VnomadWhich is why SPECTRA has built in SIGINT/ELINT capabilities. If radar transmits, then SPECTRA will pick it up and update the circles on the tactical screen.
Nic
Trouble is, when you’re flying nape of the earth the SPECTRA isn’t going to give you early warning of the QRSAM system in your way until you break horizon. At which point the radar locks on to you at the same time as you lock on to its emissions. And if the missiles are situated ahead of the radar, they may even have a lower time-to-target.
VnomadSuch mix would be a violation of multiple vendor policy which IAF want to pursue.. If they wanted to throw all eggs in one basket, they would be having 400 odd MKIs on order today and we would have nothing to discuss.
Diversification is a general policy objective. It cannot take priority over retaining net combat capability. The whole ‘Medium’ bit in the MMRCA was to get something that was economical vis a vis the ‘heavy’ Su-30MKI. Otherwise why exclude the F-15E from the competition? However at the current prices, even by life-cycle cost the Rafale is far more expensive than anticipated.
Also as far as autonomy of operation goes, its also worth noting that the Su-30MKI production has been almost entirely domesticated, from which it follows that a good proportion of the LRUs/spares would probably manufactured locally. With some stocking up of imported units, the IAF should be able to operate it for long periods even without support from Russia.
Rafale is extremely costly, no question here.. but the first airframes + supporting infrastructure are by far the most expensive ones.. If IAF already go that route, then they might be very tempted to get more of them for less.
Could be. I’m skeptical of the cost falling that steeply but lets see.
VnomadVnomad, someone jealous of Rafale’s achievements and/or frustrated by Typhoon perpetually playing catch up won’t do any better than you.
Good job ! 😀
Err.. are you sure you want to compare the Rafale export record with the EF or more importantly with the F-35? You know.. just to underscore the ‘jealousy’ bit. I mean just an year ago we were talking 126 all but in the bag, now we’re talking starting negotiations for 36 off-the-shelf. That’s a degree of success I admit. Enough to instigate ‘jealousy’, c’mon.
VnomadI haven’t said it has many chances in Europe, but it’s mainly due to politics & economic situation, not because the qualities of the aircraft compared to the competition.
Politics didn’t stop the Gripen from registering export successes in Europe (well.. maybe Poland). Ultimately its a simple choice – if budgets are limited and air policing is a priority, they’re going with the Gripen (I’d argue they should go lower – FA-50, but that’s a different debate). And those willing to spend what the Rafale costs, realize that they may as well as get a VLO fighter at a similar cost.
It’s too bad for them if they spend 7 bn on a lemon. What can I say?
Perhaps you can acknowledge that whatever the fiscal hawks may be saying, none of the air forces seem to regard the F-35 as a ‘lemon’.
I don’t know about that you may well be right. Thing is we don’t know what the price includes & if we can compare it with the contracts you mentioned. BTW the korean deal is 7+ billions not 6.8.
7.34 trillion won is $6.8 bn at today’s exchange rate. But you’re right using the then rate its closer to $7 bn.
However the contract is for 40 F-35A. At the same rate, 36 aircraft would cost $6.3 bn. Which is competitive with the Rafale.
VnomadHi all,
I am new on the forum and so need some help to understand a bit where to find information.
So F35 and typhoon news are in the Rafale thread, Gripen and Rafale are in typhoon thread am I right ? 😉
Correct. And 4 out of 5 pages on the ‘USAF news (not F-35)‘ thread deal with… the F-35. Welcome to Keypub. 😀
VnomadNope.
You still think the Rafale has a chance in Europe? Despite Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and Finland being out of contention. Are you that sure of the Belgian contract going to Dassault?
Are you comparing what a future customer has budgeted for buying the F35 excluding operating costs (270 million per year) without knowing how much the plane will actually cost when they actually cost when they order it, to the draft of an actual contract which you don’t know the content of (ie could very well include a part of the 270 million per year, which, in your dutch case, would amount to 8 billion for 30 years, no less).
1. South Korea has a signed contract for its F-35As. Australia has a signed contract ($11bn for 58 units incl. base refurbishment & weapons). You could also look at Israel who’s bought its aircraft through an FMS process. The cost is roughly the same as the Rafale.
2. The Indian deal does not including operating costs. They are budgeted separately under a revenue heading.
VnomadThe Rafale is a superb aircraft for its role (s) and it has replacing seven older aircraft in France (Rafale M would have been perfect fit for the RN carriers instead of that the limited range and limited payload F-35B;- )).
Its a superb aircraft for France. But only for France. (Perhaps its Middle Eastern clients as well). Its built entirely in France, all the money is invested domestically and its upgrade program keeps core competencies of the R&D sector intact. And since France isn’t situated next door to Russia or China, the Rafale’s capabilities are sufficient for its requirements. Basically its in line with French priorities (esp. vis a vis the domestic industry) so its the right choice for it.
The same doesn’t apply to Asia Pacific or more importantly the rest of Europe, where the entire market is two horse race between the F-35 and Gripen E, and for good reason.
All politicians need to know is that the F-35 is too big to fail ($trillion + lifetime…yes that’s trillion!). if you throw enough money at any project you can make it work….but at what price?
‘What price’ is a good question.
37 F-35As for the Netherlands: $6 billion+
40 F-35As for South Korea: $6.8 billion
36 Rafales for India: $6 billion+ (upto $8 bn with weapons)
All off the shelf, no local production/assembly. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison (the offset deals would be different, there would be variations in the support package) but the figures are close enough that one may justifiably ask of the Rafale too – ‘at what price’?
Supporter of the F-35 say they cannot yet quantify its true operating cost because there are not enough operational squadrons that have done enough hours flying but I guarantee the operating cost of the F-35 is going to cost an arm and a leg!
The US DoD’s Selected Acquisition Report puts the operating & support costs about 28% higher than the F-16.
VnomadFurther purchases of 60 to 90 Rafales in 2-3 tranches, as funds allow, will go a long way to cover the expected shortfall in squadron strength in the 2020s when older types are retired and make more efficient use of infrastructure and support which is expensive spread over just 36 rather than 96 or 126 frames.
Its never going reach 96 or 126 frames. If they were to be order they would have been ordered now (with payments made in tranches). Over the long run, its the PAK FA that will form the IAF’s spearhead with the MKI & Tejas making up the numbers.
Rafale is a step up in capability compared to Tejas, including strategic nuclear strike. Also fewer number of more capable, multi-role Rafales required to cover the same required missions, e.g. can carry out self escorting deep penetration strike.
Nuclear strike will perform via missile whether ground or air launched. And since the ASMPA-A isn’t being exported to India, the Rafale has no particular utility in that role. Deep strikes is fine against Syria & Libya. Very different scenario against China for a non-LO fighter.
Ultimately fact is the Rafale is too expensive. Period. That’s why the MMRCA fell through and I wouldn’t be altogether surprised if this deal cracks too.
VnomadFirst, today, with satnav, you know perfectly where you are and when to pop-up to release your weapons giving them sufficient range in pretty much any case.
This is assuming you have constant satellite coverage of the conflict zone and that the opposition hasn’t been knocking down your satellites. If not, the SAM systems situated at a certain place 8 hours ago, might be somewhere else right now.
And as far as AWACS stuff goes, you shouldn’t put so much faith in it… during NATO attack on Serbia, serbian Mig-21 fighters (by far outdated at the time) flew low altitude CAS missions despite 24h AWACS coverage and constant presence of NATO fighters in their airspace.
Do you have more details/links/sources?
Bring in some Rafales instead of the Migs, with top notch electronic warfare suite, and the AWACS most of the time won’t see it when flying at 100-150ft AGL.. unless it is almost on top of them (but if that happens, it is the AWACS who is in big trouble 😉 )
What’s the range of an MICA or even a Meteor at 100-150ft AGL? Keep in mind the AWACS might be passing off the tracking data to his ally sitting radar silent at 40,000 ft within missile range of your aircraft. All while your situational awareness is grossly limited as a result of the horizon blocking off the radar, OSF as well as the pilot’s vision.
VnomadThat was PESA, not AESA.
AESA-based SPECTRA. Rafale AFAIK doesn’t use the RBE to jam hostile radars.
A solid AESA radar can be fixed. If your radar needs a swashplate in order to get the same performance, then it likely has a problem with the sidelobes.
You’re assuming it has the same performance. According to the proprietors, it enables a 200 deg FoR, compared to about 120 deg for most ESAs.
There is a good reason why all radar developers have abandoned swashplates years ago – it’s not like they haven’t crossed their minds as they must have developed dozens of these before with slotted arrays.
No all radar developers obviously. That’s basically an appeal of authority. I mean one could restate that as – there is a good reason why BAE/EADS & SAAB with decades of experience between them have directed Selex to deliver a swashplate instead of a fixed antenna.
Vnomaddon’t tell Vnomad, he is convinced performance is not needed for interceptors.
the low drag of Gripen compensate for lower T/W from transonic on, the issue with C was always low fuel fraction
You know, the interception mission comfortably predates the arrival of the Eurofighter & Rafale on the market.
If Switzerland has some highly specific requirements (which is odd given that Swiss QRA is only available during office hours), they’re going to need to square that with their budget realities (and possibility of second referendum torpedoing their new acquisition plans).
VnomadIf they count training, facilities, support chain and so on in the price “per plane”, then, obviously, the first batch looks extremely expensive…
Support & basic infrastructure is always included in the procurement cost of weapon system. Otherwise you’re left with just the flyaway cost which is obviously much lower.
Training won’t cost all that much (compared to the Middle Eastern air forces); the IAF will probably sent a small group of veterans to France to be trained & certified on the type, and they’ll train the newer pilots as the squadrons stand up on their return. The only part of the deal that’s justifiably expensive would be setting up of a local overhaul facility (though I’m not entirely sure that’s included given the limited volumes they’re dealing with).
VnomadAccording to ‘Economic Times’, $6 bn+ Indian order has a price ceiling of $8 bn (including weapons). The journalist doesn’t sound too bright, given how excited he is about ‘discounts’, but his reporting is probably accurate.
France offers 25% discount to India on purchase of 36 Rafale jets
By Pranab Dhal Samanta & Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 6 May, 2015, 07.03AM IST
NEW DELHI: France agreed to a 25% discount on its earlier offer to clinch the deal for an off the-shelf purchase of 36 Rafale aircraft during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Paris last month. This will be the base on which further negotiations will take place on Wednesday.
The ballpark cost per aircraft as per Dassault’s winning bid for the 126 MMRCA programme — the old, nowscrapped, Rafale deal — came to about $300 million, taking into account the estimates of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Sources told ET that the objective was to bring this down to a little over $200 million apiece.
The overall cost is not expected to cross $8 billion for the entire 36-aircraft fleet, French sources said. MMRCA stands for medium multi-role combat aircraft.
The price per aircraft is not just the acquisition cost of the platform, but also includes maintenance facilities, training of pilots and technicians, armaments and spares. In comparison, Dassault signed a deal with Qatar on Monday to sell 24 Rafale fighters for $7 billion, which would put the per-aircraft cost at just over $290 million. India is set to get a better deal because of the larger number being ordered. It may be noted that the rival Eurofighter that was also in contention for the contract had offered India a 20% price cut after the new government took over.
Besides the discount, France has agreed to undertake a longer maintenance schedule. The delivery of the first aircraft, according to the broad understanding reached at Paris, would take place in the next two-three years. France is believed to have pushed for a much larger off-the-shelf purchase with better concessions but New Delhi was wary of the impact this would have on the PM’s own Make in India initiative. The number, 36, was France’s bottom line in the negotiations. Before the visit, France had put its entire diplomatic weight behind striking a deal, which had got caught up in complications that would have translated into a cost escalation. This would have meant it would get reopened, further delaying the programme.
Fresh negotiations began only after India made clear that the old deal was dead. This happened because the cost of the programme had swelled beyond all estimates owing to differences between Dassault and state-owned HAL on the manpower required to produce the aircraft. HAL had estimated that India would require 2.7 times the man hours that France uses for constructing the aircraft, putting the cost beyond negotiation.
VnomadThere is also the same BS about India should ordering F-35ABC or whatever from US.. cause India get so poor ToT and service from the Russians..
And at the same time they completly fail to mention such ToT options with US or any bilateral US-India defence cooperations.
ToT was offered with the F-16E/F & SH. Not with the F-35, but plenty of people predicted that the MMRCA would devolve into a farce. The F-35 is very much viable as an alternative to an off-the-shelf purchase as is currently being negotiated for Rafales with France.
Its lalalalala wonder land for several posters in here.. People need to understand that past in order to predict the future.
History will tell you that entities with converging interests work well together, and those with diverging interests face obstacles.
VnomadThis response beautifully illustrates your lack of comprehension. Thank you for the confirmation.
LOL. Won’t be a Snafu post without a flamebait.
The point was not that another aircraft has the same production run but simply that the F-35 will be undertaking high value target attacks using stand off techniques employed effectively today by platforms that are not compromised by a combination of rcs reduction shaping and STOVL which enables them to be considerably cheaper than the F-35 if they were to have a comparable production run.
Guess what? They don’t have a comparable production run. You’re comparing the F-35 to a hypothetical ideal American fighter. As for all other real (conventional) fighter aircraft, each one them is detectable by radar at ranges of 100 km and well beyond. Just the ability to employ cruise missile isn’t an incentive to buy greater numbers of legacy designs.
Sign In
