MildaveAfter reading the A&C article here I only hope Dassault isn’t been over enthusiastic…
MildaveAssembly lines are a different issue. The bulk of the Indian order is to assembled by HAL. That only contributes to fly-away cost (which we’ve already established was similar for both aircraft). Here we’re talking about lifecycle cost – parts, spares, basically stuff that is consumed with use, which is where larger economies of scale will kick in. At least enough to offset a supposedly more efficient Rafale consumption pattern.
Wrong again. Nobody has established the fly away cost was similar for both aircraft except you.
We do not have numbers about the life-cycle cost differences although Indian officials have reported that Rafale was significantly cheaper.
“The French Rafale jet, the eventual winner, beat the Typhoon hollow both in terms of life cycle costs and direct acquisition costs. The entire MMRCA project cost would have gone up by around Rs 25,000 crore if Typhoon had been selected over Rafale,” a top defence ministry source said on Thursday.
I don’t know how credible the source is, but I do know for sure that Rafale was selected has L1 :cool:.
MildaveAccording to Ajai Shukla its the lifecycle cost that was determined to be $5 million cheaper (the flyaway cost difference too was determined to be less than $5 million).
The flyaway cost was said to be about 5 m cheaper per aircraft while the life-cycle cost + ToT + offset was between 17% to 25% cheaper. I don’t know where you get your numbers, but check them again. I’ve already posted Jane’s link as well as other article about MoD sources. We do not have the exact number, but so far I’ve never seen the life-cycle cost was 5m cheaper.
MildaveElectronic combat? Errr – no. That’s a specialised version, the Tornado ECR. Specialised models do not a multi role aircraft make.
Doing your research is starting to get a bit tedious. Maybe you want to have a little research about the differences between the military designation of “multi-role” and “swing-role”?
The first use of the term Multi-Role Combat Aircraft was the multinational European project formed in 1968 to produce an aircraft capable of tactical strike, reconnaissance, air defence, and maritime roles. As such the one design would be able to replace several different aircraft in the cooperating nations. The project produced the Panavia Tornado, which used the same basic design to undertake a variety of roles
The Panavia Tornado program was historically the first bearer of such designation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft
http://hassaanrabbani.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/types-of-military-aircraft/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51063023/Panavia-Tornado
As for the rest, I suggest you compare them with what Typhoon can do. Using your methodology, one could list, for example, interception, combat air patrol & air superiority, before moving on to other roles
Such as ?
Now you’re getting very silly indeed. You say the Tornado is more versatile than Typhoon because it could, in theory, have a new radar & other systems fitted to it which would enable it to use BVR AAMs. Are you deliberately trolling, or just incapable of seeing how ridiculous what you’re saying is?
Many MLU or other significant upgrades often include changing of significantly upgrading the radar. Adding AMRAM would be the only thing required to provide BVR capability to the Tornado making interception missions possible. It’s unlikely but not impossible although It would of course not be a air superiority fighter.
True, but totally irrelevant. F-15 was built for air-air, then had air-ground added. F-22 was built for air-air, & hasn’t had much added. F-35 isn’t in service, so everything is more multirole than it. Mirage 2000 Mk 2 was built for the same roles as Rafale. Tornado was designed as a dedicated ground attack aircraft, & all models currently in service (except for the ECR EW model) do that, & nothing else except ancillary functions to assist in it. None of your examples has any relevance to Tornado
F-22 was built to replace all variant of F-15 ans as some AtG capabilities already “operational”. Mirage 2000 Mk2 wasn’t built for the same roles as Rafale at all. Tornado was designed as a multi-role aircraft and RSAF is still using the ADV variant. Your comment about F-35 allows me to understand you’re not ready to have a sensible discussion. I’m not talking about one aircraft been more capable than the other as far as airframe and development potential is concerned but about current operational capabilities.
MildaveNow list the capabilities of Typhoon, Mildave. :rolleyes:
No, c’mon. Don’t feed the troll.
I won’t get into an argument with you on this. Current F-15 are more versatile and multirole than F-22 and current F-16 vs first generation F-35. Mirage 2000 MK2 was more multi-role than Rafale until the F3 standard etc. That is not breaking news. It doesn’t mean the former is better than the later or anything else.
Now according to Wikipedia :
As by 2010, a significant number of the Tornados were reaching the end of their service life, aircraft being retained for continued service have been undergoing a service life extension programme.
So from what I understand the upgrades are going to be significant. Since I’ve heard many here saying how by 2020 ET will be able to replace Tornado etc and because of defence reductions, I simply note that while UK and Italy are going for F-35, Germany is going to prolonged service on their tornado to maintain a strong AtG capability. There is nothing wrong with that. Just a bit surprising for me given so commentaries I often hear. AdA want to keep their Mirage 2000 for certainly as long as Germany want to keep it Tornado for about the same set of reasons.
Now when I’m saying “Right now the Tornado is certainly more multi-role than the Typhoon.” and swerve replies “A Typhoon which can drop dumb bombs (i.e. every one ever built) is as multi-role as a Tornado.”
I simply fail to get the point. I must not be writing proper English. Anyway let’s drop it.
MildaveLook friend when posting a link look at the date of the link. If you see the article is dated from the “(2/24/2012)” there is a very good chance that it’s no longer news and that somebody else posted it already.
MildaveAs a matter of fact, JF-17’s airframe is better than those of F-16 Block 52+ and Rafale due to the use of DSI. J-10 Gen 2’s radar is phased array, perhaps AESA or perhaps not and is certainly not less technologically advanced as compared to Rafale’s PESA. Plus, J-10 Gen 2’s cockpit is better than JF-17’s which as 3 big LCDs, and has a large green holographic HUD.
JF-17’s cockpit http://www.jf-17.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cockpit4.jpg
AFAIK, F-16 Block 52+ still only has 2 small LCDs
Looool careful JF-17 will win air superiority by making the enemy “green” with envy !!!:D
Mildave2) Hot China are more technologically advanced than bitter cold Russia, so “If the Chinese could, the Russians definitely could.” does not hold true.
Okaayy… And here I thought we would have a sensible discussion… :rolleyes:
MildaveDon’t be silly. Tornado is a dedicated ground attack aircraft. The only Tornadoes which could fire BVR missiles have all been retired. A Typhoon which can drop dumb bombs (i.e. every one ever built) is as multi-role as a Tornado.
Right back at you.
Tornado missions : interdiction, strike (ground, anti-ship and nuclear), electronic combat, reconnaissance, buddy refuelling, self defence with AIM-9 or ASRAM and two 27 mm cannon.
An avionic upgrade could see longer ranged AAM used. So yeah all in all the Tornado is more multi-role and versatile.
MildaveThe leak was not the report, it was actively selected parts(to make gripen look bad) of the first report(C/D).
Sorry but that’s a lame excuse. Yes details are missing, but do you really think there is somwhere a page that say Gripen is reaching all requirements only to say later in the genrals summaries that Gripen is lacking and in the even of the Gripen been chosen anyway a new evaluation should be done to properly test the NG variant, which wasn’t done clearly.
As been said above if the only requirement was cost, then Typhoon like in Brazil would not even have been selected and Rafale wouldn’t have bother. Or they would have gone for 18 aircraft proposal from the start.
MildaveIsn’t Tornado a JV aircraft as well ? And as I said I completely understand the need for more modern ESM, upgraded radars etc. But I understand less the pertinence of integrating new weaponry.
MildaveI could admit a slight advantage in airframe design vs F-16, but clearly no match for the latest variant of the F-16 in term of mission systems. I would also give the F-16 with better trustworthy engines all the way.
One on one who knows, I’m sure even a Mig-21 could shoot down a F-22 on a very very good day. But as a overall mission system this should not even be discussed.
India was offered the latest F-16 which is mostly the new “Viper” now been offered by LM. Yet Rafale was considered to be ahead of it. The J-17 is allegedly using “watered down” version of J-10 avionics. Instead of looking for a closer to J-10 avionics for their next batch they are desperately trying to find a European country willing to sell them some. It may just be cultural preferences, or it may be that they aren’t very enthusiastic about it.
LM isn’t trying to create a concurrent to its F-35 program, they are only trying to make easy money with easy upgrade. That’s the reason why you don’t see TVC, DSI and other modification been sold despite all this things having been tested on F-16 airframe.
MildaveOut of interest, are the German Typhoons single or two seat versions, or a mixture of both ?
The only two seater is for training only AFAIK. While there is nothing wrong with the German upgrading their Tornado, the problem is that because of a lack of money most European countries have to make a choice and usually chose to invest in new aircraft rather than upgrading. Mirage 2000D are also due for a MLU but so far it’s been paused. The USAF is also considering upgrading legacy fighters like F-16, F-15.
So the question is why not keep the Tornado with the weapons they already have while simply upgrading its avianics and ESM suite and put the money to integrate new weapons on the Typhoon If they’re planning the reduce and then retire the Tornado anyway ?
MildaveArgh! F**king idiots.
The carriers should have been designed with catapults since the start. Who on earth bothers to build a carrier that big that needs a STOVL aircraft? Insane. Absolutely insane.
Now, put catapults on it. It will pay off in the long run. Don’t continue to be idiots and even debate the matter.
Well again a case of bad mission parameters leading to a disastrous program. The problem is that their design do not allow for steam catapult to be easily integrated and the EMAL are not yet ready and reliable. So they’re in a tough spot really. The program is already way over cost. Technically I would have them buy the C version any way even if they have to operate them from the ground or from US and French carrier, but politicly I suppose that having to useless carrier costing ~12b when the program’s end isn’t really feasible. So the sad face saving solution might be indeed to buy the B model even if that is of very little value.
I also wonder if the recent decision by Sarkozy not to build a second carrier was done hoping the UK would finaly operate a CATOBAR carrier and if he will now reconsider. I suppose DCNS would be happy. I really do hope the UK find a way to fit catapult…
MildaveWhen someone sees the realistic demand to have a fighter for a full scale war within the next decade f.e. a two seater is the better buy. When not the single seater is the better buy for peace-time operations with the related cost-savings from that. 😎
Don’t worry the nuclear squadrons are still going to be two seater I believe. The AtG squadron will also have sufficient two seater for complex job. But I think that it’s the plan to operate two seater for air missions and some strike missions that are been reconsidered.
Sign In
