Snow Monkeyfhe mentions that states the overall share of composites in T-50 structure is stated as atleast 40 % according to VIAM and 25 % by Sukhoi.
What is the actual composite percentage who is right VIAM or Sukhoi ?
By weight or volume? Comparing those numbers is pointless without that info.
Snow MonkeyThere is talk of EADS being compensated for lower EF orders via other business, possibly including it´s Talarion UAV*.
Of course, EADS is only half(ish) of EF, so Finmeccanica and BAE would also need similar compensation if that happens.
Similar ´replacement orders´ were used by the UK with the Saudi deal, without any subsidizing by the partners.
If anything, I just see a similar deal: Indian orders sufficing for the moment, the core partners still going ahead with planned EF purchase, just at some time in the future. Tornados will eventually be retired, and EF can fill that gap, possibly displacing SOME of the originally planned F-35s for UK/Italy.
* I think EADS´ fixation on Talarion is stupid, they insist on pushing a product in the exact same segment as BAE/Dassault´s Telemos (which seems to match operational requirements better than Talarion) rather than investing in new productive areas… Lighter-than-Air AEW&C/Ground Surveillance UAV? Heavy Lift Helo? The future is wide open, but they feel like they have to match BAE/Dassault 1:1.
If this is the only way EADS´ Talarion can be funded, I don´t see why BAE would be on board this plan in all honesty.
Besides that I am not thrilled with helping arm the Ottomans, who have continually been threatening war against Greece, and now Cyprus, not to mention their blockade of Armenia and issues with genocide denial.
Snow MonkeyAccording to the FT this morning, an Indian MoD official has informed them that the defence ministry revised up its initial $11bn estimate after reviewing bids from the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium and France’s Dassault, to $20bn.
Allez Eurofighter!!
What are you saying? EF can´t win L1, but will be chosen for other reasons, not causing too much problems as long as it comes in under the base-line?
Snow MonkeyThe military may want Rafale but I suspect they’ll get Gripen NG instead. Mind you if they wait too many more years the latter option will simply disappear…
It´s not just the military… Parliament went ahead and directly mandated that the new jet purchase go ahead, with a budget that isn´t problematic for Rafale, though Rafale seems to have a price advantage over Eurofighter. Personally, I´m pretty much a Rafale fan (both of the plane and how the program was managed) but I honestly can´t see why Gripen NG isn´t more than enough plane for the Swiss… But by all signs, they´ve decided they want the full package Rafale offers. I don´t know if that is because they really want a heavy capability for some reason, or there is back-room strings being pulled by interests such as RUAG, but Rafale looks to be in quite good as far as this goes.
Snow MonkeyPerhaps this is related to building up Typhoon pilot skill-set in A2G role?
Snow Monkeyit doesn´t contradict anything… there is no such thing as one number RCS.
you can have AVERAGE RCS. you can have FRONTAL RCS. americans tend to use the latter because it is impressive. I would say average is more meaningful IF you are only going to look at one number, but it doesn´t matter: the point is you need to compare apples to apples.
as I wrote before in this very thread, it is obvious that russian sources can tend to speak of ´raw´ RCS without RAM and such accounted for… if you account for the difference between average and frontal RCS and inclusion/exclusion of RAM, etc, then the disparity of figures is not utterly unexplainable. This is on top of these sources obviously not dealing with exact numbers, nor having complete access to the platform used for comparison.
Snow MonkeyI would say it would like India´s planned AMCA 🙂 considering they are planning to use the GTRE-Snecma Son-of-Kaveria that is swappable for M88 engines, just with more planned power than any of the above engines. But it doesn´t seem like Korea is interested in that scale of a project, though it seems their project will be in production before AMCA.
Snow MonkeySo Eurofighter is smoking crack when they talk about offering partner status?
No, that’s a real offer. All the current partner governments would love it to happen, so Eurofighter GMBH is free to negotiate, though it has to get political approval for any offers, & the final say would rest with the partners.
Exactly, so it would appear the Eurofighter Partner Group and Rafale fanboy myth-pushers are on the same page…
If India purchased Typhoon they would NOT be dealing with four individual countries! This is a myth that is constantly perpetuated by the Rafale fanboy brigade! Just like with the Rafale and its manufacturer Dassault, India if it purchased the Typhoon would be dealing with its manufacturer Eurofighter GMBH. That it is a multinational company has no bearing on the relationship that would be had with the Indian airforce. The contract is WITH THE COMPANY not the partner nations or sub contractors just the same as with Rafale.
I´m not aware anybody has ever claimed that India would not sign a contract with Eurofighter GmBH.
But Eurofighter, supported by the partner countries, is explicitly offering partner status.
That means a relationship with all the other partners. Now what India would choose to pursue thru that format is an open question, and I expect that the majority of it´s needs would in fact be met thru unilateral contracts with Eurofighter (as any partner´s specific needs may be met), but the whole idea of Eurofighter hyping the benefits of ´full partners status´ implies that Eurofighter believes there would be benefits to working thru the partner format… And thus, India WOULD indeed be dealing with all the partners, presumably in areas that it would pursue unilaterally with France with Rafale. Like I said, I don´t really see that difference as having any effect on MMRCA.
Snow MonkeyWhy Germany with India given the past deals and history would the Brits not have been in a better position to negotiate ?
BAE fronting the Eurofighter bid to India may have some baggage that wouldn´t be helpful, given blacklisting, etc.
Framing it in terms of ¨UK vs. France¨ may also have been seen as less useful than ¨partnership with EUROPE vs. just France¨.
Snow MonkeySo Eurofighter is smoking crack when they talk about offering partner status?
Anyways, both offers have been judged as qualifying, and the differing arrangements each has is obvious from the start, so I don´t think that´s an issue here.
Snow MonkeySure, I but when the Korean Air Force is now saying that external stores is A-OK, I take that as an opinion on the strength of NK SAM´s… I think NK operate some S-300, but not PMU-1 or 2 So I would guess that South Korea either considers the proposed designs capable of operating amidst those SAMs (at high altitude, etc) or that the more capable SAMs can be taken out by either other platforms or this fighter itself…? Otherwise the program has no operational value, in which case why waste money on 2 engines?
Is there any info if DIRCM is intended for this program?
Snow Monkey´INDIA´ is not considering CTOL capabilities within the scope of MMRCA.
Many aspects (very long timescale for maintenance costs, intregation commonality between Rafale/M2k upgrade, Snecma-GTRE engine upgrade being separately paid for) do seem to favor Rafale IMHO. But as I mentioned, Rafale would be abrogating it´s responsibility to share-holders if it didn´t try to exploit a purpoted huge gap in total costs in order to swing a higher profit margin that Eurofighter is aiming for… And that opens it up to critical misjudgements.
...Have they decided yet? (kids in the back of the car voice)
It would be interesting if the difference is enough to decide ´in one day´. I´m not expecting that though.
Snow MonkeyI also. Regardless, whether or not RBE2AESA has 1-way or 2-way capability,
the issue is whether or not there is a physically distinct Meteor version for Rafale or not.
France has already ordered Meteor to my knowledge, and if there is a different datalink in Meteor that shouldn´t be secret or something.
And IF there is distinct version of Meteor for RBE2-PESA, whether that is also true for the AESA set that is relevant for MMRCA.
Snow MonkeySign, could you provide a SOURCE that there is two versions of Meteor with different physical datalinks?
That´s kind of what the issue comes down to.
——————————————————–
With 40 year maintenance and operation costs included, and assuming Rafale has lower costs on those based on stuff coming from Switzerland and Brazil (besides France and EF partners), I can see why Dassault may be confident. …Of course, over-confidence can come back to bite you in the ass.
The ´miscalculation of Dassault re: M2K upgrade´ involved stretching out the negotiations to clarify the exact synergy between the upgraded M2K´s and a potential Rafale MMRCA… Given the ´outrageous´ price on the upgrade (although it dropped hugely vs. original all-French sourced plan) and that the upgrade wasn´t particularly competitive while MMRCA certainly is, it seems reasonable that Rafale plans to apply the synergy savings to the MMRCA bid and not the M2K upgrade. Besides French weapons, I assume that the M2K upgrade will also include integrating a good number of other weapons used by IAF. Since the M2k upgrade uses the avionics computer architecture common to Rafale, I would guess that Rafale would gain the benefit of having non-physical integration for ALL of those weapons already 99% complete.
Re: the concept of using imagined costs for imaginary upgrades as part of the life-cylce cost comparison (which I´ve never seen supported by actual sources… i´m open to being enlightened), it seems that Rafale being compatable with the already funded Snecma-GTRE Son-of-Kaveri engine would give it an advantage re: costs for an upgrade including new engine…
Snow MonkeyThe design actually makes me think ´LO-ish Rafale if it were designed today´.
Which is ironic, and revealing, in the context of Rafale originally best meeting South Korea´s needs (except political relationship with US and to some extent common support infrastructure accounting for joint Korean-US wartime command).
South Korea doesn´t NEED ´air dominance´. North Korea´s air-force is a joke. NK air-defence isn´t exactly top-notch either.
I don´t really see the need for either F-22 or even F-35 level RCS in that context.
If opposing air-force isn´t a major threat, I think the issue of vertical vs. canted twin tails is less relevant vs. ground radar. :confused:
I´d think that at least using a Eurofighter-style ´semi-recessed´ AAM carriage would be a decent idea though: why not?
All I can say is, good thing for Rafalethat it looks likea bevy or orders finally lining up, before this can be ready 🙂
EDIT: I agree with the poster noting that ´grabbing the crown jewels´ of fighter engine design/production via ToT from RR will be quite the step for Korea.
Sign In
