Snow MonkeyI still have a question about the bid process, as I understand if any approved bidder comes in at or below $7.9B (actually in dollars or won?) then they automatically win… If two bidders come in between that figure and the 20% over-run margin, then… they are compared based on a weighted ranking scale (one part being cost)? Would the same ranking comparison apply if two bidders come in below $7.9B or would the lowest bid win? Do lifecycle costs come in here anywhere, or are only upfront costs being compared?
Snow MonkeyIf they are sitting on the runway or in their hangars, sure. That’s why I specified it’s utility at *A2G*, NOT A2A. 😉
Of course, with good weaponry and self-protection suite, networking with AWACS/Super-30/PAKFA, the results may surprise you, but I wasn’t making any claim about A2A.
Snow MonkeyThis article on what USAF might do with their UAV fleet post-Afghanistan made me think if a lease / used sale to France would satisfy France’s needs until Telemos is ready? They were considering Reaper anyways, and this seems like a cheaper option for everybody (FR/US). Although supposedly France wanted to integrate their own sensors, but that just seems financially extravagant and a delay on the time-schedule, all the money saved by going with a lease of used Reaper could be applied to support R&D, etc anyways.
Snow MonkeyThe 4.5+gen canards would be further helped if, as is mooted for F-35, maintenance and possibly training, were pooled with other EU members. If that is possible for F-35, it’s certainly possible for Gripen and Rafale as well. Spending the maximal budget on just the plane also means that there is that much less budget left for things like pricier stand-off munitions.
Snow MonkeyA350-1000 just doesn’t compete against 777-9X, it competes against -8X (where it is basically superior).
9X is really competing against, or splitting the market with, the 747-8l.
Boeing pushes the commonality argument between the 8/9, but that goes for A350 as well with the -900.
(Boeing likes to point out differences in A350 models, but I simply don’t believe those are substantial enough to negate commonality benefits)
Boeing’s argument only applies for an operator that simply has no need for the 900 but does have need for the 350-1000/8X and 9X.
For everybody else, A350-900+1000, and 777-9X (or 747-8l) if they need it, makes more sense.
Which is fine, all these planes have their niche. The situation does show the fear of more producers coming on the market (UAC, COMAC).
A350-800 seems similarly dubious to 777-8X, it only makes sense if you are already operating -900/1000 AND aren’t operating any 787. IMHO, the hypothetical A330NEO would actually have a solid market position/niche, unlike the -800 (not to say that it would displace the 787 in it’s segment), certainly a Freighter version would be a shoe-in. To develop both -800 and A330NEO would be competing against themself (like Boeing is with 9X and 747-8l to some extent) but simply not developing the -800 and doing an NEO of 330 seems like a net win to me, especially since it would leave the A350 lines clear for 900/1000 and the 330 line can be used for the NEO. 800’s would need to be discounted to compete against 787 (certainly for anybody who operates other 787 models), and is just not as viable a profit source.
…And then UAC is set for new announcements at the next MAKS on their mid-haul widebody Ekojet with COMAC risk-sharing/participation…
Snow MonkeyIf this takes off, it seems natural that one could book a ticket ahead of time and tell them your weight (any difference from this weight at time of flight would be charged at a higher rate than normal), and thus the total weight of passengers booked would affect the pricing for future passengers booking. As long as they aren’t printing out your weight on your ticket, I think this system could be acceptable… Hypothetically, having a flat per seat charge and the first X kilos charged at a lower rate, and a similar per volume charge for luggage with a base allowance of kilos charged at a lower rate than additional kilos would be the most ‘rational’ pricing system, but a simple to understand (and compare) pricing system is the real requirement IMHO.
Snow MonkeyThere is some logic to the idea of just going all in for more Su-30, but I think the difference (besides ToT which they already have from Su-30, and Rafale offers new and different approaches/tech) is in the longer term picture, where Su-30 would NOT be the high end dominant fighter it is vs. new ‘stealth’ platforms from China. In that long term picture, a Rafale which would have France’s top notch developments applied to MLU would be just as or more effective at nearly all A2G, and be cheaper to operate.
Snow MonkeyAs MSphere said, the Fulcrum deal was effectively tied to the Gorshkov deal.
I really don’t think that implies any IN preference between the planes, either it was something Russia insisted on, or perhaps simply IN was happy enough to link the two because doing so avoided the hassle and dangers of starting a tender process 😀 As mentioned, Rafale was not cleared for STOBAR in any operational configuration, and Indian import deals seem to be fairly conservative in aspects like that.
I also suspect that Rafale simply won out over 29K in several areas: operational availability, weapons (Meteor), capability and ToT (Spectra), India probably assumes that they have gained most of what they reasonably can gain from Russia via MKI / soon Super MKI, so for ToT Rafale offered some new things to them. The 35 of course wasn’t yet in service, even if Russia promised to procure it if India did, and France by deign of not having any other manned programs is assured to continually upgrade Rafale with their latest and greatest, while Russia clearly has other focuses, this has implications for future MLU / production batches. We don’t have access to the complete evaluation matrix to know the official reasons of course.
Snow MonkeySorry problem is probably because of i used the wrong (representational) word when i posted this picture and you are correct English is not my mother language. I saw that picture at an Turkish aviation forum and only wanted to share with you. The guy who posted it at the Turkish aviation forum claims it has been taken from an CD which is probably taken during this conference. Sorry its my fault 😮
Well, it’s all cleared up now, I just wanted to help you understand why it was very reasonable for people to understand the image as some sort of official representation, based on taking your post at face-value. But hey, sooner or later there will be such an official representative image!
Snow MonkeyI don’t know if what is your problem but i have never presented it as an official picture, but if your logic wants to accept it as like that its your problem.
You wrote it is ‘from’ an aerospace conference, yet the images are clearly not photos of something on display there, but a low-quality photoshop job by a fan. If the image is entirely originating from a fan’s photoshop program, and not actual graphic presentations from the conference, then what you wrote re: ‘from’ is pretty misleading. Even if the artist went to this conference and applied what he learned to create the image, the image is still not from the conference. All the company logos are a clear attempt to seem authoritative (is GE even associated with the project for sure, i.e. contractually or thru completed tenders?), and don’t have any place in an ‘honest’ fan photoshop job (that isn’t making clear it is the imagination of a fan), so when you tell people the image is ‘from’ a professional conference and corporate logos are included (which is a trademark violation), the conclusion is that the image indeed is somehow official. Personally, it was utterly clear to me on a visual basis (the graphic design) that this a fan mock-up and not anything that would be presented at a professional conference, but the language you used did suggest that fact.
I suspect it’s because English may not be your mother language (so it’s more than understandable – it’s not as if native speakers don’t use inaccurate English either), but you also seem to have used the word ‘representational’ in a way that isn’t quite the normal English association for that word – English can often be far from a precise language, and I understand where you were coming from in your usage, but any native speaker would normally understand “representational” in this context to mean that the image corresponds to the real TF-X in all major details, or at least the current actual plans of the developers. If there isn’t a real design at the moment, then there is nothing to ‘represent’ (unless you want to claim it represents what some fan dreams it might look like, which you didn’t do).
You later write that the conceptual design phase has not been completed (or truly begun, AFAIK) which logically conflicts with that, but the claims you led with are all rather misleading.
How many times i must say that it has no relevance with the real bird, its too early yet
If it has no relevance to the real bird, why are you writing that it is representational? Words mean things.
Snow MonkeyHey folks, perhaps we can move this RWR discussion to it’s own thread?
I’m not seeing so much discussion of Rafale-specific things, as much as general concepts,
people are posting about F-22 vs. Typhoon, etc… Not that it’s not a fine topic of discussion, but I think it belongs in it’s own thread now.
Snow Monkeyreducing total orders (which don’t exist yet) doesn’t not imply reducing production rate.
there simply is nothing to suggest that the production rate will drop below the current sustainable level.
of course, any incoming export orders CAN let production destined for france be spread out without affecting the production rate.
(or likelier than not, SOME export orders would reduce french delivery rate, but total production rate would increase, reducing per plane costs, simply less so than adding the entire export orders on top of current production rate destined for france only)
economic efficiency of the rafale program and it’s cost growth compared to planned is EXACTLY what it has to be proud of.
the originally mooted end fleet total of rafale is simply NOT necessary to reach for the program to otherwise be successful,
current contracted prices are sustainable whether or not they are followed by further orders.
of course F-35 production rate IS being hit, and may be hit further, obliterating the vaunted plans for aggressive cost reduction.
let me know when F-35s cost the same amount as an F-16 (or merely with the cost growth that rafale has had).
the idea that eurofighter program can positively be compared to rafale here is a joke.
Snow Monkey@sterling: it is not about the lateral deflection, although there may be photos showing lateral deflection as well… it is indeed correct that the nozzles’ ‘neutral’ position is ‘toed out’, for which there are aerodynamic reasons i have a tenuous grasp of :), probably related to the unstable handling characteristics of the plane. the lateral toe-out isn’t what people are referring to.
the apparent TVC usage that flankerman is pointing out in his picture, which is even more visible in haavarla’s video capture, is NOT lateral but dorsal/ventral, or up/down. in flankerman’s picture, you can see the left engine nozzle (towards the bottom of the picture) is angled ‘upward’ compared to the right engine nozzle. haavarla’s video capture is similar, the left engine nozzle (on right side of image) is visibly deflected downward relative the more upward deflected right engine nozzle (on left side of image).
regardless, like i said, whether TVC is being used or not just isn’t the decisive factor in T-50 being limited at some point to a 5G flight regime, an immature FCS system that is still having it’s behavior tested at farther and farther corners of performance is the decisive factor, you don’t need TVC to pull 5Gs and I don’t believe it’s even particularly helpful for increasing max G in the first place. the point at this point in the flight test regime is not using TVC to it’s maximal deflection, but in deepening confidence in the FCS, and the FCS is programmed to use ALL control surfaces synergistically, so extreme TVC deflection is unlikely to be seen, the FCS should be using all control surfaces together in the most efficient manner possible.
i remember a similar controversy awhile back, but about usage of the movable LEVCONs above the intakes, their subtle movement was often hard to discern from anything but the perfect angle, so many weren’t sure if they were being used as control surfaces in flight yet (the tests of their full deflection range on the ground can’t be missed). (haavarla’s video capture shows assymetrical LEVCON deflection, along with asymmetric deflection of the canted ‘vertical’ stabs)
Snow MonkeySomewhat off-topic, but has there been any more rumblings of the Thames estuary airport?
It didn’t sound like it was developing in a productive direction, but I haven’t heard anything for a while…?
Snow Monkey@ff1987: i would challenge you to find any post of mine that you could construe as being a ‘f-35 fan post’,
but your post is just trolling, there is no reason to turn this topic into T-50 vs. any other plane.
if su-27 has a G rating of ~9.0 G, obviously T-50 will AT LEAST be equal – more like significantly better, given the temporary engines are already better than su-35, and drag is lower, etc. 5G is less than what a 1960’s era jet fighter would have been limited to. the only reason that number could be associated to T-50 would be as a temporary developmental limit, which all new plane development is subject to. i don’t think TVC will have much effect on G limits either way.
Sign In
