No one has ever done a “successful carrier aircraft” from a “terrestrial aircraft” “the first time” they tried….

Dassault? Etendard.
De Havilland? Sea Hornet (from Hornet). (Then Venom from Sea Venom the first time they tried it from a Jet).
Hawker? Nimrod (from Fury).
MiG? MiG-29K.
North American? FJ-2 (from Sabre).
Sukhoi? Su-27K.
Supermarine? Seafire (from Spitfire).

Well it’s difficult to get an export price ‘paid by a customer’ for Rafale, as none have been exported.

We know that the unit flyaway for Austria was €62 m (though that’s some time ago) and that the Tranche 2 global unit production cost was €55.08 m.

(We know that the actual flyaway cost for an RAF Tranche 2 Typhoon is £37.76 m.

We know that the Tranche Two global contract was was “worth €13 Bn” for al 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the €/£ rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m.

The T2 Unit Production Price is often quoted higher (usually £42 m) because the wrong €/£ conversion ratio is used.

You’d need to add the cost of UK national programmes (I can’t think of any for Tranche 2!) to that figure.)

If you prefer programme prices, then we can take the last official estimated UK programme price (£19 Bn), add 10% for cost growth (£21 Bn, rounded up) and divide it by the then-planned number. That’s £90 m, including VAT.

It’s no longer clear that Rafale is significantly cheaper (to export customers) than Typhoon…..

Bien qu’ils soient tous les idiots, une partie de l’anglais peut réellement lire le français et comprendre ce que nous écrivons, en dépit de leur stupidité innée.

Et bientôt un sera le long pour préciser qu’il est ignorant et grossier pour écrire les messages idiots en français sur un tableau d’affichage d’anglais. Nous sommes défaits! Quel barbe!

Bientôt les gens se rendront compte que nous ne sommes rien mais les br**leurs enfantins…….. 😮

@Nic.

No, I’m not absolutely sure.

But B301 was sent to Singapore for evaluation in ’04, and that aircraft had been fitted with DRAA in ’03. It may have been removed and replaced by a standard radar for the Singapore evaluation, but I thought I remembered a Singapore pilot telling me that he’d played with Rafale’s AESA offering.

He may have done so in France, of course.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=239563

I believe that I remember that he said that he liked the radar, and was impressed by it.

I don’t know where to lay my hands on the right notebook……

Arthuro,

“At least the dutch eval was done by an independent country and is way more recent.”

The Dutch CPB study was published in October 2001 and updated in March 2002.

The Singapore evaluation was in 2004.

Way more recent?

And the Dutch evaluation was financial and industrial, involved no actual physical assessment of the aircraft, and did not even involve getting data and information from Dassault and EF GmbH.

The Singapore evaluation was an exhaustive evaluation of the actual aircraft, in country and at the factory airfields.

Of course Rafale has a wider spectrum of roles – it was designed as a multi role aircraft, optimized for air-to-ground and carrier ops.

But to claim that that makes it superior is like claiming that the Blenheim (bomber/fighter/night fighter/recce) was superior to the Spitfire.

More useful for Colonial Policing, perhaps, but in a real shooting war.

Typhoon lacks Rafale’s stand off capabilities with Scalp and AASM, but will gain them with Storm Shadow and Brimstone. Rafale lacks Typhoon’s autonomous PGM capabilities and time-sensitive and moving target capabilities with Litening and PW/EPW. It will gain them.

These claims of a ten year gap in development are over-inflated and exaggerated. P1E is less than two years away, and will bring full (non-austere) A-G capabilities, including Paveway IV. P2E (or whatever it’s now called) will bring about initial Stormshadow standoff missile capabilities in 2015.

You could ask yourself is which set of capabilities is more relevant – this year with Iraq and Afghanistan, Litening and EPW would probably be the most relevant. In 2012 it may well be Scalp and AASM. By 2015 the question itself is moot as both aircraft will have broadly equivalent capabilities. And we may be fighting a national campaign where A-A capabilities are vital.

I believe that Rafale does have an advantage in versatility and flexibility, currently, but you exaggerate that capability, and make it seem more clear cut than it is, in fact. Yes, Rafale has (or will have) nuclear capabilities that Typhoon never will (relevant only to France) and will have anti-ship and recce capabilities that Typhoon probably will not have for many years.

Typhoon has advantages, too, though you chaps never acknowledge them.

I don’t dismiss Rafale – I dismiss your exaggerated fanboy claims for Rafale.

“I am on mac now and I don’t have office for mac yet so my beautiful database is out of reach for the moment.”

You could use Open Office in the interim – which would allow you to open MS Office docs.

Sancho 78,

The Singaporean Mindef judged that Typhoon’s austere air-to-ground capability (using the Litening 3 laser designator and enhanced Paveway LGBs) fell far short of the capability required. The RSAF evaluators judged it adequate in the short/near term, especially for ‘plinking’ landing craft. Nothing is ever straightforward and simple.

“And other defense specialist (american) ackonowledge rafale performance during ATLC:”

American? It’s an interview with Michel Merluzeau. Now it may just be me, but he sounds as though he has a slight accent, and to me (and it may just be me) his name sounds slightly… um, err, how can I put this?….. well, French.

And listening to the blog, it was hardly balanced or neutral, was it? Did you listen to the bit about the ranking in the original Brazilian report, and the stuff about how easy it’s going to be to sell the UAE Mirage 2000-9s….. And there’s no potential competitor for Rafale in the UAE, he says.

And you claim to be balanced and neutral? Lord save us.

Generally:

Supercruise. Lots of people have said it couldn’t in various conditions. Others say that it can. This is interesting. I wonder what definition of supercruise people are using? Perhaps Rafale can cruise supersonically without recourse to burner but has difficulty getting past the Mach without using burner?

The HC3s have been ‘reverted’ to HC2 standard (pre-Julius) in terms of cockpit displays and avionics. Two aircraft have been completed. Work is underway on the remainder.

They retain their pointy noses (though without the associated kit) and the big tanks.

They retain the big engines (being fitted fleetwide to the HC2s alongside the Julius avionics).

Why more Chinooks and not Merlins?

Joe Public has heard of Chinook, and Ross Kemp has raved about them. In this morally bankrupt Government’s opinion, then ticking the ‘Daily Mail/Sun’ approval box is more important than military requirements.

We do probably need a few more Chinooks, but another ten (say) would have replaced attrition and bulked up the existing three-squadron force, and would still have left money for perhaps another 18-20 Merlins.

Those could have replaced the Pumas (which are too small and too underpowered to be useful, and whose upgrade does not represent value for money). The money saved on the upgrade could have bought another 12-15 Merlins.

Then all you need to do is replace Sea King 4 with new-build Merlins with folding blades and tails (like the MMI SF aircraft) and you have a balanced helicopter fleet with:

3 squadrons with c.60 Chinooks
4 squadrons with c.60 Merlins
3 Commando squadrons with c.40 marinised Merlins

plus Apache, plus Wildcat, plus Merlin HM2/ASaCs.

That’s four basic helicopter types, instead of seven at present (Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Sea King, Lynx, Apache, Gazelle). And you get rid of the Puma and Sea King, both of which are past their prime.

Any news on the breakdown between Rafale B and C in the latest 50?