VnomadI wonder where they took that 53 bn figure, especially for 180 planes.
As per wiki, the program cost for 294 planes was estimated at 33+bn in 2005, revised at a bit more than 40bn for 286 planes in 2010. That’s global cost including development, purchase and support. Those figures are coherent with everything I’ve read so far, here and elsewhere.
Nic
First off, is that figure adjusted for inflation? A follow on order for the next 100 Rafales placed in 2016 may have a substantially higher cost than a similar order placed today. How would one realistically compute figures for that?
Unless I lost something in translation the document doesn’t specify whether the amount has been expended or is planned.
Secondly, your figures aren’t exactly positive either.
Lets take it for argument’s sake, to be as you said.
€40 billion = $57.6 billion.
Assuming no inflation occurs and the full complement of 286 aircraft is ordered (neither of which are set in stone), the acquisition cost including development works out to be approximately $200 million/unit.
That’s still a good $56 million more than the UK’s Eurofighters (the other EF members have spent slightly less per unit). Had France continued as a member of the FEFA program, the aircraft would possibly have been more capable and definitely cheaper than both the EF and Rafale (with a production number likely in excess of 1000 units).
The differences between France and the rest weren’t irreconcilable. A possible solution would have been an aircraft weighing 10.5 tons empty, having a carrier capable variant, and with Snecma developing a competing engine in parallel with Eurojet.
Personally I think the French brass felt the success of the Mirage-2000 (esp. vis-a-vis the jointly developed Tornado) could be replicated with the Rafale. Unfortunately the Rafale’s export performance pales in comparison to Mirage-2000. Had a single type existed instead of two very similar ones, it would in all probability have dominated the F-15E and F-18E/F internationally. 🙁
VnomadExplain to me how France has lost out on that? The Rafale doesn’t cost more than what the EF cost to any one of the partners, yet provides better ground attack (scalp/AASM), recon (Reco-NG) capabilities, nuclear strike, and is carrier capable.
I’m not sure it would have been more cost efficient to remain in the consortium.
Are you sure about that?
The Rafale program has supposedly cost France $53 billion for 180 aircraft so far @ $294 million/unit.
The cost to UK for its EFs on the other hand has been about $23 billion for 160 aircraft @ $144 million/unit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12614995
Even assuming the figures aren’t perfect and certain things haven’t been budgeted for the latter, that’s still a very stark difference.
VnomadMiG-21++, Mirage-2000+, Su-30- or Eurofighter– ???
This is an interview by the same officer ACM P.V. Naik in 2010.
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/is-the-air-force-losing-its-edge/167850
Quoting him at 09:30.
“There are some people who’s only job in life is to read meanings into what we say.”
Ouch.
VnomadIt is mainly the reason why I say that the Typhoon is nothing but a souped-up M2000 . The fighter is somehow lacking in what should be its main task : to kill silently without betraying its presence .
Assuming everything you’ve said is true, that would imply a souped up Mirage-2000 is a software upgrade away from being comparable to the Rafale.
??
Vnomad1. The maximal external fuel load of Rafale and Eurofighter today:
* Rafale: 2,000 L tank*3 + 1,250 L tank*2 = 8,500 L
* EF2000: 1,000 L tank*3 = 3,000 L
* Rafale has around 55.4% more internal + external fuel than EF2000.
3 x 2000L + 2 x 1250L?? Is this ever used aside from ferry missions?
2. The maximal possibile future external fuel load of Rafale and Eurofighter:
* Rafale: 2,000 L tank*3 + 1,250 L tank*2 + 1,250 L CFT*2 = 11,000 L
* EF2000: 2,000 L tank*2 + 1,000 L tank*1 + 1,500 L CFT*2 = 8,000 L
* Rafale has around 18.4% more internal + external fuel than EF2000.
Same question again. Will you ever see 2 x 1250L CFTs and 3 x 2000L tanks in real world conditions?
VnomadYes and AdlA also don’t want to order more powerful engines because they don’t find the need for them… AdlA didn’t order CFTs, because they don’t see any use for them, they don’t want to carry 3 storm shadows because they see two as enough… we’re not talking what AdlA wants, but the potential of both fighters.
Well I suppose that’s fine then. I was looking at it from the perspective of a possible customer, like say the IAF.
Drag wouldn’t change that much, okay the fuel tank would be smaller on the EF, but the CFTs will be bigger on the EF. I don’t know how you can tell there would necessarily be lower drag on one. Not saying it isn’t, but I don’t know how you can be so sure.
I’m making a fair assumption that CFTs are a good deal more aerodynamic than drop tanks.
Also IIRC, the Eurofighter can carry 2 x 2000L tanks but they were never operationalized because a strong emphasis was laid on the performance of the aircraft. 1000L are cleared for supersonic flight while the 2000L tanks aren’t. That’s good indicator of the drag created by each. Should at least be enough to compensate for 300kg of fuel.
We may still see 2000L on the EF in the future as it starts taking over the Tornado’s role in the RAF and Luftwaffe.
Center tank
6 AASM or EPWII (3 on each middle wing hardpoint)
2 GBU 24 (1 on each inboard wing hardpoint instead of the usually carried fuel tank)
2 Meteors (1 on each fuselage hardpoint)
1 Damoclès LDP on its dedicated pylon
2 Mica / Meteor (if possible) (1 on each outboard wing pylon)
2 Mica IR (1 on each wingtip pylon)
Assuming there is an escorting aircraft with an LDP, the EF should be able to carry 8 PGMs as well – 4 Paveway-IVs on pylons, and another 4 on racks (on the two wetpoints) in addition to 4 Meteors + 2 ASRAAMs.
You are confused because the outboard wing pylons are never carried, AGAIN because up to now the AdlA didn’t feel the need for them. There was talk of integrating laser guided rockets on those, or AAMs. And since they are talking about integrating brimstone, those hardpoints would be perfect to carry two brimstones instead of the AAMs.
Nic
Actually its 6 AASMs + (optional) 6 AASMs that was puzzling (at least it sounded like that was what you were saying). I assume the 4 wetpoints are too close together to equip each with 3 x AASM?
VnomadEven then, there would still be more volume to carry more stuff on the 4 wet hardpoints of the Rafale. Heck with CFTs and a 2000L tank you could probably carry six AASM and a big load of brimstones and still have 6 BVRAAM and your laser designation pod.
Or four storm shadows
Or 6 250 KG AASM and 2 1000 KG AASM
Nic
That appears to be skirting dangerously close to the MTOW.
VnomadThat’s what you call an approximation?
You have 6 PW IV instead of 6 AASM + 2 GBU24 (say you carry 6 EPWII on the Rafale to have something comparable with the PWIV, but you have 2 GBU24 AND you can self designate :))
I remember reading a post from Arthuro (or was it you?), that quoted the AdlA study(?)
as deciding the ability to carry more than 6 PGMs had limited utility.
2 CFT + 1000L instead of 2 CFT + 2000L
Comparable fuel load – 4000L (EF) vs 4300L(Rafale) but with lower drag especially at high velocities.
If you can fit Meteors on the outboard wing station of the Rafale you get the same number of AAMs, At the very least you can get 2 Meteor and 4 Mica which are BVRAAM anyway.
Nic
I’m a little fuzzy here – how does this work? The Rafale has 13 hardpoints for munitions. Centre tank + 6 AASM + 4 AAMs leaves two pylons for either the GBU-24s or AAMs.
VnomadBut again you forget the fact that every serial Rafale is ALREADY plumbed for CFTs, and it’s only a matter of purchasing them to start using them.
I do believe that CFTs have yet to be integrated to the Typhoon though… but even if they are to, I don’t understand why you would want to compare a Typhoon with CFTs to a Rafale without CFTs.
Nic
I wasn’t making that comparison (ref: OPIT). I was drawing parallels between an ideal configuration of CFTs + centre tank for each aircraft, and making an assumption that further addition of fuel tanks was unnecessary.
VnomadExactly, 1000kg of fuel more on the Rafale WITHOUT CFT, when compared to the EF WITH CFT. If you want to add two meteors to the Rafale you just need to delete the external tanks and add the CFTs, or remove the central fuel tank to put two meteors there (on front one back, as proposed very early on the rafale drawings). Or you have 6000L of external tanks AND CFTs, top up in flight and you can strike targets quite FAR!
Its works out to be same thing right? The EF could add two external fuel tanks in addition to CFTs but the gain in range will rarely be worth the trade-off.
6000L of external fuel and CFTs will give the Rafale a range far in excess of any of the Flanker models, which in turn weren’t ever equipped with external fuel tanks (Su-34?).
Or you could imagine a Rafale with 2 CFTs, one central 2000L tank, one Damoclès pod, AND 6 AASM AND 2 GBU24 AND 2 Laser rocket pods (or Brimstones or Mica missiles) AND 2 Meteors AND 2 Mica IR.
Quite impressive indeed, and with the CFTs + 2000L in the central tank you get a substantial range despite the huge loadout.
The EF should be able to do an approximation of that – 2 CFTs, one central 1000L tan, 6 Paveway-IVs, 4 Meteors, 2 ASRAAM/Iris-Ts. Though one aircraft in the flight should have a Litening pod on.
That said, with such a loadout the 90KN engines wouldn’t be superfluous, but even the Rafale can’t take off with such a load, and if there is a lack of tanker support, another Rafale can take off with 6400L of external fuel and top up the bomb ladden Rafale on the way to target.
Why not send both aircraft for the missions with lighter payloads?
VnomadSo if I get you right, 1000 kg of fuel is not significant because you say so, while the difference in drag must be significant although you don’t know the drag indexes involved.
Conclusions :
Firstly, more than 1000 kg of extra fuel gives the Rafale an undisputed advantage in range, and that is the right answer to your question.
Is it undisputed?
Boeing claims the SH in a CFT + centre tank configuration has a range equivalent to a 3 drop tank configuration.
Meanwhile, Boeing says that the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) included in the International Roadmap configuration, plus the EPE, deliver a big performance increase. The 3,200-lb.-capacity conformals cause zero net drag, the company says, because they reduce trim drag. As a result, a configuration with CFTs and a centerline tank delivers as much range as a three-tank configuration, and some weapon configurations can be cleared to supersonic speeds, which are not attainable with those stores today.
Secondly, telling what’s important and what’s not as you see fit makes you a troll.
And you want to verbally wrestle me instead of reporting my post. :rolleyes:
VnomadEquates to only two Rafale’s external tanks out of three.
So the Rafale will continue to have a range advantage even if CFTs are integrated to the EF.
Practically speaking how much of a difference will that make? 8500kg of fuel on the EF vs 9500kg on the Rafale. Plus when you factor in the difference in drag, the range difference will reduce substantially. 2 x CFTs + 1000L centre tank (supersonic capable) will be far more aerodynamic than 2 x 2000L + 1250/2000L tanks. In addition it leaves the EF with two extra Meteors (presumably).
Also, all this is applies specifically in one profile – carrying 2 Storm Shadows at long ranges. In most other profiles, they’re at par as far as range/loiter time is concerned.
VnomadMaybe so..still India prefers to pour billions into the Pak-Fa program when they could get the F-35.
So however it goes..the IAF still prefers Russia.
Get the aircraft yes, get access to technology … fat chance. Even the UK needed the PM to intervene at the highest level, just to retain operational sovereignty over its F-35 – a Tier 1 partner who could independently integrate its maintain or upgrade the aircraft wouldn’t have gone down well.
VnomadIt’s really a moot point though, because I can’t imagine a weapon profile where you would want to carry two storm shadows AND four paveways and a LDP. A deep strike mission will be 2 CFTs + 1 central tank + 2 storm shadows, 4 AMRAAMs and 2 to 4 ASRAAM.
Then again every Rafale is plumbed for CFTs, so MTOW permitting (or with in flight refueling to fill the external tanks on the way to target), it will always hold the advantage in range.
Nic
First post here. Hooray.
Coming to the quoted reference – why would the Rafale continue to have a range advantage if CFTs are integrated to the EF?
2 CFTs + 1 central tank + 2 storm shadows/scalp-eg, 4/6 Meteors and 4/2 ASRAAM/MICA will give the EF an equivalent range. Could even be slightly higher. Smaller central tank but larger CFTs. Heavier airframe but lower drag.
Of course one could say the Rafale can be configured with 2 Scalp-EGs, 3 external fuel tanks and 2 conformal fuel tanks, but practically speaking that configuration isn’t ever going to be seen unless a ferry mission and deep strike have to be performed together.
Point is CFTs can mitigate the Rafale’s edge in range to a very large extent. And with the Tornado’s eventual retirement from the RAF and Luftwaffe, the F-35’s FOC being delayed to 2020 at the earliest, the Tranche 3 units will probably have operational CFTs.
Sign In
