MildaveMy statement :
So the claim starting that thread was that Typhoon was “significantly” less expansive than Rafale. Wrong. In fact with the T1 serving only 10 years versus 30 to 40 years for the Rafale, Typhoon is in fact significantly more expansive to the tax payer.
Your answer:
I made no claim to this effect i stayed out of this discussion, in fact if you actually bothered to read a post and attempt basic comprehension you would see that I said i would believe the unit cost of Rafale was lower.
I’ve no wish to argue with you when it’s clear you simply want to drag this on. Unless you were the one starting this thread and making the assumption ? Was the T3 Typhoon evaluated by the Swiss ? No. Were the F3 Rafale evaluated ? Yes.
I’m done.
Now as I said, €50 to €55 for 10 years of use against similar number for 30 to 40 years of use make any claims of the Typhoon been cheaper laughable. These number will have to be compensated by other solutions (UAS or F-35). And again the tax payer (that include me) will have to bare the cost.
MildaveLol that story just won’t die. Switzerland seems quite sensible to press influence. Even more so than in other European countries.
MildaveWell if they found German assault rifle in Libya, I’m sure it’s not too difficult for some Russian deliveries to Syria to go… Missing!;)
MildaveIt’s not me you need to be upset at…
Typhoon Specifications
Engines: 2 Eurojet EJ200 turbojets
Thrust: 20,000lbs each
Max speed: 1.8Mach
Length: 15.96m
Max altitude: 55,000ft
Span: 11.09m
Aircrew: 1
Armament: AMRAAM, ASRAAM, Mauser 27mm Cannon, Enhanced Paveway II, 1000 lb Freefall bomb
Induction: Jul 2005
Rafale Specifications
Max speed: 1.8Mach
Length: 15,27 m
Span: 10,86 m
Induction: June 2006
I find these numbers on the official website of their respective air forces (AdA and RAF).
Since your blind claims have been proved wrong quite a few times, I’ll only stick to the “official” version.
Initial production aircraft of the F2 Tranche 1 standard were capable of air-to-air roles only and were the first Typhoons to hold UK QRA duties. In order to fulfill a potential requirement for Typhoon to deploy to Op HERRICK, urgent single-nation work was conducted on Tranche 1 to develop an air-to-ground capability in 2008. Tranche 1 aircraft were declared as multi-role in Jul 2008, gaining the designation FGR4 (T3 2-seat variant), fielding the Litening Laser Designator Pod and Paveway 2, Enhanced Paveway 2 and 1000lb freefall class of weapons. Only a handful of F2/T1 aircraft remain, these will be upgraded to FGR4/T3 by the end of 2012. Tranche 2 aircraft deliveries commenced under the 4-nation contract in 2008, in the air-to-air role only. These aircraft were deployed to the Falkland Islands to take-over duties from the Tornado F3 in Sep 09. Currently, upgrades to Tranche 2 continue as part of the main contract, with air-to-ground capability expected in 2012.
So according to the “official” version of events, the Typhoon will only see their AtG capabilities implemented this year (5 years after the contract was signed). These capabilities include those already tested by some of the T1 of the RAF such as the Litening Laser Designator Pod and Paveway 2, Enhanced Paveway 2 and 1000lb freefall class of weapons.
I won’t even bother talking about Afghanistan. I talked about Rafale proving effective in there, but you just had to bring your lame excuse about the RAF making a expansive modification and then suddenly realising they don’t have enough aircraft anyway… Well honestly I don’t care.
With the Tranche 1 aircraft fleet due to retire over the period 2015-18, this will leave 107 Typhoon aircraft in RAF service until 2030.
That’s about 10 years of service…
So the claim starting that thread was that Typhoon was “significantly” less expansive than Rafale. Wrong. In fact with the T1 serving only 10 years versus 30 to 40 years for the Rafale, Typhoon is in fact significantly more expansive to the tax payer.
Second Typhoon T1 has better kinematic performances than Rafale F3. Well Rafale A had better kinematic performances than Rafale F3.
Typhoon T2 and Rafale F3 are limited at the same speed despite claim about engine and kinematic superiority. Something is wrong. So I’ll go with your claims been nothing more than BS.
Now If because I read the “officials” information provided to the general public without trying to twist the reality to better suit my agenda makes me Anglophobe, then there is nothing I can do about it.
If the RAF had not modified their T1 for deployment, there would have been not Typhoon dropping bombs in Libya. There would have been no multi-role Typhoon before the end of this year.
So my view is that BAE/UK should develop the Typhoon on their own and then make the other pay for the integration on their platform. But for some reason no body seems able to provide leadership in this death trap.
But of course I’m sure the usual fanboys are going to tell me that NAO reports aren’t accurate, RAF website isn’t accurate, Switzerland reports aren’t accurate, India choice is biased, so is Brazil… But of course I should simply just take your words for it and bow to your wisdom and enlightenment, just because you say so ?
Despite having definitely more range, the M-Scan radar of the Typhoon rated less that the PESA of the Rafale in Switzerland. On what assumption you think Typhoon AESA will be better ? Because it rotate ?
AFAIC I’ll wait for the next evaluation between the two after 2015 to make up my mind definitely. But I already have a idea…
MildaveAs one of my wise teacher used to say, 70% of work requires 30% of effort, but the last 30% of work is usually what require 70% of effort.
It’s the “almost” that worries me…
MildaveIf they can credibly develop the Gripen NG and keep upgrading it, they could target all the emerging economies that’ll not be able to go for stealth UCAS systems… After that… I’ve doubt they can remain anything but a second and third suppliers…
MildaveWell anyway let’s hope they can find an agreement since I believe engine choice was one of the reason of the break up on the EFA project.
But I still think one will have to be in dire need of the other for such a cooperation to work. We will have a better picture circa 2020.
I do wonder what Germany and Italy will do though, and how EADS will fit into all this. They must believe they will follow French and/or British leadership and not go for a competitive product.
MildaveThey certainly don’t lack the fuel for training… But apart with Iran maybe they do not have a lot of friends to train with, and one can only do so much alone.
Anyway destabilisation of a country whether by sanction or by covert support of resistance is the first step before invasion.
The day you see “civilian” protestant in London firing anti-tank missile on the police and army, something would have gone terribly wrong.
As far as I’m concerned I think the terrorist threat is the important one. Syria AD will not live very long under 500+ Tomahawk assault.
MildaveIn an ideal world, what should have happened in ’85 is a compromise where France/Dassault would have led the airframe and the UK/RR the engine, IMHO. From what I can tell the EJ200 is a seriously brilliant piece of engineering and owes a lot to RR’s experience with the XG-40 demonstrator, and while the M88 is no slouch, it just isn’t quite as impressive all in all.
You mean just because the EJ200 can currently provide more thrust while the M-88 can provide a better IR signature ?
I think both taken separately from their integrated system are good depending on their purpose. The 90kn is only waiting funding like many thing in Europe.
MildaveYakhont is top notch system and most expensive missile in the world. The problem is Syria is not simply competent enough to absorb more advanced systems on large quantities.
Turkey is not going to give huminitarian corridor either as long as Turkey is dependend on russian/iranian gas. It cannot do much more.
http://en.trend.az/regions/met/arabicr/1993151.htmlRussians have been telling Arab league dont cross the red line as it is Russia that is restraining Assad against protester.
That 2012 Caucaus exerises are directly related to it. Russia did similar exercises before it invaded Georgia. but these are at much larger scale. even the largest in Russian/Soviet modern history at this location. I dont think Arab countries have seen Tu-160/TU-95 flying towards them.
Russia whole point is to discredit Arabs or lured them into a fight with Syria. who knows Su-27SM/MIG-31 waiting for them.Arabs are not taking the bet at this point but if this thing continued for months or years. Arab world will simply implode due to inner contridictions & frustration.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20120218/171386077.html
Frustrated Arabs Urge Action From RussiaI am more curious about China position as this thing will raise Oil price alot for them.
Lol man not matter the topic you always manage to make a smile on my face… thanks for that 😀
Mildavewhy Syria might not be as easy to overthrow as Lybia
– Syria has been focussed on Israeli air attacks since 2007, so they probably invested more into their air defence than any country in the region
– the Lybia operation probably caused Syria to focus even more on air defence, as well as giving it excellent intel on how to fight NATO (hide your tanks, use pick ups…)
– Syria might also be more offensive than Lybia, probably attacking Israel
– Syria will also have more support from Russia, China, Iran, and possibly Turkey. especially Russian ships in Syria would make NATO think twice about risking hostilities. also, its supporters probably learned a lot from “losing” Lybia, and would put more effort into protecting Syria, for example equiping it with more advanced weapons and systems, like whatever Iran supposedly used to down the RQ-170, such advanced EW capabilities would be a danger to any aircraft or guided weapon
AFAIK, Russia is the main supplier of Syria. Even China isn’t supplying any major system and Iran… Well lol.
Because of International pressure, even Russia hasn’t supplied Syria with top notch systems.
It takes a lot of expanse and technological know how in order to correctly defend one airspace, specially in the face of overwhelming superiority. With 3 carriers, the US has enough aircraft and missiles to flatten Syria. Of course doing it in a “democratic” acceptable fashion is something else.
Presidential election in France and in the US is the best protection for Syria ATM. But how long ? is the question.
Russia can be convince to close its eyes…
Turkey is helping the West, I read rumour of French and British black op operating along the border, and I’m sure the “civilian opposition” is been armed as we speak.
It’s a game Syria cannot win in the long run. Like in Libya the govt. will be attacked and any retaliation will be branded as “massacre”, “disproportionate use of force” etc. What we need to keep in mind is that contestation is those countries are way more violent than in Europe, and the local govt. do not have a lot of fancy non lethal weapon.
Of course because it doesn’t suit their interest you won’t see the US closing its eyes like they did for Bahrain and SA.
Mildave😮
MildaveA shame, the Panther is actually one of my favourite looking helicopter…
MildavePortugal still has an Air Force?:D
Lol I was going to say the same 😀 !
MildaveBAe will go for it if the options are
(1) Accept Dassault control and get quite a bit of R&D money.
(2) Reject Dassault control and get no R&D money and no product to sell down the line.I think many of the MoD and politicans will look at Rafale, look at Eurofighter, look at the carriers… cringe at the F-35… and think
“crap, the French were right all along, might be worth listening to them more in future”.
If only. They couldn’t agree on much more simple issues such as sharing tankers (UK prices too expansive for the French), or buying back one of England carrier (UK prices too expansive for the French)…
The UK did what you suggest for storm Shadow, Aster, Meteor etc. but I don’t think it’ll be that easier for aircraft. The mindset is just too different on sensitive issues.
However if India is really signed by Dassault along with additional customer, that would put Dassault in a position of strength in Europe. Weither they will really go for a collaborative end product or just collaborate with BAE of the technology level meanwhile and then go alone is yet to be seen.
There is also the matter of new direction soon to take effect…
Sign In
