toanI suppose Afghanistan is not a hot country…
Well, in different places and seasons, the temperature of Afghanistan can extend from -25°C to +50°C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Afghanistan
The variety of climate is immense, as might be expected. Taking the highlands of the country as a whole, there is no great difference between the mean temperature of Afghanistan and that of the lower Himalaya. Each may be placed at a point between 10°C and 15°C / 50°F to 60°F. But the remarkable feature of Afghan climate is its extreme range of temperature within limited periods. The least daily range in the north is during the cold weather, the greatest in the hot. For seven months of the year (from May to November) this range exceeds 17°C / 30°F daily. Waves of intense cold occur, lasting for several days, and one may have to endure a cold of minus 24°C / 12°F rising to a maximum of minus 8°C / 17°F On the other hand the summer temperature is exceedingly high, especially in the Oxus regions, where a shade maximum of 45°C to 50°C / 110°F to 120°F is not uncommon. At Kabul, and over all the northern part of the country to the descent at Gandamak, winter is rigorous, but especially so on the high Arachosian plateau. In Kabul the snow lies for two or three months; the people seldom leave their houses, and sleep close to stoves. At Ghazni the snow has been known to lie long beyond the vernal equinox; the thermometer sinks between as low as minus 25°C / minus 15°F and tradition relates the destruction of the entire population of Ghazni by snowstorms more than once.
toanThat was the report i meant:
Although the whole article seems not to be available anymore, you can see the main parts:
I don’t deny the capabilities the Rafale offers (I also prefer it), but if the trials in Aug proves the claims of the article above, Rafales chances in India will sink. Is it wise to risk a 10 billion dollar deal just because the engine performance is not good enough in such conditions, compared to the other contenders? Especially if the new engine is really developed to 90% like some members mentioned here.
Like I said before, I see the high costs (unit, french weapons, integrations of more US weapons, funding of HMS, new engine and later upgrades…) as the main problem for Rafales export chances.
I agree that it should be the better aircraft than the F18 SH, but as far as I know the F18SH has an advantage in all above mentioned costs right? Also if you see how the US companies, Saab and EADS aggressively promotes their aircrafts with newly added techs (like more thrust for F18SH engine and possibly a growler version, TVC for EF engine that is offered for LCA and a partnership, or like rumors said Saab wants to team up for MCA project) and already making ties with Indian companies to fullfil the offset requirements I ask myself can Dassault compete that?
The candidates that have joined MMRCA competition now:
EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen NG, MIG-35, F-16E, F/A-18E
1. Empty weight:
* EF-2K: 11,150 kg
* Rafale: 9,500 ~ 10,220 kg
* Gripen NG: 7,000 ~ 7,100 kg
* MIG-35: 12,000 kg
* F-16E: 9,979 kg
* F/A-18E: 13,865 ~ 14,288 kg
2. Internal Fuel:
* EF-2K: 4,996 kg
* Rafale: 4,700 kg
* Gripen NG: 3,500 kg
* MIG-35: 4,800 kg
* F-16E: 3,160 kg
* F/A-18E: 6,780 kg
3. Standard take-off weight with A2A mission (100% internal fuel, BVRAAM*4 and WVRAAM*2):
* EF-2000: 17,000 kg
* Rafale: 14,870 ~ 15,600 kg
* Gripen NG:11,340 ~ 11,440 kg
* MIG-35: 17,750 kg
* F-16E: 13,980 kg
* F/A-18E:21,500 ~ 21,900 kg
4. Ground static thrust, AB thrust and Maximal military thrust:
* EF-2000: 18,370 kg / 12,240 kg
* Rafale: 15,300 kg / 10,200 kg
* Gripen NG: 9,979 kg / 6,360 kg
* MIG-35: 18,000 kg / 10,795 kg
* F-16E: 14,515 kg / 8,618 kg
* F/A-18E: 19,958 kg / 12,720 kg
5. Ground static T/W ratio:
* EF-2000: 1.08 / 0.72
* Rafale: 0.98~1.03 / 0.65 ~ 0.69
* Gripen NG: 0.87 ~ 0.88 / 0.55 ~ 0.56
* MIG-35: 1.01 / 0.61
* F-16E:1.04 / 0.61
* F/A-18E: 0.91~0.93 / 0.58 ~ 0.59
Except EF-2000, I can’t see the evidence that Rafale with M88-2 has the under-power inferiority comparing with any other candidate in MMRCA competition. And it seems that Eurofighter is not the top one candidate in the MMRCA…..
toanThe maximal temperature of UAE in summer could reach 40°C, and its biggest potential enemy, Iran, is just 225 km away from UAE. Therefore, UAE may have three good reasons to ask for more thrust for its own Rafale.
1. UAE wants to use Rafale to replace the interceptor role of Mirage 2000-9 today, and more thrust is good for the interceptor’s, taking off, climbing, and accelerating performance, which should be very important when the possible enemy is so close to your country.
2. If UAE wants its own Rafale execute extremely heavy-loaded (such as three 2,000 L tank, two SCALP-EG, and four AAMs) striking mission in a very hot day, then more thrust may be the necessity.
3. When facing certain emergent situation such as BM with or without NBC warhead attack from the range of only several hundred kms away………
toanEurofighter is superior than F/A-18E in the domains of flight-envelope for speed and operational altitude, climbing performance, acceleration from subsonic to supersonic, supersonic maneuverability/agility, and T/W ratio / SEP.
F/A-18E today is superior than Eurofighter in the domains of striking range/radius, weapon load and choice, radar for multifunctions, HMD, post-stall maneuverability, low speed & high AoA flight performance, and possibly frontal LO performance.
PS:
I think there is really no need to use special nickname to humiliate any person or fighter here. Such kind of insult won’t make your point of view more stronger, but just making more endless and meaningless quarrels and insults here.
toanhttp://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4112434&c=AIR&s=TOP
Plans for Tranche 3 Eurofighter right now…..
1. Tranche 3A: including 112 fighters, 40 for RAF, 30 for GAF, 21 for ItAF, and 21 for SpAF.
2. Tranche 3B: including 124 fighters. The contract should be signed in 2011, but its future is highly uncertain.
3. RAF will acquire 40 Tranche 3A fighters. However, the 24 Tranche 2 Block8 fighters it offers to Saudi Arabian AF will have no replacement.
4. The Eurofighter boss said industry is offering to cut lifecycle costs in half as part of the Tranche 3 package. He indicated that with a new partnering agreement between industry and the air forces covering spare parts maintenance and other issues, he believed a 50 percent reduction is achievable.
And according the information mentioned above, the productional plan for Eurofighter today should be:
RAF: 3 IPAs, 50 Tranche 1 (one for ground test), 67 Tranche 2, 40 Tranche 3A, and 48 Tranche 3B –> 208 fighters in total.
GAF: 2 IPAs, 32 Tranche 1, 78 Tranche 2, 30 Tranche 3A, and 38 Tranche 3B –> 180 fighters in total.
ItAF: 1 IPA, 27 Tranche 1, 47 Tranche 2, 21 Tranche 3A, and 25 Tranche 3B –> 121 fighters in total.
SpAF: 1 IPA, 18 Tranche 1, 34 Tranche 2, 21 Tranche 3A, and 13 Tranche 3B –> 87 fighters in total.
RsAF: 24 Tranche 2 (From RAF), and 48 Tranche 3 (Local Assembly) –> 72 fighters in total.
Austria: 15 Tranche 1 (From GAF) –> 15 fighters in total.
The total productional numbers:
1. Confirmed deals right now (2009, May): 360 fighters (The four partners) + 87 fighters (Austrian and RSAF) = 447 fighters.
2. Including the Tranche 3A after 2009: 447 + 112 = 559 fighters.
3. If including the Tranche 3B after 2011: 559 + 124 = 683 fighters.
4. Other possbile exporting deal: RSAF (48 to 72 more fighters), Oman (24 fighters), Greece (40 to 60 fighters) and so on –> another 100 ~ 200 fighters.
toanIt seems that UAE wants to do the similar thing to Rafale as it did to F-16 10 years ago (Developing F-16E)……..
toanThe exporting price tag for Rafale post-F3 with RBE-2 AESA radar and upgrading M88 engines: 6-8 billion Euros for 60 fighters, or around 100.00 – 133.33 million Euros / 140.00 – 186.66 million USDs per fighter, which should include the costs for spares, related equipments, training, logistics, and so on…..
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLN54375320090523
France could sell 60 Rafale jets to Emirates-paper
PARIS, May 23 (Reuters) – France is finalising the sale of 60 Rafale combat jets made by France’s Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA) to the United Arab Emirates in a deal worth 6-8 billion euros ($8-11 billion), a newspaper reported on Saturday.
“An enormous contract, concerning the sale of 60 planes for a total amount of 6 to 8 billion euros – over the space of several years – is being finalised with the United Arab Emirates,” the newspaper said.
toan1. The Tranche 2 fighters will be keeping delivered until 2013. Therefore, it should be reasonable that the delivery of Tranche 3 fighters should begin at the time of 2013 or 2014.
2. The aditionnal capabilities shall finally be on production tranche 3 typhoon (Personal opinion):
a. AESA radar +/- Electronical attacking capability (RAF is very interested for acquiring such capability).
b. Integration of Meteor BVRAAM and future A2G weapons.
c. Upgrading EJ-200 for the longer service life and lower operating cost.
d. Necessary upgrading for software, mission computer, datalink, communication, EWS and so on.
e. Conformal fuel tank for RAF perhaps.
toanThe nice thing with a simulation, is that it will do its job, according to what data you will feed it with.
10:1 exchange ratio. That was done how? 1 on 1 and so in 9 times out of 10, the Typhoon would win?
How did they simulate the russian aircraft’s EW capability against the Meteor?
Did the simulation do large formation scenarios too? Because i have always wondered. In greek video with our eastern neighbours, a greek pilot says to his formation “It must be a tight one, it must be a tight one!” (meaning tight formation)”. Meaning, the poor fella, wasn’t in the position to clearly tell how many targets were flying head on to his formation (unfortunately radars aren’t like X rays to see the one behind the one you have in front of you), let alone lock them all. What about the fact that you carry 4 and not 10 Meteors and that if you want good chances for a kill, you must either wait to come much closer or shoot 2 at 1 target? How are you going to make the 10 to 1 kill with 4 missiles?
As I mentioned above, most (if not all) such stimulations at that time should be viewed as the advertisements for persuading UK to choose Meteor over FMRAAM as its next generation BVRAAM. Therefore, personally, I don’t think the accuracy and realistic of such kinds of stimulations are deserved to be discussed in detail ~ After all, the anticipated enemies (Su-35 of 1990s and anticipated R-77 ramjet variant of 2005) have never become the truth, and such kinds of English declarations / advertisements have been removed from internet after UK decided to choose Meteor:D
toanIts funny how they simulated the R 77M which is not out yet. I am sure it would be a good match for the Meteor as will be the next gen AIM 120s
At that time, R-77M was an anticipated Ramjet variant of R-77 that should enter service before 2005 ~ However, as all of we know, this never became the truth, just as the Su-35 today is very different from the original anticipation in 1990s………
toanhttp://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1149301&postcount=214
Tmor Good find about the Joust sim. So, the tiffy was all configured with the meteor while the other birds were sort of stuck with R77, mica, amraam types. No wonder, that explains quite a bit.
A:
According to the information I’ve gotten, UK has started such kind of stimulation since 1993 or even earlier~ At that time, even the concept of Meteor hadn’t been birthed on earth formally.
However, it is true that UK and manufacturer of Meteor project made the series of stimulations of “EF-2000 + Meteor vs Flanker and Advanced Flanker + R-27/R-77/R-77M” in late 1990s to early 2000s. And according to English declaration, the final results of these stimulations are:
“Exchange ratio of more than 10:1.”
“The side of EF-2000 + Meteor never lost a single BVR engagement during the stimulation.”
“A BVR combat performance that is in the same class as F-22A with the only half price of Raptor.”
Personally, I guess such declarations (or advertisements) should be helpful to let UK finally decide to choose Meteor as its NG BVRAAM in early 2000s ~ After that, I’ve never seen such kinds of declarations/advertisements again:D
toanAkj,
The LRIP aircraft are more expensive because you have to pay for all the costs related to running the plant, R&D, etc while only selling a dozen aircraft a year.As the orders climb, the cost will go down.
This is not a secret and applies to ANYTHING that is produced.
Another problem is inflation……
In late 1980s to early 1990s, US navy was astonished by the price of its new Seawolf SSN: around 1 billion USD per ship:eek: Therefore, it finally decided to terminated the production of Seawolf in 1995, and started another new cheaper SSN plan to replace Seawolf plan, and wished that the new SSN’s cost would be 25% cheaper than Seawolf……
Around 10 to 15 years later, the new cheaper SSN plan becomes SSN774 Virginia class SSN, and the unit price of it is: 2-2.3 billion USD per ship……
So, It won’t be surprising if the price tag of F-35 in 2020 is much higher than the price tag of F-22A in early 2000s ~ The unit cost of F-16C/D today is around 40-45 million USD per fighter, which is enough to buy two or even three F-15 in late 1970s to early 1980s. However, we still won’t declared F-16 as the high end comparing with F-15…….
toanBy the entry into service of the Meteor (currently projected for 2013) I would be astonished if the Typhoon hadn’t been updated with an AESA.
The schedule of Meteor’s entering into service for RAF has been delayed to post-2015 ~ I think that if the productional Typhoon still hasn’t had an AESA radar choice at that time, then it may never get one……
toanThe concept of launcher for ship-based Sky Sword II:
http://campus.stu.edu.tw/mdc/mdc/navy/rocnavy/tc2-1.jpg
toan1. Sky Sword I is the equalvilent to AIM-9L/M.
http://163.29.207.52/mnanew/news_weapon/20060924_144816.jpg
2. Sky Sword II should be roughly equal to the early AMRAAM (AIM-120A or B).
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2005-09/12/xinsrc_4020902121013879219516.jpg
Sign In
