously think that BAE, EF GmbH, Boeing, Lockmart, or Dassault have anything like the same ability to offer credible, useful, sustainable and lasting offset/participation, then you’re deluded. Certainly the tie up with Embraer means that Dassault could do well with direct offset, but in terms of providing sustainable value to the Brazilian economy, the Swedes enjoy an edge. The F-16 has usually been marketed without such incentives…
The deal that France struck with the UAE easily matches anything that SAAB/BAe did in South Africa. The first F16 sale to Turkey was one huge offset deal. The Turks built a bunch of hotels and gave them to the Yanks. Tourism is an important part of the Turkish economy. Before the F16 sale, Turkey had virtually no aerospace industry whatsoever. Lockheed Martin literally built the factory where the Turkish F16s were later built. Some of the Egyptian F16s were actually built in Turkey. The Swedish economy is hardly any better placed to accomodate an offset agreement than France.
If you can’t see how a Gripen scores over a Mirage 2000, you need to open your minds as well as your eyes.
I am actually fairly opened minded. The Mirage 2000 has a greater payload than the Gripen. It simply has. It has more hardpoints and it will fly further. How the Gripen will fare as the flight hours accumulate we don’t know. I assume it will do quite well. If it is as tough as a Mirage 2000, who knows?
With regard to ACM the Gripen is better than the Mirage, but not much better.
..but because its principal early export prospects were in Central and Eastern Europe Gripen was designed to allow the integration of Soviet, British, Swedish, Israeli and US weapons and its weapons system is optimised for quick and easy integrations.
The Gripen was designed at a time when Sweden had little interest in exporting weapons to Warsaw Pact countries. The Indians have integrated several Israeli guided weapons into their Mirage 2000s. France itself routinely uses American GBU 12 and GBU 22 guided LGBs. In the 1980s the Pakistanis integrated the French Atlis target designator pod into their F16 with French assistance and had a precision attack capability that many neighbouring countries lacked for some years after. The UAE uses the 2000-5 with a French designator guiding a British precision munition. It is my understanding that the Indian Air Force has integrated a Russian BVRAAM into the Mirage 2000 although I am open to correction on this. The Gripen uses the 1553 data bus as do most other Western fighters. The Mirage 2000 is the exception: it uses the DigiBus. Dassault will help any customer to integrate any weapon into the DigiBus, it’s protocolls are available to all clients.
Nor can Rafale offer anything like the same ability to operate from semi-prepared forward strips, or with such a small logistics footprint and with so little GSE and infrastructure. Nor can the M2K, F-16, Rafale or Typhoon offer anything like the same low through life costs that Gripen International can.
The Gripen can indeed operate from normal paved roads- so can the Mirage. The take-off and landing distances for both types is about the same. The Mirage 2000 landing gear is better suited to such operations than is the Gripen’s. The Mirage 2000’s operating costs are a little higher than those of the Gripen but it can also carry more than the Gripen.
The first generation Gripen has no air to air refueling capability and it cannot be modified to accept a probe(you have to buy a new build plane). Thus a used Gripen is somewhat limited as regards long range operations. All Mirage 2000s have a AAR capability- all of them. Go google “Operation Heracles”.
The Gripen would not have been able to participate in that operation.
The Gripen is a fine plane and deserves the victories that it has thus far accumulated.
Sign In
