MildaveI think what they’re just saying is (with a bit of marketing hype thrown in), if the Rafale is so swing-role, “omni-role” whatever you want to call it, why did they need two different types of Mirages and Super Entendards to perform some of it’s missions when the Rafale is supposed to be capable of doing so anyway? Was it the lack of Rafale numbers or something else? Why were the other types needed?
There are more experienced pilots with M2000 and Super Etendards than with Rafales. Then since these types are due to be retired soon, it makes sense to use their potentials to the limit before going for a Rafale only package. Also there is still a limited number of Rafales, which mean there is a need for complement.
The Rafale’s performances are still been tested, and the French are still learning how to use it effectively, so it makes sense to have a reliable type along for backup.
The point is M2000 and SE are used for convenience and flexibility, while the Rafale is already capable to replace them.
The Typhoon however like so many “European projects”, is still a baby sucking milk.
It will take some time for the Typhoon to mature: for the weapons to be integrated tested, for the pilots to be trained and become confident enough to use them in high intensity environment.
As a result, the Typhoon is currently not multirole, since you have different variants in existence (and been marketed), T1 not upgradable to full T3 standard, T2 which is an upgrade of T1 with the option of been upgradable to T3, and T3 which is supposed to be the full multirole standard.
You will have different countries operating different standards with different capabilities, and I doubt Austria will ever see their Typhoons dropping bombs…
MildaveSame reason why the likes of the UK etc are cutting orders for the F-35, axed the Harrier, closing bases, cutting Gurkha numbers and other British Army regiments, axed Nimrod, Sentinel’s head is on the chopping board, Royal Navy & RAF personell jobs long gone with more talks of cuts. Italian economy is in a mess, Spain aren’t much better off, Germany seem to be better off but still concerns over defence – in all branches of their airmed forces…
You’re making my point. Most of the hardware cited have been cut because they were too expensive to maintain, and cutting an order between a third and an half is a serious cut.
Yeah, showing interest in 48 more Typhoons and upgrading their fleet to Tranche 3 standard says it ain’t all that…
An “interest” isn’t a firm order, and when the industrial is the source a little caution is in order.
The fact that the eurofighter consortium is still selling T2 speaks volumes, and it’s only logical that the Saudis want to upgrade to T3 when it’s available.
So again…
MildaveActually the UAE’s F-16 Block 60 buy was difficult too with the UAE spending a lot of money, and threatening a few time to go for alternatives.
The Rafale’s program is supported by one country only. It’s already amazing that they have managed to build such a good aircraft, I don’t see how they can cut the price indefinitly.
They certainly need to make a profit, and the UAE had years to decide wheather or not to go for another plane.
They know how important the deal is for Dassault and France, and since they are in a position of power, it’s not surprising they are going to exploit it to the end (at least until we know the winner for the MMRCA).
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article22.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/print/360
Mildave@ EELightning : Funny as ever, since we are speculating, I wonder why those lucky nations who bought the Typhoon are trying to get rid of it, or demonstrate no urge to buy more.
Why aren’t the Saudis buying more instead of begging for more F15s which are supposed to be of a older generation. After comparing the two, they should have said woaw… well but that’s just my opinion.
In the end, the Saudis too threatened to buy Rafale in order to put political pressure on the UK, so who knows.
MildaveSince most of the AtG features of the Typhoon are yet to be developed, and due to the fact that they will likely result in more stress for the aircraft’s structure (heavier load…), how can the life cycle cost be calculated accurately?
Also I don’t see why EADS would let Raytheon make the weapon packtage since it would cost money to integrate them, and they already have their own weapons already integrated. Unless the US is pressuring to have a share of the cake. If that is so, it would be bad for the Typhoon, because it shows that the US has a big influence.
MildaveI don’t think any modern airforce will go back to dedicated aircraft. While asymetric warfare is a reality, the first concern for an airforce is to fight against rivals airforces.
Regime change is not supposed to be legal, and while some platforms like drones and light attack aircrafts (AT-6) might be considered to strike a lone tank in the middle of nothing, each have their disavantages.
Drones are good for long hours of boring surveillance, but so far their aerodynamics are quite limited and strong wings or bad weather may reduce their effectiveness to the point where they simply can’t take of.
Beside controlling them from safety offen prove to be costly (satellites etc).
Light attack aircrafts like the AT-6 may be cheap, but lack the capabilities to carry heavy payloads, limited range, too slow, no air to air refuelling, limited self defense, limited growth…
Conclusion politicians should use the military for what it’s meant for, protecting one’s country, and avoid going to other countries to fight guerilla wars when they have no money to spare.
Should such a war be necessary, then no matter what it’s going to be costly
MildaveFull ToT or not, this is still a licence-built contract. So they will not be able to do any modifications without receiving green light first.
For the Typhoon, as a partner, they will get a share of the revenues according to the level of funding, but EADS will not let them become a competitor.
MildaveUCAVs may be good for the near and medium future, but with rising powers having access to space or been able to deploy weapons targeting satellites, nobody knows if UCAVs will remain a viable option for the long terme future.
I see more chances for the USN to buy Australia’s SH, than the French doing the same.
MildaveTyphoon exports: 2
Rafale exports: 0
Well UK selling to Saudi under the table (enquiry stopped for national security!), and Germany selling to Austria… Under the table. Come on, let’s be serious.
Again each “sources” need to be taken with precaution. Misinformations, intox etc…
The only thing we may have some certainty is about how mature the two planes are, and for now, Rafale has the edge. India and future export opportunities will decide which will keep that edge.
Should EADS lose India, we will need to wait and see what happen once UK get the F35, and how comitted to a multirole Typhoon they still are.
MildaveYou’re dreaming ; HAL admits it will take time before India will be able to manufacture a Rafale or a Typhoon… And i find them extremely optimistic, a touch of magic wand ? no , being able to manufacture entirely a modern combat aircraft (we’re not talking of Mig 21 …) requires huge investments in industry and technology. It took decades to France to achieve such a result.
That’s what ToT is for…
What I understand is that India will first assemble parts imported from the winner, then progressively learn to build them, and then be fully self reliant from top to bottom.
France had to learn and develop the technology first.
MildaveRafale:
* Built in one country with one assembly line.
* Any upgrading requirement just needs the agreement of French government itself.
Eurofighter:
* Five assembly lines in order to make every partners happy, but the total order book of Eurofighter is much less than five times of Rafale’s order book.
* You have to transport the fighter’s major components and systems from the factories of four different countries to the one of the five assembly lines before building an Eurofighter, which shall be more complicated, expensive, and time-consuming than building a Rafale.
* None of the four partners of Eurofighter has the complete designing, developing, and future upgrading rights of Typhoon. Therefore, if any airforce of the four partners wants some new upgradings for their own Typhoons, it has to ask for the agreement of all the four partners at first ~ which is often a time-consuming and money-wasting job…..
Actually transporting and assembling the components and systems from different countries isn’t necessarily more expensive. These days most complex systems are built in blocks over differents part of a country or in the case of the Typhoon different countries.
The problem here is politics. None of the four nations want to be left behind, which is why each will try to build and assemble as many parts as possible (more money), and trying to share accordingly may be a bit of a problem.
Then if oversight isn’t properly done, you may end up with various standards of qualities for the differents part (see F22). Then of course it might be politically incorrect for Germany to tell Spain that they need do a better job etc…
But so far I havn’t heard of any more trouble in a long time, then again with everything mysteriously “classified” these days… Anyway since India is planning on been self sufficient, that mean they will assemble most of the plane themself with only minors components been imported.
Then India been offered full parnership means that they won’t have to ask permission to anybody. The reason why UK, Germany, Italy and Spain spend so much time agreeing on things is because none of them as the capabilities or the will to go for development cost alone. India can. So it’s likely EADS will work with Indian’s money to keep the Typhoon up to date for India first, and then when europeans get the money they will likely buy it too with India receiving royalties.
MildaveHi folks, long time no see !
Many Russian aircrafts have had better aerodynamics than F15, yet if you were proposed to go to war in a flanker or a F15 which one would you choose ?
Saying Typhoon is better in AtA because of more engine thrust is a bit simple don’t you think ?
Is Rafale a better AtG because it programme’s maturity allows it to perform well in this area for now ? We should wait for Typhoon to reach maturity in this role to decide (meanwhile we might have a humble guess…).
What we really know is that both aircrafts were selected, so both have their merits. Everyelse are just speculations.
Like I was reading a article recently saying that Typhoon was ahead of Rafale for India because of 600h of “flawless” flight over Libya ? Come on !
They both won, so I guess we’re all right. The “winner” of the MMRCA will be the cheaper, not “the” best.
Last but not least I think we should wait 60 years for any sources on the subject to be reliable… lol
MildaveBut utterly ugly ! :rolleyes:
MildaveBluewings, I don’t know if it’s just me but I don’t understand your first post at all !
My mistake however about the role of the M2000 I jumped the gun. Still, I don’t know about the US tactics been obsoletes… That maybe but I would like to see some argumentation about that please.
I really enjoyed reading your PDF, however there is still no indication of any active cancellation, and since you said that you’re sitting on a document proving it, I would like to see it.
It’s clear however that SPECTRA uses many techniques to fools the enemy’s detection and engagement capabilities.
Scorpion82 it’s good to see that you are getting there slowly but quite surely :D.
However exept Bluewings perhaps nobody said that the Rafale was superior to any other aircraft out there. We have been talking about how SPECTRA was quite special and unique and some people came and said that there is no reason to beleive there is anything SPECTRA does that PRAETORIAN doesn’t which they have so far showed no evidence for such a statement.
And to say that the Rafale is also used in a strategic environment as part of the aerial nuclear deterrence for the french forces is relevant weither you like it or not. No country spend million building a new missile (ASMPA) without a credible plane to use it, period.
The M2000 is also capable of swing role, but you simply don’t use a M2000D for air interdiction because their pilots are not trained for it and their systems are not optimize for that role. The other european did the same with their variant of tornadoes, the US doesn’t use F15E for air defense etc.
What I’m saying is that Rafale and Typhoon are always going to compete against each other since their very beginning was about disagrement on how best to have the job done. And so far the Rafale is winning.
All the things pro Typhoon (officials and unofficials) used to say about the Rafale has been proved wrong, and the only thing that stuck is about the fact that the engine could be upgraded to offer more thrust.
The RAF has gone from ~270+ to ~150 and is still unable to afford the jet.
AdlA has gone from ~280+ to ~200+ just to fund early AESA etc. Yet the Typhoon is costing the RAF far more, but does so far less than the Rafale.
By the time the Typhoon is fully operational in AtG the Rafale will be lauching satellites…
So clearly just doing the math here, the Typhoon might be developed (specially if the F35 doesnt deliver) to perform more complexe AtG missions, but it seems to me like it’s going to be costly.
Since 2002 British PM are saying the Typhoon programme has been badly handled and that reforms are needed. Obviously these reforms take longer than expected and unfortunatly the aircraft is suffering, and now it’s to late to make it economical. It might end up been a acceptable swing role aircraft, but not a cheap one. And unless the F35 is cancelled and UK, Italy and Spain decide to make it their sole aircraft there will never be the same will behing the Typhoon has there is behing the Rafale to keep it relevant for swing role mission that are very complicated.
MildaveHi Colibri, can you qualify for me what qualification means in this context?
Is it they will define the variant next year or that they will have made all these additions by next year?
Does Brimstone fit into that list or is that not official yet?
Thanks.
Qualification mean it will be cleared for operational use. The F3+ variant has already been defined.
There is no official statement that they will use Brimstone, Thales is lobbying to place its laser guided rockets instead, so I guess the decision will be political. Anyway a decision is needed for Libya so I think whatever they chose it will be integrated on a few Rafale by the CEM immediatly.
Sign In
