Snow Monkeyarthuro has a point about the weapon systems factoring into the costs. The MICA family is an expensive series of product to maintain compared to Sidewinder and AMRAAM. That would skew the totals somewhat. Just seems to be outrageous compared to the others.
Would Braxil be forced to operate French only missiles, or will they allow for indigenous (Piranha) and 3rd party missile options?
No, Brazil would be completely free to do integration of their own/ cooperative armament programs, which they have a signifigant number of…
That’s part of the point of the tech transfer, source codes, etc. I expect Dassault/Thales would assist/consult on integration issues if requested.
Obviously, using their own(/joint) weaponry (eventually) would negate/reduce any price differential between the bidders in terms of armament costs…
If Brazil does go thru with Rafale, I could see these weapons also being picked up by other Rafale customers, France itself possibly,
but if Greece chooses Rafale (open question) I could see them appreciating some new, relatively cost-effective kit.
Snow MonkeyMay be the Russians don’t want to upset the Venezuelans.
Why would Brazil operating Su-30 upset the Venezuelans?
They would probably like the opportunity to source parts/ production from within Mercosur, and probably take the advantage to agree Venezuelan participation in Brazilian programs, e.g. Super Tucano (banned by US), missiles, Embraer civil jets. Much less having Brazil be that much more free from US/NATO dependencies.
Snow MonkeyIt seems all the talk is about making EADS pay for the cost over-run/etc.
Isn’t Europrop also at fault here, given they (MTU) were the ones who didn’t comply with civil-required auditing for FADEC? If they were on the hook as well, they may even be more motivated to find some more customers for the TP400, or a slightly modded version of it. I’ve seen RR comments on TP400’s application in civil turboprops, but it seems within the realm of possibility to fit it on Embraer’s C390. If it can be fitted as-is, that would mean 100% engine compatibility between the two planes for A400M nations, which would probably improve C390 sales prospects, besides feeding back into A400/TP400’s profitability by increasing the production scale on TP400.
Snow MonkeyIntel makes all his chips in asia, as most IT actually, it doesn’t mean Intel is chinese? or Chinese are able to design anything!
Uhhh… No.
Intel JUST finished their first fab for CHIPSETS in China (with an obsolete 90nm process). They may have PACKAGING and TEST operations in countries like Malaysia, China & Vietnam, but all of their CPU FABS are in the US/ EU/ the Zionist Entity.
Can you cut out your crap so respectful, on-topic discussion can continue?
“Wow! It’s great it’s finally flying!” can more than suffice, you know.
Snow MonkeyIRST is quite overrated, from russians to euros to US systems, all them quite overated, also is a problematic system
Either you can cue a shot from IRST or you can’t. Nobody said IRST doesn’t have limitations radar doesn’t.
The g limit claim is popular on UAVs, many people think UAVs will be always small, for a UAV fighter of the capability of a EF, you need a UAV of the EF size 🙂
Who is talking about something with the capability of a EF?
Seriously, for what OP is suggesting, I think it’s better not to use the term “fighter” at all. Note that Neuron/Taranis/X-47 aren’t throwing that term around. (I understand that the OP wasn’t originally talking about UCAV, therefore “fighter” made more sense to use. Manned/Unmanned are definitely not interchangeable though)
About AB and dry thrust, tell me what is the deal about plumes, plumes is a consequence of the exhaust velocity/temperature, that’s all, a plane supercruising will still have plumes, if don’t have them, then it engine is horrible inefficient and will throw to the system more heat than is needed…
What IS the point of band-shifting the IR emissions of exhaust pipe then?
Irregardless, why does an unmanned UCAV (not a “fighter”) NEED AB in the first place?
It just burns fuel wastefully, the UCAV is not going to be dealing with high AoO dog-fights or maneuvering contests – it’s a missile boat escort, and excluding the AB allows more savings/ optimization for the engine’s core role.
Aerodynamics play a role way more important than the ones you are claiming, less drag, less thrust needed..
Where am I claiming a minor role for Aerodynamics? Please show.
Aerodynamics is obviously a crucial element to “supercruise” (sans AB) to begin with, since you bring up SC.
Internal weapons carriage is nothing special to achieve (used in WWII), and an obvious area to consider if you want to optimize drag/ fuel efficiency/ operational payload. Taking away high-G fighter performance requirements just makes such a bay easier/cheaper.
i did put the F22’s example, because not even LM-USAF believe on that tale.
I still fail to see why you bring up an (emitting) radar as evidence that the motivator of passive targetting (“you emit, you die”) is invalid.
If you want me to say something nice about PAK-FA or something, just ask though 🙂
Snow MonkeyIndeed, and that is what is foreshadowed with hostile intercepts of Estonian Frontex planes and disruptions of NATO exercises with France. Nobody wants to take it that far, but Turkey keeps pushing the lines.
Snow MonkeyFull passive tactics is something that sounds cool, but won’t work…..ever
So you are volunteering to test that against IRST cueing?
The “you emit, you die” is a cool catchphrase…but only that.
The F-22’s radar is no way a LPI radar, it power output is higher than previous radars, it emits more energy…
Radar is still the best sensor, even against stealth aircraft
What does F-22’s “LPI” radar have to do with full passive tactics?
I believe the OP’s idea of NO RADAR would have a pretty low emissions siganture, would you not? (obviously “you emit you die” applies about as equally to both ultra-low X-band stealth ala F-22 and moderate 4.5 gen RCS ala Typhoon)
Manned aircrafts will stay at least for the next 50 years, or even more, the tale tha UAVs will achieve 20-30-50 gs , is just that, another cool tale, the g-limit is a structural limit, not an human limit yet…
I didn’t see anybody mention pulling 20-30-50 G’s in this thread, much less 2 G’s.
The lack of AB does not decrease the IR signature, that’s another tale….
Regarding IR “stealth” the best way is to make a plane more aerodynamic… no matter what Janes has told you
How are you supposed to band-shift AB plumes?
But sure, aerodynamics (and active cooling) play a big part in IR sig management, particularly front-on/lateral when not using AB, i.e. for the purpose of choosing terms of engagement rather than helping your IR counter-measures when you’ve already been targeted and are being chased.
Snow MonkeyIn the time frame that an EJ200 Gripen offer would have been feasable, there were just two French fighter sales, the Dash-9 for the EAU and the Dash-5 mk2 for Greece.
The idea is EJ200 could be a replacement for F414, not an RM12 equivalent, so the frame of reference is future tense, i.e. Gripen NG.
Feel free to bash that concept, but don’t take it out on the straw-man. 😉
Snow MonkeyTake out the pilot, possibly take out ECM.
Datalink to less stealthy manned 4.5Gen ‘controller’ (/AEW&C/Surface Station/Satcom) who handles ROE, yet with enough on-board autonomy to make-do if jammed or under EMCON.
Probably most viable as alternate role for platform also capable of A2G.
Taking out radar completely may not work, but if conceived as always within shared sensor network, it could be much less capable than normal FCR, i.e. narrower field just for fixing target whose general location is known, not scanning.
Add in laser designator.
Could very well be what Taranis/Neuron follow-on looks like.
Snow MonkeyAnother thing, is that as all defence magazines, defencenet has its “flaws”. It has a line that IMO shows a preference to Typhoon , russian systems and mostly anti-LM. You can imagine yourself why. There is always a logical reason behind apparently strange things.
Quite, I was actually going to ask you about defencenet’s “allegiance” but it slipped my mind. I saw Boeing’s F-18 presentation was given a fairly good presentation (it’s not LM 🙂 ), but the coverage of the PM’s speeches seems pretty one-side (‘all our finance problems are from New Democracy’ – right, who was running things just before them?).
On Greek economy/budget, it really seems like ending evasion and corruption will really help things from ‘both ends’: getting more tax revenue AND ‘revealing’ more of actual economy would put budget deficits as % of GDP in a more realistic light.
Yes, it appears that – according to the article – there were no F3s aboard. Also there seems to be no confirmation about air combat between the seperate airforces. In other press articles there was mentioned that flew mixed COMAO packages, with up to 60 greek aircrafts partecipating in the excercize.
It sounds like none of the exercise aircraft/ ships responded at all, only nearby jets ‘normally’ tasked for air defense/police responded. Clearly, French/NATO forces directly responding would be a new game… Not to over-state things.
Personally, I think the Greek PM giving such speeches to Cyprus Parliament is a bad idea,
given just about everybody thinks the Cypriots are scam artists (v/v Annan plan), but I have a question for you:
Your posts motivated me to read some more on “grey area” dispute and so forth, and really the only semi-valid ‘interest’ I could detect from the Turkish side is their interest for free passage to Mediterranean in case Greece decided to extend territorial waters to it’s maximum, which would block international water passage thru Aegean. Of course, there’s no reason Turkey can’t navigate thru it’s coastal waters from Bosporus (and they have Med. ports anyways), but I can see Turkey’s interest in this:
My question is, has Greece considered this aspect, and considered enacting a regime akin to the Bosporus regime, or simply permanently renouncing it’s right to extend waters in the ONE OR TWO island passages that would block international water passage? Because it really only seems like one or two island passages where full territorial water extension would block internatinal water passage from Bosporus to Mediterranean (ignoring coastal water passage for Turkey). Obviously, considering this would only make sense in the context of Turkey ending the other dubious disputes.
Other than that, the Turkish position just seems wierder and wierder with more research, i.e. the floated notion that air-space doesn’t necessarily correspond with surface territorial soverignty: Fine, that COULD excuse marine violations, but why the AIR-SPACE violations of the Greek air-space they already recognized when territorial air-space was set-up in 50’s? (Obviously, they don’t give a ****, I’m talking merely on level of logical consistency)
Snow MonkeyThanks for the update, keep it up!
I actually started checking out (GTranslating) that site (defencenet.gr) after you linked it enough 🙂
I had seen speculation that CdG might be carrying Rafale F3 (sans AESA) for it’s Aegean exercises, but apparently only F1 and F2, according to their story on latest Turkish provocation. (…Insane…)
It’s almost funny the “Greece’s scandalous defaults against Thyssen-Krupp” story gets dredged up in the recent English-language press’ resurrection of the old-news MPA tender cancellation…
Snow MonkeyBut if Airbus Military have designed a dog, they would rather stop right now unless someone else pays to fix it as best it can be fixed, would they not? My own view is that Airbus Military signed a deal and should be held to it. Airbus won’t go bust if they lose heavily on this project, so let the shareholders shoulder the loss, not the customers.
Exactly. Development costs escalating 25% or so isn’t going to bankrupt EADS as a company, and are a fraction of the costs of refunding the customers’ paid development costs.
What could be fair AND acceptable for EADS’ shareholders would be for EADS to find another A400M partner – With a succesful flight and a known list of issues to be resolved before final production, it would not be the worst of propositions, and further orders are what EADS really needs to make the program financially worth-while. I could see Brazil joining with Embraer as a partner, with ~15 planes as a commitment from FAB and Embraer either self-funding it’s assumed development/production tool-up or Brazil itself ponying up for that portion. Brazil (or other partner) would not even need to make up the full cost over run – EADS should certainly ‘swallow’ some itself, but increasing the production run (# of planes) will itself make the amortized development cost/plane ratio more favorable, and I’m guessing Embraer could be a well cost-efficient producer of some assemblies.
Rolling out the red carpet for Embraer’s C390 to the A400M countries would be an obvious correllary to this kind of deal, along with giving Embraer (licenced) access to A400 technology to use on C390. The current partner countries COULD frown on any loss of work-share, but if it ensures the program is completed without extra money from their budgets, I’d think it MAY be seen in a better light.
>???
Snow MonkeyBut shouldn’t Jobim and Lula be prepared to openly acknowledge that their choice is not the air force’s, and is not Embraer’s, and should they not have to explain and justify their selection to an informed electorate and to the taxpayers who are expected to pay the bill?
It’s been known from the start that the final decision would be made by civilian political leaders informed by the technical reports of FAB, not by the military itself. Nothing anybody wasn’t aware of from the start.
…I don’t see why Rafale wouldn’t win on technical merits. The only issue would be if Gripen is thought to be “as good” for Brazil’s needs and cheaper, but that isn’t ‘superior technical/ operational capacity’. I think such an assesment/selection of Gripen (cost:capabilities) is completely reasonable, but I don’t see it being chosen as the “superior choice” on technical capability basis. It’s practically certain Embraer would make more money off partnering in Gripen NG, but the goal of FAB procurement is not the profitability of private corporations AFAIK.
Re: F-18, I don’t really see it being technically superior to Rafale over-all… It’s main advantage may be broader weapons integration, but Brazil already has it’s own weapons programs (precision A2G, ARM, naval strike), which really levels the playing field in that regard. Plus, I don’t see how ignoring Brazil’s position re: US bases in Colombia with plans for continent-wide action, beefing up SouthCom, coups in Honduras, not to mention banning Super Tucano exports are good ways to persuade Brazil that the US is a reliable ally.
Snow Monkey…I would like to see more C-17’s acquired to maintain an ability to move outsize loads strategic distances. We are the only European nation that has the capability within our own armed forces and not as a lease from a Ukrainian/Russian company…
Technically true (if you exclude UKR/RUS as “European”), but there are the 3 already contracted for under NATO consortium, and that fleet may well may grow. Unifying UK maintenance/ops with the common NATO fleet would likely save some lucre, but that probably won’t happen, given the “we are the only European nation…” angle. 😉
Snow MonkeyInstead, it seems that the UAE will pick up the tab, boosting the M88 to 20,000 pounds to improve the aircraft’s hot-and-high performance. However, Gasparini told AIN that the Rafale’s ability to take off with the existing powerplants in a “heavy” configuration comprising two Scalp anti-ship missiles and three fuel tanks had already been demonstrated in Abu Dhabi under the hottest conditions.)
UAE’s interest in a 3x Black Shaheen payload enabled by the 90kN engines is openly known. This is the main capability offered by their current M2K fleet vs. F16/60 so maximizing it is pretty obvious for any ‘step up’.
Bold indicates where the journo has believed Dassault PR nonsense and spin, or has gullibly repeated it, obviously. (eg: “Dassault officials are convinced that the Rafale was a clear winner of the new fighter evaluations in both Korea and Singapore–until superpower politics intervened.”)
Political aspects are obviously crucial to this type of sector – else why wouldn’t have NATO wholesale switched to Russian AAM’s when their HOBS capabilty was demonstrated, rather than developing their own? This can swing for or against certain producers, and Dassault well benefits from it in plenty of cases (Greece, UAE, probably Brazil).
The only ‘controversy’ is when contests are announced and tendered as subject to solely technical/accountable criteria, but political notions are slipped in afterwards, and/or requirements are shifted to justify the “favored” tender (see Norway and NL, which were much more egregious than anything in SK/Singapore). Singapore and SKorea clearly have a huge operational relationship with the US (increasing since time of said fighter comps) so 1:1 platform and weapons commonality is obviously THE prime factor, and one Rafale obviously can’t compete on regardless of ‘neutral technical merit’.
…A pretty obvious scenario IMHO, and not one worth harping on from either direction.
Sign In
