Ja said: It’s also interesting to note that a private in the royal marines can take command of a mission out ranking an Army officer who would be subserviant to the Marine, though the respect will carry over, as it should.

That might be overstating it chap. A rank and file Marine can supervise the positioning of army troops subject to his own specialised task, he cannot take command in lieu or otherwise of an army platoon or section. There is a big difference in standards between the British Army Infantry and the Royal Marines but it is not as pronounced as Joe Public actually think. It takes the better part of a year to train a Royal Marine compared to about 6 months for an army infantry soldier but although standards of fitness are higher in the marines the main difference is in operational doctrine and specialisation which is responsible for the bulk of the extra time needed to train a Royal Marine. Make no mistake, army physical fitness standards, particularly for the infantry are very demanding.

Phil 🙂

It would be very nice if you could make a post without insulting the other posters. This is getting tiresome.

Edit: and you talking about objectivity is actually hilarious.

Nic

An insult is followed by an insult. I’m sorry its just the way it has always been. PilotGHT cannot make a post without an insult of some kind I feel the need now and again to redress the balance. Futile? Yes. Unfortunately I get so worked up by some of the crap I see posted here I just cannot help myself. I am sorry if I offended you personally. By the way, yes, I agree. It is getting tiresome but try to see it from somebody elses point of view once in a while. It might open you eyes a little.

One more thing, when you see me verbally attacking a nation on a regular basis as PilotGHT does, come and tell me about objectivity, until then direct you criticism elsewhere or keep your mouth shut.

Phil 🙂

You got some points, but what got the Rafale to do with a more unified Europe ?

Yep. Sorry I am losing the plot slightly now.

Phil 🙂

Yeah, you are certainly right. I just want some concrete numbers. I got this 50 mill. a plane fly away price for the German tranche 2 order. I’m to lazy to look up how many are on the British tranche 2 order, and how many they cost. Neither do I know the exact numbers of the actual French batch. I think this is up to the French and British forum members. They shurely know better from their local press.
It is in my opinion nearly impossible to get prices on a comparable basis. The British order includes some equipment, that the German order does not include. What about the details of the actual French Rafale batch ?
I think Glitter is in the better position to provide some numbers and details about the package. What weapons and systems (flight suits, ECM, HMCS,…) are included. For example the German tranche 2 order includes not enough pirates for all aircraft. They will be delivered in this “fitted for, but not with” manner. The pirates will be delivered seperately and plugged in only if needed.

And to the overall numbers. The largest Typhoon order is the British with 232 frame order and 65 options. (Not likely to be delivered)
The French order is larger (294 units). That means their assembly line will produce the largest single order of European fighter jets. Advantage for Dassault not BAe Systems.
Then let’s go into the tranches. The second rafale batch ordered in 2004 include 59 aircraft, while the British Tranche 2 order includes 89 aircraft. I think this is what Glitter meant with “the French goverment bought less planes”.
Well then let’s compare it to the German T2 order: 68 aircraft at a price of € 3,4 billion. If someone could provide the bill for the 59 Rafales and what is included in that sum (weapons, development costs, ground equipment…), maybe we could agree on which aircraft is cheaper, and which provides more bang for buck.

Not really mate I don’t hold much store by any of the figures I see. One day you hear a ‘definitive’ figure and the next day it changes. Kovy and the Xenophobes (good name for a 60s tribute band me thinks 😀 ) might well be right. The difference here is that they will not be budged on one simple fact. If there is a price difference between the two it is not a very big one and arguing on the basis of relatively small (alleged) difference is pathetic.

There are others things that annoy like the inflation of Eurofighter prices and the deflation of Rafale prices, the dumbing down of Eurofighter specs and the ‘bigging up’ of Rafale specs. You also see a lot of the ‘Rafale mob’ slagging off the Typhoon but the ‘Typhoon mob’ seem to be quite gracious of the Rafale. Maybe its a cultural thing I don’t know but its hard to teach an idiot anything if you ask me. To think some of these people really expect the likes of me to vote in favour of a more unified Europe? Sheesh, in the face of such disrespect they can bloody well swivel on it.

Phil 🙂

Aurel I think I am reading him different to yourself. I am just confused now these coments are being changed and swapped and contradicted at an enormous rate. Why can’t some people just pick a line and stick to it?

Phil

The lack of wing fold is certainly not a plus point. Unfortunately the considerable use of synthetics in the wing (of which I’m no great fan) obviates a hinge mechanism. Although the Rafale wingspan is 10.8 metres which is admittedly 2.4 metres more than the F18C it is also about 1.8 metres shorter than the Hornet. And the Hornet is small compared to the Super Hornet. The lack of a wing fold helps maintenance so it is perhaps not the great disadvantage that many believe it to be.

I have reservations nothing more, I certainly cannot tell if it is a big drawback or not. I’d still be happy if the the Royal Navy chose it but I would not have the Rafale over the Typhoon for the RAF.

Sens. Sorry mate I’m getting my posters mixed up. I think I am trying to take on too many arguments here.

All. Just can it about the Lightning I heard you the first time and I get your point.

Phil 🙂

I find har to believe this kind of poor economic analysis.

What is poor about it. It is a quick estimate based on:

In mid-1997, the Cour des Comptes has stated that the Rafale programme will cost a total of 224 billion French Francs. Dassault claimed that this includes a 25 per cent contribution of the industry to development costs (roughly 13 billion FF) and a 20,5 per cent tax so that the “real” cost to the state is just 150 billion FF. Fly-away cost of a Rafale is currently stated as 282 million FF (Rafale C), 299 million FF (Rafale B) and 315 million FF (Rafale M), after a ten per cent price cut was agreed by industry in January 1997. Previous estimates were as high as 350 million FF, with a sort of systems price of over 600 million FF being mentioned.

From:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRRafale.htm

Its a quick Google search away and it is open to discussion, what did I get wrong? The exchange rate? The point is that what ever argument you throw at me for the real cost of the Rafale, it can be thrown right back at you when you claim that the cost of the Typhoon was……… what did that bloke say? Two times more? Poor economic analysis? Oh do behave.

By comparison the same web site says this about the cost of the Typhoon:

German development cost contribution is now around 7 billion DM. Italy has already spent about 4000 billion Lire on the development phase. According to the German ministry of defence, the fly-away price of the EF2000 is 63,4 million DM. After the sums for items like series preparation, tax, and logistics items are added, this rises to 125,4 million DM (at 12/1996 economic conditions). These figures are only half the truth however, because equipment like the ECM systems and the FLIR sensor, helmet-mounted display, software for air-to-ground weapons etc. are not included and have to be paid in additon.
In the UK, the Ministry of Defence estimates total procurement cost at 15,9 billion pounds, which translates into a system price per aircraft of 68,5 million pounds (200 million DM).
In Italy, air force chief-of-staff General Arpino predicts for the 121 Eurofighters a total cost of 15759 billion Lire until 2014. Of these 12691 billion Lire are assigned to industrialization and production and 3068 billion to the integrated logistical suport.

Here is a site that says that in 1996/7 the Typhoon was cheaper than the Rafale:

http://www.military.cz/accessories/prices/prices_en.htm

I don’t beleive it myself but then I don’t slag off the Rafale as many here slag off the Typhoon.

What does it tell us? Well for a start there is a lot of confusion, prices are quoted in pounds, DMs and Lire of which only the pound still exists. If you get ‘x’ amount of people to put the work in to un-knot this mess I guarantee you will get ‘x’ amount of different answers, mine was just one of them. If you are going to argue that I am wrong and I may well be, then please show me why. Then somebody else will come along and give a different answer to yours.

If a real expert comes here (and I mean a real expert not somebody who just says they are an expert) and does the mathematics properly, I bet that the real cost of the Typhoon and the Rafale, as are their capabilities, remarkably similar.

Thanks.

Phil 🙂