Jackonicko€36 m ($46 m) for an EPW or PWIV? Rubbish! More like €31 m ($40 m)
And Xman carefully doesn’t give a source for his French language piece describing the AASM price – which appears to be just a blog (http://info-aviation.com/?p=8785)
Even if it’s accurate, an AASM is still more than 3.7 x more expensive than an EPW II or PW IV.
And Typhoon has a dual mode IN/GPS+Laser weapon right now. Rafale doesn’t.
Typhoon has a helmet mounted sight/display. Rafale doesn’t.
Typhoon has a better LDP than Rafale.
That all amounts to superiority in this narrow field, just as Rafale enjoys superiority in most other areas of air-to-ground.
JackonickoSee it not as a piece of evidence, but rather a different insight on how Lybian operations were conducted from another branch of the armed forces.
It’s not evidence.
It’s not insight, which requires clear thinking, without preconceived conclusion.
Nor is it from ‘another branch of the armed forces’, it’s from an external pressure group, and, moreover, one with a pretty hysterical agenda, and one noted for being a bit barmy.
Nor does it include any input from anyone who was directly involved in the operation in question.
Insight? Hardly!
What is absolutely false in this statement?
1) Typhoon’s role was limited, of course, but not ‘very limited’.
2) Typhoon played a major role in improving the situational awareness of the Tornado, and of protecting them (albeit that no air threat materialised).
3) Typhoon did have a limited ground surveillance capability (using Litening and Rover), and indeed did some of the BDA for mixed formations of Tornado/Typhoon.
4) Typhoon did have a targeting capability, and ‘spiked’ for Tornado, as well as self designating and providing buddy designation for other Typhoons.
Hereby some figures to support the fact the Typhoon’s involvment was”very limited” compared with Tornados:
Compared to Tornado….. perhaps, though that does not make it insignificant.
But Typhoon flew 613 achieved missions between March and September. It flew 66 COMAOs.
Typhoon dropped 234 weapons (which tends to suggest that the 91 strikes figure is wrong).
There were 19 airframe swaps after the original deployment.
That’s not what I call ‘very limited’.
JackonickoSBU-54 (the version with IIR) was used in Libya, SBU-64 (with laser guidance) is still not available to Rafale.
The helmet may not be a ‘magic weapon’, but it is still far better (a real and significant advantage) to have one than not to have one. It can be used to update the nav kit, enter fixes and waypoints, and to cue weapons and sensors.
JackonickoIt’s a pro-carrier, anti-RAF pressure group.
Its members are retired officers and journalists, and the organisation is not supported or validated by the Royal Navy’s current leadership. It is in no way ‘representative’ of the Royal Navy, as has been made clear by senior RN officers on numerous occasions.
While I have every respect for Nigel Ward’s bravery and for the contribution he made in the Falklands War, 30 years ago, his propensity for ‘rubbishing’ the contribution of anyone else (even the other SHar squadron, which was actually more successful than his own, and especially of the RAF) is legendary.
His recent antics in supporting CVF have been hilarious, and I’m afraid that I don’t take him seriously. What’s next? Are you going to post links to articles in the Register by Lewis Page?
I can recognise propaganda when it’s thrust in front of my eyes. You clearly can’t.
And none of us can have a serious debate if one side is going to resort to holding up this kind of highly partial propaganda as any kind of ‘evidence’. I get it that you’re desperate to ‘rubbish’ Typhoon, but honestly, mate, you’re making yourself look silly.
JackonickoA more appropriate weapon. A MUCH cheaper weapon (7.5 times cheaper). A helmet mounted sight. A better Laser designator.
In this narrow area, of course that’s an edge, Opit.
And if IN/GPS guided AASM only was the best solution, France would not be spending so much money developing variants with IIR and laser terminal guidance, and would not be procuring ‘EGBU-16’/GBU-49. Despite the fact that these weapons will place stresses on the AdlA logistics tail….:rolleyes:
The desperation of some Rafale fans to concede even the smallest superiority to Typhoon, in even the tiniest area, is instructive. It would be hilarious, were it not quite so childishly pathetic.
JackonickoThe estimated unit cost of the ‘vanilla’ version of AASM is $300,000 (€200,000).
http://www.laserweekly.com/nato-running-out-of-laser-guided-bombs-in-libya/
How much European Air Forces will be asked to pay for replenishing their stock is yet unknown. Guided weapons are sold for $15,000 for the cheapest laser-guided types, to quarter of a million apiece, for the most versatile, and sophisticated models, providing stand-off, autonomous, off-boresight attack modes. The scale of the orders should also determine the cost to each customer. Maturity of the weapon have a factor on the cost per unit.
For example, a the cost of a basic JDAM kit as paid by the Pentagon was about $40,000 ten years ago. After producing almost quarter of a million weapon, Boeing could drop the cost to around $25,000, as reflected in recent orders. As weapons become more sophisticated, their cost increase – Paveway II laser guidance kits were sold for $12,000 ten years ago, but increased four to seven times higher, when served with improved seekers, electronics and optional GPS, associated with the Paveway III version. Depending on the size of the weapon – ($40,000 for a 1,000 pound and $70,000 for the 2,000 pound warhead.
like many other aerospace systems, the cost of such weapons is often increases with the weight. Additional costs are involved with the integration of GPS navigation kits. Those comprise special anti-jam receivers (SASSM) that further increase the cost of otherwise off-the-shelf capability. Overall, the cost of an EGBU-12, is around $40,000, compared to the past generation, $12,000 laser only baseline kit. In the past decade Raytheon has sold over two billion worth of laser guided bombs, by far its most active production line of laser guided bombs.
Boeing originally expected JDAM sales will add up to about two billion, but the conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia have increased demand, actually doubling that figure. A much smaller, yet equally precise, stand-off capable weapon is the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), sold for around $40,000 each (this price also reflects the cost of the associated SDB carriage system). Future acquisitions will not require these elements and further reduce the cost of SDB munition replenishment acquisitions.
Operational with the French Air Force, and French Naval Aviation, AASM was first deployed in Afghanistan with the French Rafale in 2008. The baseline AASM kit comprises of the INS/GPS guidance system, designed for standard 250 kg (500 pounds) bombs. The AASM family will eventually include 125, 500 and 1,000 kg (250, 1000, and 2000 pounds) versions. Since the French forces have received only the initial deliveries of 3,500 weapons ordered, chances are that the used inventory could be replenished by extending current production runs. It is assumed that new weapons could be delivered at considerably lower costs than the original ones, as the manufacturer has stepped up the learning curve. Nevertheless, the cost of a basic AASM is still expected to ship at around $300,000 apiece (€200,000).
JackonickoThis isn’t ‘direct from Parliament’, it was a written submission by the Phoenix Think Tank, who are a pro-Carrier pressure group who have an agenda, and who have a long track record of trying to undermine the RAF and land-based aviation in general, and the Typhoon in particular, and of talking up sea-based air power, and of Harrier and Apache in particular.
If you look at the list of names, all are Royal Navy, or Navy advocates. They have not got a single representative whose career is or was based primarily on air power rather than sea power.
It is packed with spurious and frankly dodgy figures and calculations.
This is only to be expected, when you see that the second name on the list is Nigel ‘Sharky’ Ward, the bearded bull****ter himself.
Had they been French, they’d have been just as scathing about Rafale B/C, while highlighting the achievements of Rafale M and SEM.
Posting this here is clearly trolling. You’re either being disingenuous and are being deliberately selective, or you’re ignorant as to the true nature of ‘written evidence’, and of the ‘Phoenix Think Tank’.
JackonickoI believe a little reminder is needed , a sort of “taps on top of the head” (Benny Hill style )
Not least for you, clearly.
No-one is comparing LGBs (cheap) and dual mode weapons (flexible) with AASM (expensive).
No-one is suggesting that Typhoon is superior to Rafale in air-to-ground ‘across the piste’, only that in one particular area, it currently enjoys an advantage.
“It is now also capable to hit a fast moving target with close proximity laser designation (from ground Operatives).”
The SBU-54 version is capable of that, but it isn’t yet in service. And it still costs multiples of the cost of an EPWII or a Paveway IV.
And if you want to hit a column of low value vehicles, which may or may not be moving, at night, or in poor weather, or simply without having to worry about target obscuration when the first bomb goes off, filling the target area with debris, smoke, or dust, then GBU-12 is not the right weapon, as there’s a strong likelihood that you’re not going to be able to hit all of the required DMPIs.
AASM is not the right weapon, either. It’s too expensive, and IN/GPS is not necessarily the right guidance system. You may need laser (if the targets are moving, or if you need to ‘walk a weapon off’ after release.
Now when Rafale gets SBU-54, Rafale will have a capability against this kind of target (albeit using a very much more expensive weapon, and albeit without having a helmet, and while relying on a less good laser designator), and when GBU-49 is in service it will have a similarly (albeit inferior) cheap weapon, though it still won’t have a helmet, and will still be relying on Damocles.
Rafale will still be a very much more flexible and versatile air-to-ground aircraft than Typhoon, with capabilities that Typhoon won’t have for a minimum of three years, but in this one area, Typhoon has an edge.
Jackonicko“………the RAF and other air forces showed a preference for GPS guided weapons, but that doesn’t mean laser-guided weapons were less relevant (unless either of you can provide us with clear intel on that subject).”
They were less relevant in Libya. In many cases, dust and debris prevented the use of laser guided weapons. Many operators also faced a shortage of LDPs.
I was amused to see that the first thing the French groundcrew wanted to do at Coningsby was to take each other’s photos in front of a Typhoon.
The aircraft are here for 3’s Centennial Celebrations and there will be no flying together, and no mutual flying, before the Rafales return home on Monday.
JackonickoH-K,
Sounds as though the Gladiator pilots have gone blubbing to mummy because they don’t like the biplane bashing…..
Which is amusing, if massively hypocritical.
JackonickoMy provisional notes on F3. Comments and corrections gratefully received.
F3 Standard
The F3 standard (sometimes also called Tranche 3) is the OMNI-ROLE standard for the Rafale, bringing the aircraft up to full multirole operational capability, with the implementation of all planned modes for the RBE2 radar, and adding AASM capability, ASMP or ASMP-A (Air-Sol Moyenne Portée Amelioré), anti-ship attack capability with the Exocet or ANF; and reconnaissance with the Reco NG pod.
The F3 standard was originally expected to have featured the Gerfaut helmet-mounted display, DVI and support for an improved tanker pack. These were cancelled on cost grounds as was an anticipated engine upgrade to 88.3 kN (19,840 lb st).
For the same reason F3 Rafales ordered from 2004 do not have DDM self-defence systems or OSF sensors. Qualification of F3 achieved July 2008,
Development of the F3 was authorised on 18 February 2004 (after an initial, risk mitigation phase, launched January 2003), and 59 new build aircraft were ordered on 6th December 2004 (36 Rafale C C109-C144, 11 Rafale B B328-B338, and 12 Rafale M M27-M38) while all surviving F2s were expected to be upgraded to broadly the same standard.
Funding of the ‘road map’/F3 O4T was once expected to have led to a reduction of eight Rafale F3-Os (how many of which type?), decreasing the total from 59 to 51. But this seems not to have happened.
The type was introduced in July 2008, and Air Force deliveries started in September 2008, following type qualification in July 2008.
B306 was the first F2 to be redelivered to F3 Standard in September 2008.
Rafale B B328 was first production F3, and was delivered in September 2008. 11 F3s? or F3 Rafale Bs? had been delivered by July 2009. The first F3 standard Rafale M was M27, delivered on 2 July 2009 to the CEPA trials unit at Mont-de-Marsan.
One source (Scorpion) suggests that the first new-build batch 3 F3 was delivered in July 2009 (25th?) which seems to contradict the September date for B328, but which would support the contention that the initial examples of the F3 were originally built as batch 2s.
The order for new F3 standard aircraft allowed the establishment of the second frontline Rafale squadron at St Dizier. EC 1/91 ‘Gascogne’ formally stood up on 31 March 2009 as, having started to receive F3 versions of the Rafale B from September 2008 onwards (eg 328 113-IC) and then working up in the air defence and strike/attack roles.
When was the F2>F3 conversion programme completed?
The new-build aircraft were designated F3-O (obsolescence) and were delivered with no OSF (neither TV nor IR), while the upgraded F2 aircraft were simply designated Standard F3.
Like the F2, the F3 was delivered in two sub-standards, with an initial, interim standard followed by a standard with expanded capabilities.
The interim F3.1 gained its type qualification in July 2008.
Scorpion suggests that the F3.1 had a new MDPU (with 4 times the processing speed and memory) but my information was that this came in with the F.2. PK indication was now provided. (How? By what?)
Scorpion suggests that the F.2 gained upgraded SPECTRA, extended MIDS functionality, and a digital integration of IR MICA.
The RBE2 radar now had a terrain following capability (Automatic? Hands off?) and TA, SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar), and SEA modes.
The F2.1 was said to be compatible with the ASMP-A nuclear cruise missile, though this was not declared operational with EC 1/91 until 1 July 2010 (eg F3.2 timescales).
The OSF (fitted to the ex F2 aircraft and ‘swappable’ to the F3s that were built without) had a SEA?? Mode?
The F3.2 standard was qualified in March 2010. It is unclear what the F3.2 featured when it entered service.
Subsequently, the F3 gained Reco NG (in the Autum of 2010), Damocles (in early 2011 – just in time for operation Harmattan in Libya), new radios (from 2011), GBU-24 LGB capability (2011/2012), SBU-64, and AM39 Exocet (clearance 2012).
The DGA initially ordered nine Thales Damocles pods for delivery to the Air Force in 2010, particularly to equip the Rafale. This was later raised to 20 pods for the air force (12) and the navy (8), to be delivered by the end of 2012. Two were ordered by the DGA in 2009, six in 2010, six in 2011, and six in 2012. Ten had been delivered by ????? 2011.
Some F3s will gain DDM-NG (from 2011).
Scorpion listed some planned additions for an ‘F3.3’ upgrade, including MODE 5 IFF and GBU-49.
He also included an upgraded MIDS (with increased data transfer rate) – this is part of F3O4T, internal ROVER III – this is also part of F3O4T, Damocles XF (adding a sharper TV channel to the current IR channel for better identification in urban areas) though this will not be introduced in 2016, and again is part of F3O4T.
The Navy’s Rafale F1s are being retrofitted to F3 standard at Dassault’s Bordeaux-Mérignac plant, taking spaces on the F3O4T production line. The first two aircraft (M10 and M9) will be redelivered in 2014, then three more in 2015 and four in 2016.
It is said that Rafale F1 M1 will be the last one to be retrofitted, to be delivered in 2017, but I thought that this aircraft had already been converted to F3 standards for test duties?
known changes for the “definitive” F3 variant included the cancellation of DVI and HMD (Gerfaut being selected over the TopSight-E) due to cost considerations and changing priorities (funding of the RBE2AA AESA, DDM-NG, OSF-IT) and the cancellation of some weapons (AS.30L in particular), ANF (proposed but ultimately cancelled successor of the AM39 Exocet) and the Apache has not be integrated on the Rafale yet (it might be once the M2k-D is withdrawn from service). Other new weapons were developed and integrated however, the AASM in particular.
JackonickoThe BAe Lightning is the British MiG-21
much smaller frontal silhouette and rcs. not as flat as the JF-17 and could super cruise! also its nose is a giant DSI duct! its a flying super cruising dsi!there are still many British people who are upset at its retirement 😮
Jackonicko for example loses lots of sleep over the retirement of the Lightning.
No, I don’t.
JackonickoYou talk about complementarity as an argument. But this is a forced complementarity as the typhoon and tornado lacked some capabilities that the other aircraft of the pair has.
So you are in fact twisting the truth here. You won’t see an F15E, a SH or a rafale (since libya) acting in complementarity for a strike mission.
But we have seen Rafale and Mirage 2000 working together, and Rafale and SEM. Tornado/Typhoon mixed pairs worked well, and were equal to more than the sum of their parts. As Typhoon gains more weapons capabilities, such co-operation will become less necessary.
As it is, as of now, Typhoon has a better LDP than Rafale (and more experience of using LDPs), a helmet (you keep failing to address this major lack in Rafale), a cheap PWII LGB capability, and a cheap dual mode weapon IN SERVICE right now, with PWIV round the corner.
with no weather issue and very limited anti-air threat after initial strikes the GBU-12 was entirely appropriate and cheaper to use.
No, it wasn’t. Dual mode was more appropriate. It’s not just about weather, it’s about target obscuration through dust, smoke and debris – important if you’re hitting multiple DMPIs relatively close together. The RAF had the choice of using pure LGBs and dual mode, and chose to use dual mode more of the time, and moreover when it did use dual mode, tended to use GAINS.
GPS-guided AASM does the job, but at massive cost.
to conclude : with Scalp, AASM, gbu-12, gbu-22, gbu-24 the rafale was already more flexible than the typhoon in Libya
True. But not necessarily more useful, nor more effective.
with its too big bombs albeit dual mode.
The too big bombs thing is an irrelevance. Where they needed less Net Explosive Effect they just used part-filled or inert warheads.
Now with the GBU-49 the rafale will have a cheap all weather weapon as well so the lead remain. Any difference in capability between the latter and the paveway IV are too marginal to make a significant difference on the bettlefield.
That’s your opinion. The wider choice of impact angles and attack directions is, however, more than a marginal difference. And Typhoon also offers a better LDP and a helmet. If dropping cheap PGMs is the task at hand, Typhoon offers advantages over Rafale. That doesn’t make it a better air-to-ground platform overall, nor a more flexible one, but it is an advantage in this one narrow area.
JackonickoIt is sad but so true, that the only advantage the Typhoon fans can claim for this aircraft, seems to be the integration of an US made and designed weapon.
Except that PWIV is a product of Raytheon UK……
JackonickoBlue Apple,
Notice how the so-called Paveway IV use the same navigation module, same GPS-receiver and the same airfoil than an EPWII Lot 3 (minus the minor modification due to the AURORA fuse unusual dimensions).
But it’s not like the topic hasn’t been discussed before. It’s not the first time Jackonicko comes with his fairy tale of PW-IV being a wonder weapon way ahead of anything else only to get corrected.
And yet Raytheon claim capabilities for PWIV which it does not claim for GBU-49
Sign In
