Mildave
Mirage 2000 D bi national pilots during Harmattan. At the end of the day, cooperation is what count(©Armée de l’air).
Mildave@ PPP: My profile state that I live in England not that I was born here, and since you seem to be confuse I would be happy to tell you my actual name by PM should you request it.
As I said before, I’m simply a tax payer trying to understand how the govt. is wasting my money. If that makes me anti-Britain then too bad. I believe in my democratic wright to call a bad decision bad. Every serious report in England is going to tell you that Britain has been making bad decision lately, only BAE are trying to say otherwise.
@ Jackonicko: That’s actually a much mature analyse, except when you call Damocles “mediocre” without any proof, that’s exactly the kind of thing that will make me “troll”. Even if you cannot provide any data or sources at least be kind enough to explain why in your opinion it is “mediocre”.
When I’m talking about Rafale I’m not saying that it’s the one and only “BEST”, like it can kill 100 enemy a/c without a sweat like they show us in US action movies.
I’m saying so far I think it’s the European a/c offering the biggest bang for the buck. And I’ve proved why I think so, which apparently Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office appears to agree (by the way the report is from 2nd March 2011). Now if saying that isn’t patriotic then… too bad.
@ Peter G: The AASM is equipped with GPS, so they can perfectly take care of target of opportunity like they did with the Galeb. However there are cheaper ways to take care of a pickup then an €200 000 bombs.
Something else, the RAF is attributed a large percentage of dynamic targets but unless wrong they haven’t told us to what extent the ET contributed. With their bombs I doubt they did treated many targets of opportunity given the concerned for collateral damage and the need for low yield bombs.
BTW nice pictures of Rafale during Harmattan : http://www.defense.gouv.fr/web-documentaire/bilan-harmattan/
MildaveAn Al Jazeera report suggests that the drone had been brought down by a virtual attack from Iran’s cyberwarfare unit, after taking control of it. A statement released by ISAF Joint Command that same day confirmed the loss of a drone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel#cite_note-24
http://www.dvidshub.net/news/80890/isaf-releases-statement-missing-unmanned-aerial-vehicle#.TtvVS_KgmSp
While we have no idea if that claim is true, but if it is, that should have us think. As I said you cannot trust UAVs completely when facing a coherent adversary.
Mildave1. At maximum range to counter the use of AWACS and other low manoeuvrable high RCS platform. The further from the battlefield they have to be used, the less effective they are.
2. At short to medium range to ensure the missile as plenty of energy left to outmanoeuvre a very manoeuvrable target and counter the enemy’s own bvr missiles.
MildaveTopOwl-F
The French thrust vectoring Matra MBDA MICA missile for its Rafale and late model Mirage 2000 fighters was accompanied by the Topsight HMD by Sextant Avionique. TopSight provides a 20 degree FoV for the pilot’s right eye, and calligraphic symbology generated from target and aircraft parameters. Electromagnetic position sensing is employed. The Topsight helmet uses an integral embedded design, and its contoured shape is designed to provide the pilot with a wholly unobstructed field of view.
TopNight, a Topsight derivative, is designed specifically for adverse weather and night air to ground operations, employing more complex optics to project infrared imagery overlaid with symbology. The most recent version the Topsight has been designated TopOwl-F, and is qualified on the Rafale, Mirage-2000-5 Mk2, and Mig-29K.
Sextant Topsight and TopNight
Sextant Avionique has developed a family of current generation HMDs for deployment on the Rafale and late model Mirage 2000 fighters. The futuristic appearance of these helmets results from the use of a flush external face guard, contoured so as not to obstruct the pilot’s FoV yet to fully cover the oxygen mask. Sextant claim that their helmet geometry results in no impairment of the pilot’s peripheral vision.
Defence
Management of the Typhoon Project
The cost of each Typhoon aircraft has risen by 75 per cent. While Typhoon performs some defence tasks now, it won’t take on all roles until 2018.
The Typhoon is currently performing important operational tasks but the full multi-role capability won’t be available for a number of years. Until this happens the MOD will not have secured value for money from its over £20 billion investment in Typhoon. MOD has put some of the building blocks in place to enable this to happen. But difficult and deep-rooted problems remain to be overcome.
And those already in service that meant that it attacked a bigger proportion of dynamic targets in Libya than Rafale did?
I’m sure when you awake from your dream you’ll be kind enough to elaborate and present your sources.
As far as I know only the Typhoon FGR4 from the RAF which had had limited A2G modification in 2008 was used for strike missions. One instance was reported of ET striking two stationary tanks. Then they were used as bomb trucks and radar warning platform.
This isn’t about Typhoon though. The claim was that Rafale had everything it needed, in service with the AdlA, right now.
I said everything they need as been paid for.
AESA radar technology was an important part of the MMRCA evaluation and IAF found the RBE2 AA to be sufficient for their need.
Complaint came from a single country using its a/c as AWACS platform which the Rafale wasn’t design to do unless fusing information collected via multiple platforms.
We have no idea what the exact range are anyway no matter what radar we’re looking at, so we can only guess, dream, speculate.
The radar horizon for 10000 feet altitude is 123 nmi which equal 227.7 kilometres (that’s with AWACS sized radar). I take any claim of fighter aircraft sized radar detecting another fighter sized a/c of recent generation above 100 km with much irony.
Mildave1. The PDF is from the Swiss MoD. So whether they are manufacturer’s number or not is irrelevant. If they give these numbers that mean they agree with them to some extent given they were able to test these a/c in real life. Now how precise and reliable are them? I don’t know, but unless one of you has been able to see a confidential report these are all we’ve got. Now we can speculate that these numbers might be variable under different circumstances, but still we have at least a reference point here.
2. The F 22 isn’t really flying, more like test flying in order to find out a way to fix their numerous problems, the latest been oxygen generation. The F 35 I won’t even bother. The ET is a 75% over priced plane, still unable to claim its multi-role capabilities until 2018 which mean pilots and squadrons won’t be operational until at the very least 2020. The Typhoon project shows the coordination problems of having no single authority accountable for a project’s success which translate in further delays (some decisions that were supposed to be taken within 40 days took 7 years). Spares parts problems (cannibalization), both engines failures on the same flight (Spain) which is pretty scary if you ask me. Difficult to assure quality control etc. And before you start jumping up and down on your keyboard know that these problems are very similar with those encountered by other Europeans cooperation (A400M, NH90…) which is mostly due to political and financial instability associated with constant changes in planning, capabilities and deliveries.
3. HMD is available; France decided not to finance its acquisition right now because they have to support the production of 11 aircraft a year which is expensive. You cannot pay for everything else you end up scrapping new thing before they even enter service when you realize you have a black hole in your budget (UK). Same is true for the OSF. AESA is technically ready; its integration into operational squadron will take time. The same is true for ET. They won’t have operational squadron until 1 or 2 years after Captor-E induction.
4. Dassault only build the plane. The AESA is Thales responsibility, and given that their radar is going to be ready in 2012 I don’t see where they are been timid with upgrades. The M88 is Secma responsibility. Mid-life upgrade are planned for 2025 where TVC, radar upgrade, engine thrust upgrade etc. are all taken into consideration.
5. ET consortium are already trying to make ET last by reducing production and deliveries and are as desperate as France to find a export order. The difference is that unless they find one soon, ET will have to close their production line. And again I really hope for them that they win India, else I don’t think the ET consortium will be willing to put much more money into it.
6. Of course all of these are my humble opinion.
MildaveThese numbers are what the Swiss army evaluated. It’s possible that they might be different under different circonstencies.
Edit: according to the Official Swiss Evaluation Defense Dpt evaluation :
Climb rate are (Rafale >250, EFT >200, Gripen>200); but Rafale is slower than the other contenders both at max speed (2mach vs 1.8 mach) and at low altitude (Gripen 1400Km/h, EFT 1390, Rafale 1350) and also has a lower service ceiling (EFT 16790, Gripen >1600, Rafale 15240).
MildaveWhat you save in the airframe, you spend twice in secure data links, satellites, software…
You cannot ensure total discretion if you have to communicate for mission success. And if you cannot ensure discretion, then you cannot ensure survivability. If you cannot ensure survivability you cannot ensure mission success…
What happen to an air force that operates only drones, when they no longer have access to their satellites? How can you guarantee no collateral damage? Can you trust AI with that issue yet?
The limiting factor won’t be so much technological, but ethical. Rules of engagement require human in the loop. Human eyes need to ID a target before it can be shot down. So while I see drones been used as a cheap alternative for counter insurgency, reconnaissance, ELINT, supply, etc. I see manned fighter a/c having a bright future even if their numbers will be greatly diminished.
MildaveThe Rafale’s program is less expensive than the Typhoon’s program so there is no reason why France couldn’t afford it while UK, Germany, Italy and Spain can.
Right now, the AdlA and French Navy already have everything they need paid for and developed. So they are good to go for as long as they need.
Now French govt is hoping for export in order to make acquiring the Rafale easier, but the viability of the program is not in doubt.
The Rafale is failing commercially in not making money for Dassault, Thales, Secma and France, not operationally since it’s meeting the entire French Army’s requirements. The difference is important.
F 22, ET and F 35 have all failed to meet operational requirement so far, and are far more expansive. Their commercial and financial success is still to be demonstrated since despite exports order from SA and Austria the ET is still unaffordable for the Eurofighter partners. I call that a problem. In addition because of severe reduction, the amount of a/c bought by export countries so far aren’t making more money but simply keeping the ET’s program viable since they are only replacing cancelled orders.
So sure Dassault has problems of its own, but they are still sitting on €3bilion cash and enough orders from France to wait in order to find the proper customer. They certainly need to be careful, but their existence is nowhere threatened. They won the contract to develop the future UCAV with BAE so their engineers will have something to work on and will be paid for by the govt. to do it.
They can keep the Rafale’s technology and sell it when required in order to upgrade M2k, build UAS, UCAV, and keep their edge in any future cooperation. When I look at the Neuron program I see many Europeans countries acknowledging Dassault as a serious company. UK, Germany, Spain and Italy don’t seem in a hurry to work together again.
Really we are the only one worrying.
MildaveOverview of Rafale, Gripen and ET by the Swiss MoD.
http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/25029.pdf
MildaveWhat they don’t seem to grasp is that it is better to be involved in assembling / manufacturing / developing a high tech product like an aircraft than just to buy the complete product from a company. That’s an advantage, not a disadvantage.
If you’re a country like China or India with ambition to become fully independent in aerospace industry and compete with those big companies already on the market, then ToT, assembling, and learning as much as you can is very important. Having a growing economy you can afford cost overrun, delays… in one term risk.
When you’re a small country like Switzerland, then you’re taking a big risk further developing an aircraft. It might be more efficient to be integrated in the supply line of an already developed a/c. That way you keep your industry and key skills going, you don’t take much risk, and you’ve a chance getting involved in any further export sale of the plane.
MildaveI heard it said (in the context of Rafale’s botched UAE offer) that the French government had only picked up part of the the Rafale’s development cost, and Dassault was supposed to recover the remainder through export sales, which is why it couldn’t afford to compromise on profitability in its export bids.
True? False? In between?
That’s already the reason why the French govt is stuck with Dassault and has to buy 11 a/c a year while they would be far more comfortable buying less which is why the French govt is so desperate to find an export customer while Dassault is not.
Dassault is already making its profit and is assured to be producing to at least 2025. They rightly consider to have one of the best a/c on the market and don’t see why they should sell it less than it’s worth.
MildaveRodzali’s comments indicated that the proposed acquisition of multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) might not take place during the current 10th Malaysia Plan (2010-2015).
Read more: Air force set to seal deals for radars, sensors – General – New Straits Times
Sign In
