arthuroSo What are the variables at stake as all the 3 aircatfts met the minimum technical criteria :
-ToT
-Offset
-Risk
-Costs
–ToT is the most important in terms of weight. Gripen is the winner with the Rafale as a close second and SH is last
–Offset : Rafale is first with gripen and SH quite behind appartently
–Risk : SH won with the rafale as the second and the gripen NG is last far away
–Costs : Gripen won with the SH and the rafale is last.
So the criteria that are being manipulated are far from technical concerns apparently. It would have been interesting if in the competition the aircafts that would have performed better than the minimum standard would get a bonus. From what I understand the extra performance is not really a “plus” if the requirement is achieved.
arthuroI know, that was just a free provocation. A pitty that those competitions are more about politics although clues indicates that the rafale performed well on purely technical criteria in Brasil (cf Istoe and Pepe).
I am looking forward the swiss and indian eval to have some details.
arthuroTrue I missed it ! Politics decide for sure. Performance is still important but the poilical and economical leverage is even more decisive.
If it was on pure performance/capability the rafale would be the winner:D
arthuroThe gripen NG never won. The SH won the first edition of the evaluation with 1995 based criteria, then the rafale whith the new criteria weight more in line with Brazil strategy. In fact the gripen NG was never in a position to win. The SH is rafale real challenger here.
The ToT was supposed to give the gripen NG an edge as well as it won on the ToT in the eval. Even against the rafale.
page 32 of this thread from pepe :
I have an advantage over you. I saw the Defence Ministry and Brazilian Air Force papers. Gripen won ToT, with Rafale at a close second place, but looses on risk (a point reinforced at December by Air Force High Command) and on offsets grounds. Just to take an overview. COPAC original report, the one leaked by Folha de S. Paulo, made in September, gave Gripen a risk note of 2 (the higher, the best) in 10 possible points. At December, Brazilian Air Force High Command double the risk weight at the evaluation methodology from five to ten. It was not Mr. Jobim that originally review the account system.
The Brazilian Air Force methodology simply ignored our White Book that established clearly ToT as the most valued parameters. Ministry of Defence just put things at the right place. By the original parameters, written in 1995, acquisition costs an operational costs were the most valued aspects at the bid. According Estrategia Nacional de Defesa, our White Book, it was ToT to reinforce our defence industry.
Gripen NG choice by COPAC chocked many Air Force’s officers cause it didn’t comply with the RFI. The RFP just ignored one RFI point: the plane must be operational. Su35BM was retired from F-X2 on those grounds but COPAC kept one plane that not even reached prototype form for the RFP. It’s important remark that even COPAC had important doubts about Gripen NG, including airframe life cycle. They also remarked that it was the bidder that offered smaller development capability for its size and electric system. All these points are at the COPAC papers.
Rafale won cause Dassault offered the most balanced bid. That’s the true.
The risk weight were doubled by Brazilian Air Force High Command to gave the F/A-18E/F a lead. From 5% to 10%. ToT is important to us. We had an important Defence Industry sector that vanished after a Neo Liberal governement in 1992. Mr. Lula Government wrote a new White Book that priorizes Defence Industry and technological independence. By American laws, the US Government can not sign offsets with another country. This handicapped F/A-18E/F at F-X2.
Is not a MEMO. It’s a 40 page Ministerial Report. I saw all the bids as a Congress officer, it’s clear? There was a rumour inside some pro-Gripen forums, including Base Militar, one of SAAB’s bunkers, attacking Mr Jobim. This rumour said that Brazilian Defence Ministry was falsifying Brazilian Air Force’s and Brazilian Navy’s statements. I phone, immediately, the Senate’s Foreign Affairs and National Defence Committee President, Senator Eduardo Azeredo, warn him about the rumour and go to investigate. The report didn’t change a word at Brazilian Air Force and Brazilian Navy statements. To my surprise, it has all evaluation papers attached, more than 2,000 of documentation, since the first report, from COPAC. Each phrase remises to one attached document. Since you attack me, I feel free to destroy some myths planted by SAAB lobby and some well intentioned fan boys (or may I classify you as a Sweden lobbyist after your attack?) like you, Loke:
1. Gripen didn’t won the FAB evaluation process. F/A-18E/F did it;
2. Sweden, until now, made no offset including aeronautical products, as KC-390. Its bid includes a lot of vacuum cleaners, trucks, industrial robots, buses, products that Investors Group, SAAB owner, produces at Brazilian facilities;
3. SAAB would not build Gripen NG parts since the first airframe. The proposal is to assemble planes at Brazil after the 10th airframe. Brazilian components would be introduced from the 36th airframe.
4. The FAB report was not changed by Defence Ministry order. The first change was made by Aeronautics’ High Command giving more weight to risks.
The true is that F-X2 evaluation process was a complete fracas. Ignored all changes imposed by our White Book, that intends to improve our Defence Industry. FAB kept parameters that were established in 1995, that favours operational and acquisition costs. Obviously, they must be changed cause we are going to buy 120 of them and the White Paper intention is to enhance our Defence Industry and create employments at Brazil.
The proof that Defence Ministry evaluation process is clean is that Gripen NG won the ToT, closely followed by Rafale. The French bid has better offsets, lower risks (even COPAC preliminary document said it), included an armament package (SAAB didn’t included one), offer to revise engines at Brazil and will assembly the RBE2 at Brazil since the first unit. No one could win Boeing over risks and cost effectiveness, but this, now, are secondary features.
I must remark one point: the risk factor killed Gripen NG hopes at FAB. I warned Mr. Bengt, Saab representative at Brazil, about the need of a biggest Swedish compromise with the NG. I said to him that an option contract of 24 aircrafts by Flygvapnet could be a welcomed measure by Brazilian Air Force and Brazilian Government officers. Unhappily, Sweden didn’t give SAAB the support it deserves.
arthuroTrue that Pepe really got it…That was no joke. Would have loved to know more about the RCS story vs the SH.
Technical report confirms Rafale
Correio Brasiliense, Auguts 2
Preferred “policy” of President Lula, French airliner wins backing after changes in evaluation criteria of the Ministry of Defence
[…]
It has been over a year and a half since the three finalists – Dassault, Boeing and the American Swedish Saab – calls delivered final offers, or Breath (English best and final Offers), the Air Force Command. Since then, the Copac examined in depth the proposals in relation to the specifications of the fighters, technology transfer, offset (compensatory) and the purchase price and maintenance, among other items. The first report that reached the High Command of the Air Force brought the Swedish Gripen NG as the best option, but had requested a review by the leadership of the FAB to increase the weight of the risks already mentioned in the text. The report said there are doubts as to the performance of radar and operational costs of the engine of Gripen NG – these issues had been virtually discarded in this time of evaluation.The first amendment, which doubled from 5 to 10 that weight, did the American F-18 Super Hornet, which is considerably cheaper than the Rafale and less risky than the Swede to take the lead in the report delivered in December the Ministry of Defence . However It was the turn of the MOD for asking for new changes in the evaluation parameters, which were still the same as the first competition, launched by the FAB in 1995. The ministry’s main concern was to increase the importance of technology transfer, which was worth so far only nine of 100 points, to value the proposals that would bring more opportunities for the Brazilian industry, as envisaged by the END.
With the weight of technology transfer now on 40 points, the French proposal, which gained notice in August, went ahead of the US-based Boeing, which has only two notes in this regard. The Gripen NG, offered by the Swedish Saab, was one point ahead of the Rafale in question but did not win mainly because of risks and the offset factors – that the French game “took” after a commitment by President Sarkozy to buy 12 units of cargo KC -390, which is being developed by Embraer.
Costs
The high price of the Rafale, which was the main obstacle of the French proposal was also compensated by the change of the weights of evaluation sent by the High Command of Aeronautics. The weight of the fighters total cost , worth 50% of the final, fell by half in the new text. The French government also reduced the price of each unit – 64 million to 60 million euros (about $ 83.7 million and $ 78.5 million, respectively), but even so, he remained the most expensive with the Gripen NG estimated at U.S. $ 50 million and the F-18, U.S. $ 55 million.
The Ministry of Defence would not confirm the conclusion of the explanatory memorandum, and not pinpoint exactly when the document is delivered to the president. The decision will be announced after Lula evaluate the text with the National Defence Council. Given the proximity of elections and the possibility that the choice to be used by the opposition in the race, it is speculated that the winner will be in fact only known after the election.
[…]
arthuroOk let’s assume that there is a center har point. Will a Taurus fit there ? I was looking for gripen+taurus and I saw two under the wings. It would be appreciated if someone brings a picture of a Taurus on the center hard point. That is indeed a good idea to have retained this center hard point.
arthuroGripen NG will have a centreline hardpoint, it is necessary for carrying ET’s under the fuselage as there isn’t room for two tanks.
Do you have a source about that ? And I thought that the gripen NG could carry 2 drop tank on the two fuselage hard points.
Without a center line hard point it will be difficult to cope for a full mission with an assymetric load of Taurus or GBU24. This makes bogus the argument that a bigger number of smaller aircrafts with lighter loads would make the job as well or better than bigger aircrafts.
arthuronews :
Jobim prepares annoucement for Rafale
Correio Brasiliense , August 3
Minister shall confirm within days that the French plane was recommended to Lula
Since July 15 – one day after the Bastille national day – the French celebrate by advance the purchase of 36 Rafale fighters for the Air Force (FAB), supposedly ratified by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva [didn’t know…]. The Ministry of Defence told that the exhibition of technical and political reasons by Minister Nelson Jobim must leave in coming days. The report, described early [translation unsure] in late June by the Correio and the Inforel website (specializing in international news), summarized in 40 pages more than 20,000 pages of documents generated by the FAB and the Navy about the purchase of fighter planes. With the Rafale, the French Dassault lead the preference on the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the American Boeing and Gripen NG, the Swedish Saab, after a change based on the new National Defense Strategy (END), which changed the weights of the evaluation and gave more value to technology transfer, reducing the importance of acquisition costs and maintenance of the aircraft. There are also rumors that Lula would be studying the report since May and June.
“I’m waiting quietly and serenely,an announcement or statement by President Lula planned for the month of July,” said French Defence Minister, Herve Morin, to LCI television, in the middle of last month. […]
Luis Alexander Fuccille, a Facamp researcher, a researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies at Unicamp, considers the confirmation of the Rafale would be a good decision. “This project has been delayed for a long time since the government of President Fernando Henrique, who left it for Lula, and we are at the end of Lula’s government without any decision about a project that is ‘for yesterday’ – important for the defense of our independence and national sovereignty, and especially for this major role that Brazil seeks in the international arena, “says Luis Alexander. “My only problem was perhaps related to the desirability of such an important decision with less than six months to the end of the mandate”, says the researcher […]
arthuroI think they have done a lot to reduce the SU-30 MKI RCS, I believe Teer had some excellent postings on that some time ago.
None of the MMRCA will have the low RCS of the PAK FA; so the “RCS advantage” will in any case be present only until the PAK FA arrives, a few years after the MMRCA.
No the MKI RCS is still huge as seen in lattest Garuda exercise in France. Could you give me a link about this RCS reduction ? As far as I remember teer post didn’t bring evidences of that.
Besides with 1% of SH RCS in heavy config the rafale with similar load is not that bad in terms of LO according to FAB evaluation !:D;) Ok I can’t substantiate this more than pepe’s claims so lets move on…
Of course there is an advantage, and in some cases it’s worth the extra cost.
How much of an advantage? Well I think if you look at it historically you can compare the sales of F-16 to F-15; that will give you an indication… Some countries need the F-15, often in addition to the F-16, whereas most are happy with the F-16 only.
India has ordered some 250 SU-30 — do they need more “heavy” fighters than that?
I agree that there is a balance between costs and performance with the size issue. You could also say that India is procuring the LCA so that the Rafale, Typhoon or SH would better fill the gap between the mki and the LCA. But that is an answer only the indian can answer. I don’t say I have the answer here.
arthuroI will try to find the link to that study later. Note it was focusing on fuel consumption, which was lower with the F-16. And also note that although endurance was better with the 4 F-16, the 2 F-15 still had an edge in range.
Thanks. It would be interesting to know what config was involved. Because for me the argument that 4 smaller aircrafts could do the work of two bigger aircarfts is just a theorical argument.
As said the F16 or the Gripen are limited by the assymetric heavy weapons carrying. Not that they would be unable to fly in such config but that would be a very big penalty to fly like that on the whole mission. So to go behyond this “theorical and rethorical” argument it would be better to be specific : ie what specific configs and missions profile are you thinking about ?
And to answer this question precisely you have to give an example where you describe the weapon loading of the two aircrafts compared and the number of each type involved.
How many % of the IAF missions will be deep strike missions? 5%? 10%? 15%? I don’t know, but I suspect that the ca. 250 SU-30 can handle the deep strike missions that the IAF foresee, although I may be wrong of course.
First it is not only about the heavy deep strike missions but the whole spectrum of possible missions. A bigger aircarft will have a more comfortable performance margin when dealing with similar loads especially at high altitude.
Then deepstrike mission have often a strategic value. So even if it is only 5% of the missions in numbers it will have certainly a bigger operatinnal value. The SU30 is arguably an exellent platform for that role due to its size and range but I don’t think that it would be as survivable than most MMRCA contenders due its very big RCS.
arthuroWhat do you mean ? 2 CFT + 3x2000L + 2x 1250L ??? Where are the weapons ?
Those additionnal drop tanks would only compensate the drag they induce.
I added the CFT to Kovy’s config you can see above on the picture. 😉
I doubt that a sinbgle euro would be invested in CFT if it added no real added value. Furthermore you can free some “wet hard point” for weapons for instance. Increasing your flexibility.
To loke
The size might also be important in india due to the altitude. To carry and perform with meaninful loads size is also an asset. Do you have alink for your study ? Because for now the USAF and IAF is relying heavily on the F15 for their deep strike missions.
Morever on top of the fact that two aircarfts in more efficient than four to relize a mission I doubt that multiplying the number of aircraft is a reasonnable solution. First in terms of costs and then because in heavy config the Gripen NG or the F16 would be heavily penalized carrying an assymetric weapon load for the whole mission.
If I am not mistaken on the NG there is no centerline hard point so it is impossible to carry a symetric load of 1 Taurus or 1 1000KG LGBs. On the F16 the centerline hard point is just too close to the ground.
And if you imply that you could get more gripen for the same amount it would be more 3 rafales aginst 4 gripen reducing the validity of your rationale.
arthuroHello Loke,
Yes a smaller single engine fighter has a smaller fuel consumption but certainly not has much as you would think (I mean in terms of % difference or proportion if you want). To cope with a similar load than a bigger aircraft the engine has to run at a higher regime which lead to more than a proportional fuel cunsumption increase. Besides in a real war scenario the drop tanks are meant to be dropped.
If the bigger twin engine aircrafts did not offer the extra gain of range and carrying capability there would simply be no point going bigger and coping with the extra cost.
Smaller aircraft have two other drawbacks : less electricity production to feed the sensors or further upgrades and less room available to integrate new systems.
The smaller aircraft has an undeniable advantage in terms of costs though.
some picture for the rafale heavy load potential (with CFTs) : you can add 2* 1350L. which makes 8,6T+2*1350L = roughly 11 T.
Certainly the rafale would have to refuel in flight in this config to reach the full load because of the MTOW.
arthuroOne thing that must be stressed is that the fighter size advantage is not only about the 6000Kg+ and so weapon loads but also for lighter weapon loads.
Take a smaller 3000Kg weapon load for instance. The bigger aircraft will have less penalty in terms of kinetics as its trust to weight ratio will dicrease slower. And “ similar load on a smaller airframe has a greater impact on its total drag and subsequently needs more thrust to compensate, same is true for lift. This has also an impact on range.” scorp.
So a smaller aircarft will have to run his engine at higher regime to manage a similar load than a heavier aircraft. We all know that the fuel consumption is more than proportional to the engine regime. That is synonym of higher fuel consumption and more engine stress. (engine stress counts when you consider the impact on the lifespan of the engine)
There is an obvious corelation between size and heavy load capability.
The bigger aircraft will offer inherently more operational flexibility for all missions. Brigging more punch, further with better performance.
@Loke. A B52 has eight engines. Is it shorter range than a twin or single engine fighter ? There is a limit to your rationale. If the fact of putting two engines was so penalizing in terms of range compared to a smaller single engine airframe I don’t think that the rafale would be twin engine given that the deep nuclear strike mission is one of its main desingning feature.
arthuroIt must be recall that the mirage 2000 RDI + Super 530D was very specifically designed to counter the mig-25 threat.
The super 530D (Mach 4,5) was designed to compensate the speed and altitude advantage of the mig-25.
arthuroAlthough the rafale in the UK force is very unlikely due to politics it should have several advantages.
-low risk proven and modern solution with aircrafts that would probably operate from a same design aircraft carrier if the french build the second one.
-same use of weapons for some of them (gbu-12, gbu-49, gbu-24 SCALP/STORM SHADOW and meteor).
-proximity of france and uk to share some facilities and training, especially with the french navy AFB in britanny
-A major french order to compensate such a deal. Likeliest candidate that was already put on the table by some french high ranking officers would be to build the FNavy second aircrfat carrier in the UK.
I am sure that their would have many synergies with two defense force of roughly the same capability which encouter the same problematics.
France could have an aircarft carrier for cheaper due to economy of scale and the UK could have aircrafts quickly and at a good cost with shared trainning and logistics+ same use of weapons.
Sign In
