eagle1The choice of a light weight combat aircraft for Brazil and Switzerland can make sense : even though they are both rich countries which could afford bigger more expensive jets, they don’t face any immediate threats…Just like all Gripen customers.
If you look at countries that feel under threats, they tend to choose bigger jets that bring more punch (eg: intrinsically more payload, better range, better persistence and reserve of power). Note that this is something you can’t retrofit and will be a limit for the time of the service life of the aircraft. Electronic can be upgraded, it is top notch for a few years and then becomes obsolete…like all systems.
Besides with important local aeronautic industry, it is interesting for Switzerland and Brazil to chose a platform with more room for development.
So the military might have preferably wanted a bigger jet, but the political situation and economic interest were fully compatible with the gripen (cheaper, politically more acceptable and with more room left for industry participation).
*****
This brings to the recent Bill Sweetman editorial which I found inaccurate : Yes affordability is a factor to highly value and assess accurately but interestingly there is still more customers for heavier jets than for light weight fighters and countries willing to face future challenge are not all necessarily willing to sacrifice capability for light jets. The Gripen NG cleverly fills a niche left empty after the lighter mirages and mig 21 but major world powers who intend to face a potent threat do not choose the Gripen for now.
eagle1”
No wonder India is seeking to diversify its sourcing for MRCA. Dassault aircrafts might be expensive but enjoy a good reputation as far as serviceability is concerned.
eagle1Late landing in India for the Rafale
The duplication of the Rafale supply chain in India advance, but the signing of the final contract shall not be made before the parliamentary elections scheduled for May due to budget constraints.
[…]
“All committees for strategic purchasing decision on defense will be frozen from mid-February. But today, there is a consensus on the strategy of defense and the selection should not be questioned, “said a French officer connoisseur of the country.Dassault will have to wait several more months. “It takes ten years to sign a big contract in India,” .[….] Recently, the modernization of the fleet of indian Mirage 2000 was no exception. Started in the mid-2000s, negotiations with Thales have been concluded in … 2011! The extreme slowness of the Indian bureaucracy is not a legend. “The notion of time is not the same. When you ask your contact about details on the schedule of operations, you often got a ‘very soon’ because themselves know nothing. This may mean in three months as in five years, “smiled the observer.
Nevertheless. The manufacturer of the Rafale wants to move quickly “Our goal is to have finished writing all the documentation – technical, commercial, legal -. Relative to the contract in mid-February ,we have fifty people mobilized on this project.” Says Eric Trappier. the CEO of Dassault Aviation which has a daily meeting, late morning, with his Indian team.
And every day or almost, Indian media, citing “anonymous sources close to the Indian Ministry of Defense,” bring their share information on the progress of discussions!
On 26 January, the local news site DNA spoke of a doubling of the initial amount of the contract, around 30 billion dollars! This information is unverifiable. Especially since they are neither denied nor commented upon by key stakeholders. “No official figure for the contract has never been disclosed either by the manufacturer or by the Indian authorities. Most estimates are based on gross purchase of 126 devices, but the contract is much more complex than that, “says an informed observerThe contract includes the provision of any industrialization associated with the delivery of the aircraft. Apart from the first 18 aircrafts,[…] the other Rafale will be assembled in India by public aircraft manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Half of the production goes to local companies. To achieve this, the installation of a supply chain made in India is anything but obvious. Despite the quality of Indian engineers, industrial maturity is not the same as in France. Technology transfers are never easy.
“With the licensed production of Mig 21 and Sukhoi 30, HAL has encountered many difficulties. The shipyards Mazagon also suffered to produce DNCS submarines in India,” says Jean-François Maulny Director at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS). To sign license agreements with the suppliers on all Rafale equipment, Dassault Aviation and HAL have evaluated the skills of every office studies, audited production capacity and defined support plans for training.
[…]
There is little information on the future industrial scheme, but one would go to a supply chain gathered around a few major players such as HAL and the private conglomerate Reliance Industries. It would manufacture the wings of the Rafale, according to Indian press. The difference is significant with France, where some 500 SMEs participate in the program […].The central question of ultimate responsibility on aircraft out of the factory of HAL Bangalore was finally settled. This delicate point has, it seems , long hampered the progress of discussions. Deemed commercially inflexible , Dassault has refused to accept such responsibility while HAL is the ultimate integrator. In 2005 , DCNS , in a comparable situation , agreed to take responsibility for the first 2 of 6 Scorpene submarines assembled in India by his partner, Mazagon site. […]
http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-rafale-tarde-a-atterrir-en-inde.N239387
eagle1PAK-FA and rafale are very different birds.
PAK-FA is built with a strong focus on air superiority but with limited multirole potential (considering its size, payload layout under wings (bombs/missiles + external fuel), volume of internal bays).
The rafale is built with a more balanced set of multiroles capabilities with up to 9,5 tons of ordinnance.
The type of use would be considerably different…
F35 would be a more suitable comparison than the PAK-FA. Just like an F22 does not replace an F35 or a rafale.
eagle1MMRCA deal will materialise soon: Antony
[…]
Defence Minister A.K. Antony Thursday said negotiations to calculate “life-cycle cost” in the purchase of the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) were not settled yet but he was hopeful that the contract will materialise in the coming fiscal. Talking to media persons at Defexpo ’14 here, Antony denied there was any delay in concluding the MMRCA deal. Antony said there were some complaints about the procedure to calculate life-cycle cost. “That’s still not settled… (But) that is not affecting the process,” he said.
[…]
eagle1Real data are classified, but RBE2 AESA should have similar performance to APG-79.
Actually that was what a Thales representative claimed about RBE2 AESA performance in a former article in A&C
eagle1Rafale’s current flyaway cost is €57.5 mn, so about $79 mn. (Official cost for a Rafale C at 2013 prices: € 68.8 mn incl. 20% VAT).
Worth noting that for exports you don’t bill VAT. So The basic flyaway cost for India will be even less than quoted official prices.
Really the inflating price is due to the whole structure of the deal and Indian requirements : full ToT and Full indigeneous production. It is like reiventing the wheel.
Finding hundreds local suppliers, organizing the supply chain, ensuring quality controls are in place and applied, investing in local facilities and finding all the necessary high skill workforce (engineer, quality managers etc..) is a mamoth task. It took decades in France and other countries to create such a network of skills.
But this issue is not specific to the rafale. any contenders would face the same issue.
eagle1Doesn’t say, but I think they’re quoting the average flyaway cost. The aircraft manufactured by HAL would be about the same price (if not higher) – smaller scale production but lower labour costs. The first 20-40 will be simple CKD assembly with gradual introduction of locally build components.
Trouble is, this was economically viable only when an eventual order totaling 200 units+ was a given. But with the delays in the program, the follow-on order for 84 aircraft (if placed), will result in deliveries no earlier than 2025 (probably much later). By that point the IAF/MoD will probably prefer to pursue a different platform. With orders capped at 126, the benefits of ToT and license building are greatly reduced.
India is still manufacturing jaguar, LCA and sukhoi so…
eagle1A big first for the rafale : First flight with external wing station (mica).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224635[/ATTACH]
eagle1Nice footage from Bengalore airshow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0rl0RkCDv0
for Rafale fans, nice statements about its capabilities in dogfight at 33′
As a rafale fan it is always nice to hear ! 😎
eagle1The gripen E will certainly be a modern and fine jet.
What competitors mean is its size makes it from a different category due to the impact on range and carrying capabilities. You can’t retrofit an aircraft physical caracteristics. For instance the impact on performance (kinetic, range) of an AtG load will be greater on a smaller airctaft. with two heavy bombs, multiple medium size bombs or cruise missiles, the performance of the Gripen will be significatively affected (range, accelerations etc).
Competitors argue you could reach the same requirements with less jets…Which is true to a certain extent but wrong in some cases…But anyway that’s the basic assumption.
As long as you don’t percieve an immediate threat and the need to perform long range strike with heavy weapons the light and modern jet more often than not makes sense. But if you don’t want to rely heavily on tankers and you want to bring a significant amount of punch far away a bigger aircraft will fare better. Really it is down to the percieved threat and operational scenarios anticipated.
The swiss eval was interesting to illustrate that matter : even in the point defense AtA test where normally a light weight fighter should be less affected, the gripen C had to abort the interception and make an emergency landing in another airbase due to lack of fue if I recall welll. I know the gripen E is a step forward compared to the C version don’t get me wrong. However it is still much lighter than the rafale, SH etc and the anticipated assesment of the demonstrator did not change their opinion in terms of ranking.
I think it would be wrong to include technology : technology evolves rapidely and what is considered “very performant” one day will be obsolete in a few years and it is also depending from what a customer is willing to pay.
Last but not least : Both Switzerland and Brazil never claimed they opted for the most performant solution : Amorim clearly said the choice was beased on three criteria : ToT, acquisition price and operating cost when Uli Mauer from Switzerland declared “we can’t always afford the best”.
I think they are perfectly comfortable with the fact that politically it would have been difficult for them to justify more expensive aircrafts due to the lack of threat. And I can’t blame them on that.
The gripen is the only modern airctaft filling that niche of low cost but modern and sufficiently performant aircraft for countries that don’t face a big security challenge. No wonder it exports well.
eagle1One question : it looks like the Gripen E is some kind of a true “open source” fighter which appeared to be a great asset for Brazil and Switzerland and arguably helps to further bring down the cost of this single engine lightweight jet.
With Brazil (and Switzerland ?) having a share in the program, The engine being from the US, the radar and IRST being italo-british, the EW coming from Israel and so on…Which value/share of the contract and intellectual property is going to SAAB/Sweeden ?
I know it is better than nothing and it is part of Gripen E business case to make up for Sweeden lesser clout in foreign affairs and generate economies of scale but it should be interesting to see which proportion of the generated cashflow actually go back to Sweeden. How many Gripen need to be exported to generate a cashflow similar to a single nation aircraft sold directly ?
eagle1From a question and answer session with the Brazilian Ministry of Defence:
(Source: Brazilian Ministry of Defense; issued Dec. 18, 2013)
(Issued in Portuguese only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)
8 – What is the function of the new fighters in the context of the Brazilian air defense?
The primary task of the FAB, in the broader context of national defense, is to maintain sovereignty over national airspace to defend the country and to prevent the use of national airspace for hostile acts contrary to national interests. To accomplish this task, the Air Force must have the capacity to monitor, control and protect of airspace with the capabilities of detection, interception and destruction that implies. The Gripen NG fighters are supersonic airplanes that fulfill several missions, such as interception, interdiction and eventual destruction of targets that can undermine national sovereignty. The aircraft are designed for use in air-to-air, air-to-sea and air-to-ground missions. They are also equipped with an in-flight refueling system that will allow the defense of the airspace in even the most remote parts of Brazil.
Sounds like Gripen E has the qualities needed by the Brazilian military. Why pay more for the greater capability offered by F/A-18 or Rafale if Gripen’s capability is seen as sufficient?
Absolutely. The threats Brazil is going to encouter do not require greater capablities. They are doing fine with old mirages, F5 and AMX, skyhawk so they will be more than happy with the gripen E. And on the top of that they benefits from a good ToT package. It is arguably the best choice for Brazil : enough performance to fulfill the required missions in Brazilian context, not expensive and ToT.
eagle1EElightning:I’ve said it once or twice before, I’ll say it again; while the makers of Typhoon and Rafale fight it out on trying to get a one up on one another, the little Gripen is picking up the exports. Now watch certain supporters kick up a fuss.
As always, a fully deserved win for the Gripen!
Well yes and no…The gripen enjoys a massive competitive advantage for countries that don’t feel threaten by a powerfull ennemy but want a modern and affordable fighter and/or a good offset program to feed their local aeronautic industry. If you look at the profile of gripen customers it is quite clear.
However if you look at coutries that really feel under threat they don’t buy the gripen but more expensive, bigger jets : Gulf states are looking at Typhoon, rafale, F18SH, F15 or F35…India chose the rafale, Korea the F35…The gripen is not even in the competition.
Really Brazil and Switzerland were perfect targets for the Gripen. Politically it would not have been accepted to buy an aircraft like the rafale, SH or the typhoon which cost much more to buy and operate when you don’t have an immediate threat. And don’t forget that not long ago Brazil encoutered a massive social protest which does not advocate for a “luxury” choice.
Brazil Mindef was clear : the choice took into account three parameters : Transfer of technology, cost of purchase and operating costs. The rafale had probably a slight edge on ToT due to the fact it is single source which make the whole process easier, however it could not compete with the gripen in terms of costs. When you balance these criteria the choice was obvious.
You can read official french reactions here : (including dassault and french Gov) :
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?137433-Rafale-News/page337
eagle1[ATTACH=CONFIG]219213[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219214[/ATTACH]
very nice phot gallery here :
http://www.anthonypecchi.fr/AP/Avions.html
Sign In
