Snow MonkeyI believe that story about “increased RCS” is complete rubbish. There is no point doing that whatsoever. If you want everyone to see you turn on IFF and there you go.
Yes, IFF suffices if your concern is solely “wanting everyone to see you” (for safety reasons).
If your concern is keeping your actual radar signature a secret, then you do not want anybody to get accurate radar data on your wartime stealth. Of course, once Raptors are used operationally, I’m sure some sort of radar signature data will soon be making the rounds…
Snow Monkey– The issue of the U214 “is being driven towards solution with the acceptance of the 3 newer U214s, the one U209 AIP (the upgraded one) and the building of 2 new U209 AIP. Papanikolis will remain to the Thyssen”. This is defencenet’s info on the issue though, it’s not official news yet.
– Once Elefsis takes full control over Skaramanga (taking Thyssen off the hook for EU fine), the road is open to sign the FREMM contract, as Elefsis has MoU with DCNS.
The only case that the Germans are willing to keep Skaramanga, is if they take the contract for the new frigates. The article also quotes “goverment official” (anonymoys) saying that “From the moment that the Navy wants the submarines we will proceed to the acceptance of the 3. About the Papanikolis, we will probably won’t proceed”.
This solution sounds like a reasonable one for both sides, all things considered.
I think a reasonable observer could agree there was more to the conflict than just what Thyssen mentioned in it’s “giving up on contract” press release. Even if Greece had paid 100% of contract (i.e. for Papa) the EU fine re: Skaramanga would clearly impact Thyssen’s account books/profitibability. (It sounds even more the case that the 209 issue was a marginal side issue)
It could be as simple as Thyssen wanted a Frigate contract (or just MONEY) to justify their loss stemming from the EU fine but the previous government didn’t see why they should bend over to help Thyssen’s own problem… Though like you say, how does a change of government affect that? What is Elefsis’ relationship with PASOK? It seems like the deal is basically consolidating Greek shipbuilding under Elefsis, who was previously ‘competing’ against Thyssen/Skara, so the deal is basically getting Thyssen out of a marginal situation (given their EU debt) and turning the entire ‘pie’ over to Elefsis (w/ DCN). The previous government could simply have been approaching the issue on a contract-by-contract basis, while Thyssen was thinking about the ‘big picture’, i.e. with their debt from the EU fines and losing to FREMM, they were looking at a big write-off (of their investment) which was unacceptable to them (of course).
BTW, what is Greek Navy’s projected needs, say for the next ~10 years?
Snow MonkeyIs it the consensus that PAK-FA will be twin-engined like the Raptor?
Or is there a reasonable chance that it will only have a single engine ala F-35?
That seems to be the consensus as far as I’ve seen.
You have to remember that initial PAK-FA’s will be outfitted with the same engine as Su-35’s (117S)
so the single/twin-engine decision is already decided based on what’s available short-term:
Even if they were planning on accelerating the next-gen engine in time for the first production PAK-FA’s,
you need an engine for flight tests, or the whole program is hostage to engine development.
Snow MonkeyTheir brand-new (if also somewhat lobotomized due to US restriction) Block 50+ F-16s probably left them with an empty wallet as well, however. I’d say they’re stuck with what they’ve got for some time to come.
True, Chile was just the only Latin country I could fore-see getting Rafale (ala re-export agreement)
But like you said, they probably wouldn’t START considering it before a 2015-20 timeframe…
(From what I can tell, Chile’s F-16’s are similar to what Pakistan is now buying, i.e. lobotomized DRFM, etc)
…I suppose I’d include Argentina as a Rafale possibility, but that’s more for that “If Argentina’s economy recovers” thread…
Snow MonkeyWhen you know the character (I mean Sarkozy) I don’t doubt that he will do everything to win the deal (even the most incredible promises…)
He has quite “direct” manners (for the best and the worst…) so he wouldn’t hesitate to deal with the Brazilian government and Lula personnaly as he already done in september.
He could always threaten to send Sarko Jr. over as the new Ambassador if they don’t pick Rafale…
“Make me happy or else you’ll never hear the end of it…”
After the Morrocan failure one of the lesson was to strenghten the “economic intelligence” and to create a “war room” (the real name used in france) to sell the rafale which is just next to the president office.
I guess “Don’t be an idiot and shoot yourself in the foot” doesn’t translate so well to French… 😉
All fun aside, I don’t think Brazil’s strategic rationale for Rafale needs Sarkozy drama or bribery theories to explain.
BTW Arturo, it’s probably a case of ‘don’t count chickens before they’re hatched”, but is there any info on when Chile might buy new fighters? They seem pretty much the only prospective customer for Rafale in Latin America, and Rafale seems like it might match their needs (getting lobotimized F-16 MLU due to US restrictions probably left them a sour taste)
Snow MonkeyDo you know that one of the off-set of the mirage 2000-9 export to the UAE was to finance tulip culture in the desert….:D ToT and compensation can cover many things…far beyond one product…
OMG, This is too good…
Does anybody from UAE know if M2K-9 pilots get a “tulips & windmill” badge or something? 🙂
Snow MonkeyThanks for the info everybody. It’s always in the details. 🙂
I suppose when sat-com is integrated (?), realtime long distance video uplinks (storable on other end) would also be possible with Damocles (XF) since it’s already set-up for Rover links, though Reco/Areos’ imagery/350km datalink would still make it preferred for recon.
Snow Monkey@Arthuro: Thanks for the links.
Could you do me a favor, and explain the different functionality of Damocles (XF) vs. Reco NG?
It just isn’t ‘clicking’ for me, and I can’t easily find enough info on Reco NG to fill in the gap…
Snow MonkeyWhat does F-22 possibly have to do with “MMRCA News and Discussion”?
Keep it on topic…
Snow MonkeyI find it interesting that I’ve never seen anything but circular nozzles in PAK-FA projections…
As elliptical/rectangular nozzles provide more exhaust/air interface area to dissipate exhaust heat faster, I’d think that would be the direction to go, given IR signature becomes one of the prime target-able weaknesses of a very-low-(X-Band)-RCS fighter. Circular nozzles may be more efficient thrust-wise, but it doesn’t look like the next-gen follow-up to “Al-41” will need help in the thrust department, so attending to other aspects seems a reasonable idea. Obviously there’s other approaches to reduce IR signature (band-shifting materials, etc), but those could all be used with an elliptical/rectangular nozzle for an even lower IR signature.
Then again, given the amount of people who believed a very-low-X-RCS fighter would leave a ‘wind tunnel’ between the intakes/engines rather than a stealth-friendly flat surface (round INTAKES were even assumed by many!) after that “badge” image was released (where would the internal weapons bay go?), I may just wait until we see it flying. …Though it’s already known that the first flying prototype will not incorporate all final design aspects, so it could easily source exhaust nozzles from Su-35 and adopt all-new oblong exhausts at a later point when they’re more mature (including the mooted fluid-dynamic TVC + other IR-signature reduction tech) – I doubt different nozzles would invalidate flight trial data THAT much, esp. given the engines & thrust rating will change anyways.
Snow MonkeyThanks. Personally I would like to see a clean sheet design like the Boeing X-48 blended wing body as a future tanker or the KC-787. Boeing has the technology, they just need to take the risk like what they did with the KC-135. Unfortunately, I guess its unlikely to happen due to cost and risk reasons.
US DoD *is* funding X-48B as a demonstrator, it’s just not at an a appropriate stage to sign on the dotted line for a huge tanker production contract like KX-X(-Y-Z). Even a 787 tanker variant does not have an acceptable level of risk (cost/capability/schedule-wise): just look at Boeing’s problems with the stock passenger version: You need a solid platform with known full-rate production costs before you start talking ‘variants’.
About engines, a Pratt GTF would be great, but like pfcem says DOD isn’t going to pay for it, and Airbus/Boeing aren’t going to pay for it, because they’re in the thick of developing their own replacements for the 330/40/767 (350/787), so improving SFC and maintenance for their end-of-production-life platforms to levels close to their new platforms makes no financial sense. Engine makers aren’t going to pay for it, because to justify it they would also need a significant number of commercial 330/767 users to replace their current perfectly functional engines, which again doesn’t make financial sense (the new engines on offer by PW/GE/RR do not offer such a RADICAL cost benefit to justify scrapping the remaining life-span of the old engines, whose upfront cost is paid for).
Sometimes you get lucky and RFP/production schedule will line up just right with a new generation of technology at the appropriate level of maturity… But you can’t get lucky all the time.
Snow MonkeyAgree on that…
I DO think releasing Boeing’s bid cost data is eminently fair…
Both bidders having access to each other’s “old cost numbers” doesn’t itself mean both bidders are equally benefitted by such knowledge… But having an information gap between the bidders doesn’t seem like a good scenario. I don’t know if I would want to compete on such an unequal playing field if I were Northrop/Airbus.
Hopefully neither bidder tries to “stack the jury” by modifying the RFP criteria/ weighting…
Snow MonkeyAside from the big argument going on, does anyone know how the two aircraft would perform from a 6,000ft runway? I know the 767AT would be unable to operate at MTOW from a 7,000ft runway, but if they chose to base the tanker on the 767-200?, what about the KC-30?
Also are these points in the mandatory section?
I don’t know how either would look for a 6000′ field, but AFAIK the 7000′ is in the ‘minimum’ requirements (which USAF is expecting both to meet), while a 6000′ runway is part of the IFARA calculations… In other words, not having performance drop off (relatively) precipitously when using 6000′ fields will help your IFARA, but having really good numbers on 7000′ fields COULD counter weaknesses at shorter fields.
Sorry to interrupt…
Snow MonkeySure, that’s one take on it.
But Eurofighter’s claims (consistent with other bidders’ statements) on what they were told by MoD (specifically re: exceeding performance/capability req’s) present a signifigantly different scenario. …Of course, that could mean:
(I may have missed a potential explanation… Feel free to add one)
Personally I’m inclined more to the last, because if the “price is sole determinant if minimum requirements are met” was the whole story, why weren’t the other competitors besides Saab, Lockheed & MiG already dropped? Unless there’s doubts as to whether at least 2 of those bidders CAN meet the minimum requirements (all official statements I’ve seen seem pretty clear that all the bidders are satisfactory in that regard – Rafale hot-air brouhaha aside), there’s clearly no reason to keep the other bidders in the process – Wringing concessions from the remaining bidders is certainly do-able with a 3-way competition.
Anyhow, *I* certainly don’t have a crystal ball,
so all I can do is seeth in impatience and wait for more meat (and pics!) to be revealed…
Snow MonkeyThanks for the link 21Ankush, that’s the sort of meat I’d prefer to see…
I’m not finding it at the moment,
but does anybody know if MIG’s offer includes India (co)producing ALL MiG-35’s? (or at least exports)
(aka like Dassault’s Brazil bid – though that’s limited to Latin American buyers, which IMHO = Chile for forseeable future)
With Indian involvement possibly giving more avionics options and lowering the price, that would probably sell decently…
I think the breadth of capability in the bids makes the most sense if you consider the importance of ToT.
Sign In
