JackonickoYou do need to say more, GlobalPress, if you want to try to show that BAE is as ‘dirty’ as Dassault.
You could start by listing one conviction of BAE for bribery.
JackonickoIt’s easy to get suckered into the physical sizes of the two contenders, but the important thing to remember is that the bigger Airbus has some of the advantages that you’d intuitively expect from a smaller aircraft.
The A330 can operate from an airfield with a shorter balanced field length (with it’s full fuel load) than the KC-767 can.
That’s right, the ‘small’ KC-767A needs a longer runway than is required by the ‘big’ A330 to take-off with full fuel (91.8 tonnes for the 767, 111 tonnes for the A330). This means that the ‘small’ KC-767 won’t be able to operate from a 9,000 ft runway WITH FULL FUEL, whereas a ‘big’ KC-30 will.
That means that the ‘big’ A330 is more likely to be able to use forward airfields closer to the action, if required, and closer to the towline, and will do so carrying full fuel. The ‘small’ KC-767 has less basing flexibility.
The practical implications are huge. When limited to a 10,000ft balanced field at sea level (assuming ISA standard conditions and still wind), on a four hour sortie (landing with the equivalent of another hours flight time as a reserve) the KC-767A can carry just 77 tonnes, and will have just 50,000 kg of fuel to give away. The A330 will have 82,500 kg.
Interestingly, even the standard A310MRTT would have 45,500 kg to give away – or 51,200 kg with a fifth ACT. Oops! So even an A310 could give away more than a 767!
Not only is the KC-767 not as good as a 330, but it’s third best, behind the A310 as well!
And this is a tanker base like Brize, Mildenhall or Fairford – exactly the kind of real world bases real world tankers actually use.
Alternatively, the RAF looked at how much fuel would be available to offload during a 90 minute AAR task, one hour’s flying from the tanker base, landing with the equivalent of an hour’s fuel as reserves for diversion.
With four ACTs, the A310 MRTT had 47 tonnes to give away – 1.7 tonnes (less than 5%) less than the KC-767. With a fifth ACT, though, the A310 was much better (by about five tonnes, or by more than 10%).
By comparison, the A330 MRTT had 84 tonnes to give away.
The figures were:
A330MRTT: 84.0 tonnes
B767: 48.7 tonnes
VC10K3: 47.3 tonnes
A310MRTT (4 ACTs): 47.0 tonnes
A400M with 2 cargo bay tanks: 41.0 tonnes
VC10K4 or C1K: 36.3 tonnes
And just for the historians:
Victor K2: 33.9 tonnes
And it’s worse for the 777, which needs even more runway than the 767. Boeing don’t have an aircraft that can lift a decent fuel load from a standard tanker base runway.
JackonickoCola,
There’s no doubt that Rafale and Typhoon can wipe the floor with the teen series when it comes to airshow appearances. Indeed only the vectoring Russians can give a more impressive show.
I would never, ever, rate Super Hornet or F-16 as being a better or more agile aircraft than either Rafale or Typhoon.
But at Paris this year, they gave better, more exciting displays, and looked more agile. The Super Hornet’s max g pull up and max negative pushover was astonishing, for example.
Hats off to you if you think that you can accurately calculate g from a video…… I know that I can’t.
TMor,
Don’t throw teddy out of the cot, mate. People challenge nonsense, and sometimes they challenge facts when they find them unpalateable. Sometimes they even stoop to rudeness and insult.
I hadn’t even thought about number of landings – it’s not a parameter I have for Typhoon, Gripen, or any non-naval aircraft. I did ask about the maximum number of arrested carrier landings for Rafale M, though…… on my mythical phone :rolleyes: It will make an interesting comparison with Super Hornet, n’est ce que pas?
JackonickoCola,
Good answer.
There’s an element of that, I’m sure. But it’s not just that we’re comparing Rafale with Super Bug and -16, it seemed tame in comparison with previous Rafale displays.
As did the Typhoon display at Le Bourget. Now I can put my finger on what was wrong with the Typhoon display (I’ve seen more Typhoon displays), and that was the lack of HAVV rolls, the lack of really energetic pull ups, and the poorly planned display that saw the aircraft looking ‘too small in the sky, too much of the time’.
JackonickoRidiculous? Lying?
That’s a bit strong, Arthuro.
I’m just asking a simple question, and I’m increasingly amused that you won’t answer it without abuse and rudeness.
1) Many remarked on the fact that the Rafale display at Le Bourget was disappointing and ‘tame’ compared to previous Rafale displays. In fact I haven’t spoken to anyone who actually saw the trade day displays who didn’t think that the display was tame. And that wasn’t just people who are generally critical of Rafale. (And to be fair, people agreed with me that the Typhoon display was poor, too).
2) The general comment was that the Rafale routine didn’t look aggressive and tight like the F/A-18 and F-16 displays.
3) You point to a Dassault video and associated pilot commentary aiming to show that the display included a dozen 9 g turns.
Yet when I observed that: “at Le Bourget in 2009, the Rafale flying display was decidedly unimpressive, and failed to show what the aircraft can do”, you yourself said “I already reckognized that this wasn’t the best rafale dispaly. I already agreed with you on this point.”
I wonder why now you’re arguing the point so tenaciously.
If the pilot’s description on the video matched the two displays that I saw (and if it matched the YouTube vids), I think I’d have been more impressed. I don’t think others would have been left so disappointed.
So why is that? Either there was some kind of trick of the light, and the display was just as hard core as that of the Super Hornet and we just judged it unduly harshly, or it was a less aggressive display.
If we judged it harshly, I wonder why? Does the Rafale look more ‘effortless’ when turning hard? Or are all those who thought that this wasn’t the best Rafale display just stupid?
Can you answer without hysterics, rudeness and abuse?
JackonickoThat’s the man.
But of course having been caught and punished, he’d learned his lesson……….
JackonickoI’m not being aggressive or rude about this. I’m genuinely puzzled that a display that looked tame to me and many others is being claimed as having had a succession of 9 g turns. It really didn’t look that way at Le Bourget, where Rafale failed to outshine aircraft that it has out-performed at airshows previously.
JackonickoExplain then. Why have so many people remarked on how tame the Rafale display was? Were we all watching a display full of 9g turns and suffered some mass hallucination?
Why did the 9g F-16 and F/A-18 displays look tighter and punchier?
If anything is ridiculous, it is your refusal to answer the question. If the Le Bourget Rafale display was everything described in the Dassault video, why were so many of us left feeling so underwhelmed by it?
What day was that Dassault video filmed, I wonder? Was it a public or trade day display, or a practise/rehearsal? Or elements from several displays?
It looked tighter than those I saw, and tighter than the other videos.
And I know full well that I disagree with TMor, and never thought that my conclusion matched his exactly (perish the thought!). His insistence that 8g is a physiological aeromedical limit and not an airframe related limit is wrong.
If you’re sceptical, fine. Your judgement is clouded by your desire to protect Rafale from all attacks, real or imagined. And on this, I’m not attacking, just stating a mix of opinion, fact and background information.
JackonickoLoke,
9g is no real problem with standard EAGS. Even the Red Arrows go to 9g.
An inclined seat does help g tolerance – but it doesn’t give an extra 2 g. We went through all of this when the F-16 arrived on the scene (and the F-16 seat is inclined even more steeply than Rafales, and with a higher heel position. (30° for the F-16 versus 28-29° for Rafale)
Arthuro,
I care not whether TMor or you are ‘on my side’.
Short of being in the cockpit, or looking at the G meter afterwards, it’s impossible to say with certainty what g was being pulled at Le Bourget. It didn’t look like an aggressive, high g display to me, however, and it looked a bit tame to me, and to others. Had it been a succession of 9 g turns it would have had more of a wow factor, in my opinion.
Unless you have an alternative explanation?
I don’t care whether or not you believe that the Rafale service limit is 8 g, and that 100FI is equal to 7,000 hours at planned usage. If it’s important to you, then you can call your own sources at Dassault and the Armee de l’Air as I did.
I don’t have a French aeromedical source, but UK aeromedical sources tell me that they’re pretty certain that 8 g is NOT an aeromedical limitation in France (they share papers, do joint research, attend the same conferences) – and pointed out that Alpha Jet and Mirage 2000 pilots are allowed to (or have been allowed to) go to 9 g at different times. Moreover it would be most unusual if French pilots were more cosseted in their exposure to g than their Dutch, Belgian, German, Italian, Spanish and UK colleagues – all of whom routinely go to 9 g.
JackonickoFlex,
I should have provided examples of French bribery and corruption earlier?
I did, dear boy, I did!
Go back and read the thread – some examples were given at reply 13:
“In March 2002, for example, Dassault Aviation was accused of corruption involving the South Korean fighter jet contract. The company denied bribing a South Korean air force colonel to improve its chances of winning the deal to build 40 aircraft. Newspapers in Seoul linked Dassault to a Won11m ($8,300) sweetener allegedly paid to the colonel in return for advice about the bidding process. In 1995, Dassault Aviation, agreed to pay Asif Zardari (Benazir Bhutto’s husband) and a Pakistani partner a $200 million commission for a $4 billion jet fighter deal that fell apart only when Bhutto’s government was dismissed. Willy Claes, the former secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was sentanced to a three-year suspended prison term Wednesday for corruption.
The court also convicted Serge Dassault, head of the Dassault Aviation company, for paying a bribe to obtain a contract to re-equip Belgian Air Force F-16 fighters with new electronics. It sentenced him to a two-year prison sentence, but suspended it.).”
But here are a few more…..
There were allegations that Dassault offered bribes to Air Chief Marshal Abbas Khattak to try to gain an M2K order from Pakistan in 1997.
There have even been allegations of corruption surrounding Mirage 2000 development plan itself, with Pierre Messmer remarking that, although Dassault may not have bribed prominent members of the Air Force, influence was exercised by giving financially rewarding posts at Dassault to retiring officers.
Going back further, there were allegations of bribery in the Netherlands in the mid 70s (Mirage F1-M53), and surrounding many of the Mirage III orders.
But mere unproven allegations, far back in history, really aren’t relevant. That’s what I say about Al Yamamah, so that’s what I say about the unproven elements in Dassault’s murky past. I’m more interested in the proven instances.
JackonickoNo-one doubts that Rafale can sustain 9 g – indeed many of us have seen it do so, and at previous Paris shows.
However, I remain unconvinced that I saw it much at Le Bourget this year.
And after a few phone calls, I’m now quite confident that TMor is correct. The service g limit is 8, and the service life is planned at 7,000 hours. The service limit is set as it is to ensure that the structural life is achieved. The limit would be different on operations.
As to G-LOC (G-induced loss of consciousness) the phrase has come to mean a sudden and rapid loss of consciousness (with the pilot passing from full consciousness to complete unconsciousness with no warning visual symptoms) – and this does tend to be associated with rapid onset of g. The phenomenon came to prominence following the two F-20 crashes, where G-LOC was suspected.
A human being will eventually lose consciousness when G is applied more progressively, too, with the classic progression from:
grey out loss of colour vision, perceived dimming of light level>tunnel vision loss of peripheral vision>black out loss of all vision, but pilot still conscious>unconscious (>>>>dead!)
TMor,
French MoD initial design specifications for the
Rafale are 5,000 flying hours/3,000 landings with
a severe usage spectrum, but studies have shown
that the expected economical life (that is without any
major structure component replacement) is 7,000
hours and 5,300 landings.
5,300 or 3,500?
Jackonicko“this 7000h for 8g limit is your own conclusion.”
What’s your conclusion, then?
What other conclusion is there?
JackonickoGlitter,
LEt’s make a deal.
I already recognize that Dassault bribed in Belgium, why do you have any difficulties to recognize that BAE bribe in Saudi Arabia ?
Of course you recognise that Dassault bribed in Belgium. Dassault were found guilty of doing so, and their CEO was sentenced to jail for doing so. They were GUILTY as hell.
By contrast, the official judgement concluded that: “BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence. It is unfortunate that no time was taken to adopt the suggestion (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney’s reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence.” They were proven INNOCENT.
(and BAE were a sub, doing HMG’s bidding, and the payments were of Saudi money, to a Saudi Minister, via Saudi MODA accounts).
Why would I make a deal under which you’d agree to recognise the truth – that black is black (Dassault are guilty of corruption) while I have to recognise a lie – that white is black (and deny that BAE are innocent)?
Arthuro,
“Are the journalists all wrong then ?
Saying otherwise and challenge their report needs some work as this is really a quality investigative report.”
Yes they’re wrong. And no, it’s not a ‘quality investigative report’, it’s a shabby re-hashing of the Guardian’s shoddy bit of unfounded and lazy, dishonest muck-raking. You’re not stupid, Arthuro, go back and read my reply No.13 (on page 1) and read it with an open mind, and without the tiresome “must kick Typhoon” spectacles.
I get it that you blokes want it to be true, that you are desperate to read anything that undermines Typhoon, but you really need to move on from this unfounded and desperate nonsense. It just makes you look like bad sports and poor losers.
JackonickoYou won’t speculate? :rolleyes:
TMor’s figures tie in with mine – he thought 7,000 hours with an 8 g service limit, the AdlA had previously said 6,000 hours with an 8.5 g limit.
Nothing suggests a serious issue or problem, whichever set of figures is correct.
Jackonicko“I must say than I honestly doubt that a navalized design aicraft able to carry more ordinnace than its weight would have structural issues overpassing 9G or more in a clean or near clean config…”
It’s still a black art, Arthuro, and even today, you’d want to be sure that your structures people had kept their fingers crossed when designing your aircraft.
Only this week, we learn that after hurling thousands of hours at structural design, Boeing messed up on the 787 fuselage, and have had to delay the first flight.
That’s why you run thousands of hours of fatigue testing and structural load testing, and apply a scatter factor to any results. You need your static load test to survive many times the planned ultimate load factor, and for the fatigue test airframe to go to thousands of hours beyond the planned life.
Look at the Buccaneer. Built like a brick outhouse, and with no structural issues when flying at VERY low level overwater, pulling very high g and while carrying very heavy loads.
But switch to overland operations and the aircraft suffered catastrophic fatigue issues.
Every aircraft always has structural issues – you just have to hope that they’re minor and fixable cheaply, and don’t have too much effect on life.
Typhoon had the fin skins…..
Sign In
