LokeAnother news story on this topic:
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=258664
So, how many GBU-28 can the F-15I realistically carry?
LokeHeck even Brazil seriously considering going Nuke’s at least on some their future subs.
Seems they have decided to build them?
According to Brazil’s MDD, the nuclear-powered submarine will be far larger, at 6,000t compared to the diesel-electric boats’ 1,400-1,800 tonnes. This is significantly larger than France’s existing SSN Rubis Amethyste class fast attack boats, which weigh in at around 2,730t submerged, and remains larger than France’s planned 5,300t SSN Barracuda class. Some of this can be accounted for by the need for more space, in order to accommodate larger early-stage nuclear propulsion systems. Even so, the famous USS Nautilus managed to displace only 3,500 tons. The most similar size analogues to Brazil’s proposed submarine is the India’s new Arihant class SSBN, which would raise questions concerning Brazil’s long-term nuclear intentions. Since nuclear weapons are specifically prohibited by Brazil’s current constitution, however, a large SSN fast attack vessel is almost certainly the goal. A 6,000t vessel would fit somewhere between France’s new SSN Barracuda class, and the USA’s 6,450t SSN Los Angeles class.
Construction of Brazil’s nuclear boat is expected to begin in 2015, and it’s expected to enter service in 2021. Cost for the submarine is pegged at about EUR 2 billion, with EUR 1.25 billion assigned to Brazil’s indigenous Project Aramar nuclear propulsion/ power program. DCNS’ role involves assistance with hull technology and construction, and with non-nuclear internal technologies.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Brazil-France-in-Deal-for-SSKs-SSN-05217/
LokeIt seems everybody says the Gripen has “a low RCS” without actually knowing what value it is.
Classified information.
From a story in Janes (unfortunately not anymore online):
Effort will also be expended on reducing the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) through modifications to the air-intakes and wing leading edge and the use of composite materials and new surface coatings. RCS reduction measures are not new to the Gripen programme. “From the very start we have worked with this issue,” explains Lehander. “After the latest changes we have made, [reducing RCS] is nothing more to do with the aircraft, it is the weapons.”
As a result of this realisation, further work on this aspect of the Gripen NG’s design has included the possibility of installing weapons within conformal fuel tanks in a similar way to that proposed by Boeing as part of the proposed ‘Silent Eagle’ variant of the F-15.
The issue of RCS reduction for the aircraft’s stores will also be helped by the new weaponry employed by the Gripen NG such as the clearance of the MBDA Meteor beyond visual range (BVR) and Diehl IRIS-T within visual range WVR) air-to-air missiles. “AMRAAMs [advanced medium range air-to-air missiles are] not very good RCS wise, whereas the new missiles have RCS thinking behind them,” Lt Col Nilsson points out. New weapons pylons are also planned as part of this effort, “the survivability and RCS area is continuous work”, adds Lt Col Nilsson.
LokeWhat prompted me to start this thread was a claim by Saab in 2009 that Gripen NGs defeated much larger Su-35s at a ratio of 16 to 10 in its 50 simulations.
This claim should obviously be regarded with suspicion – computer engineers have a saying: garbage in, garbage out – but it gives me an impression that Saab believes cheaper lightweight fighters can overwhelm more expensive heavy fighters by numbers. At a given amount of money, you should be able to buy and operate more Gripens than Su-35s.
One reason why they reached that result was that they were simulating the Meteor+Iris-T and not the AMRAAM-AIM9 for the Gripen.
Another reason could also be the reliance on a combination of low RCS, and sophisticated EWS.
LokeAnother really strange thing:
It says in 5.3 (Section II Air Policing):
“It can also be mentioned that the Gripen has better detection and identification than the F/A-18 due to the RWS capability.”
Looking again at table 2.4 however Gripen is scoring below the F-18 in identification, and is on par with the F-18 in detection..?
Odd.
Is RWS referring to Range While Scanning, or something else?
LokeLOL I was about to do the same…
In reality though neither the pilots nor the engineers will decide what Brazil will buy. The politicians will make that decision, and it seems to me that ToT, offsets and costs will be the most important factors.
LokeAir policing mission was most probably assessed with one or 2 supersonic tanks (ability to go supersonic is mandatory for that mission), hence the small difference with the swiss hornet.
Excellent point; but how do you explain Rafale’s “poor” ID capabilities in the 2015 config?
LokeThis story is written with the MMRCA deal as a backdrop, however it reflects up some well-known facts that are relevant for other deals as well.
http://www.livemint.com/2012/02/22223353/India8217s-quest-for-the-to.html?h=B
LokeA: I believe that Swiss AF wanted confirmatory image identification ~ And during 2007, Swiss AF bought 20 ATFLIR surveillance and targeting pods (IIR + visual light camera) for its own Hornets.
As for the three European fighters at that time (2008):
* Gripen: pilot’s eyeballs only.
* Typhoon: IRST for IIR image only, whose image resolution for target identification won’t be as good as a visual light camera during the daylight.
* Rafale: the first generation FSO with IIR + visual light camera, but the overall performance for target image identification may be still a little inferior than the ATFLIR according to the Swiss AF’s evaluation.
However I believe that figure 2.4 in the leaked documents is from the 2009 eval, which is using the 2015 config. Of course we have that “credibility factor” that they used to adjust the scores, according to a risk assessment that the capability would reach the level described by the vendor. It would be rather dissapointing if none of the European a/c would be able to match or exceed the Swiss 2008 Hornet in this capability.
A: You are wrong ~ Rafale is still a little better than the Swiss F-18 (points of 6.1 to 6.2 v.s points of 6.0) in the performance of endurance/AAR/loiter time according to the Swiss AF’s evaluation.
Such a small difference seems non-significant…
Lokeit is the swiss themselves that are quite numerous to criticise the choice, their air force (the guys who made the tests as it is their profession) isn’t the most silent as they say as well that they’ve been given a loosing aircraft
So far the only negative opinion on the Gripen has come from “anonymous sources”.
All the professional people in Switzerland that have expressed their opinion has said that Gripen is the preferred choice, since it is the only choice that meets the requirements, including the budgetary ones.
The Swiss officers feared the success of a referendum against the purchase of Gripen because of the savings program of 750 million francs announced by the Federal Council.
http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/suisse/story/Les-officiers-craignent-le-referendum-26383585
If they are so strongly against the Gripen why are they then fearing a referendum that will stop the purchase of Gripen… ?
Of course had they had sufficient money they would have gone for the Rafale most likely.
Consider how many countries are flying F-16, versus how few are flying F-15.
If all those “F-16” countries have had unlimited budgets, more of them would have been flying the F-15, which is a “superior” a/c in many respects.
However most countries do not have unlimited budgets, they need to go for something more cost-effective than “the best”.
Some people may not like it, though but it seems that the people in charge in Switzerland has accepted the fiscal realities.
LokeOoops seems I did not read what was qouted.
Let me say this instead: 😮
LokeIn short, the data was for a mechanical equiped Typhoon versus an AESA equiped Rafale (wich, by the way, is a magnificent endorsement of the technic merit and political will behind the French Project).
Why are they talking about the PESA in the executive summary of 2008 report then, but without mentioning the AESA?
LokeAP: Rafale flight test 2008 (Pesa): 6.71
Typhoon RFP 2 Config (AESA): 6.48DCA : Rafale flight test 2008 (Pesa): 7
Typhoon RFP 2 Config (AESA): 6.49
Ah of course now I see what you mean.
The 2008 Rafale is outperforming the 2015 Typhoon in AP and DCA…ouch that must hurt for the Typhoon fans.
It’s also the case for OCA (Rafale 2008: 7.12 vs Typhoon 2015: 6.54), Recce (7.57 vs 5.43) and strike of course (7.21 vs 5.75),
It make one wonder though how much the “risk factor” (or what they call “credibility factor”) is affecting the results. Anyway, I should have noticed that one earlier.
Also you cannot use that to conclude that “Rafale PESA is better than Typhoon AESA”); first; as mentioned before it seems the Swiss don’t care that much about the range of the radars; second, the scores are influenced by numerous parameters the radar being one of them, and third the already mentioned infamous “credibility factor”.
LokeSince the beginning, we have been explained by the typhoon brigade that this report is totally pointless and/or outdated.
Which bring me to that important question, why should we consider only the positive information about Eurofighter and deny the good one about Rafale ?
Indeed, and why should we do the opposite? :p
One general observation: The Rafale was much more mature than the TYphoon in 2008. Thus one would guess that the potential for improvements by simply fixing this and implementing that seems bigger for the Typhoon than for the Rafale.
Now looking at the improve in scores from 2008 eval and the eval of what is expected to fly in 2015 looked rather dissappointing for the Typhoon. I don’t know if this is because few significant improvements were in the pipeline, or because they were considered high risk by the Swiss and therefore given a lower weight (AESA radar could be one prime example where the French could actually demonstrate one, the Typhoon people could not) or most likely a combination of both.
LokeLoke,
India evaluated Typhoon in India, in 2008.Malaysia are evaluating it at Coningsby, right now, as I write these very words.
They’ll be looking at current operational jets, talking to 17 Squadron blokes who’ve flown lots of P1E jets, who have done end-to-end Paveway 4 testing, they’ll be talking to enthusiastic guys who have flown Typhoons on VERY long range overseas deployments, on Ellamy, ATLC and Magic Carpet, who fly with the helmet and PIRATE every time they fly, and who have flown operational tours on F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-117, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 as well as the more usual GR4, Harrier, Sea Harrier, Jaguar, and Lightning. I suspect they’ll have been to Warton and chatted to their TPs and flown the rigs, simulating Storm Shadow and Brimstone firings, and maybe even an anti-ship missile or two…..
My spies tell me that on at least one sortie with a Malay in the front seat, the bloke in the back was T*m C*e*e*t*. He’s one of the blokes who has also flown R*f*l*!
If those organising their trip had any sense, they’ll have spent time with Selex and will have seen Captor-E and Bright Adder enough to form their own opinion as to whether the AESA timeline is credible.
It’s not 2008 any more, and the Malays will be seeing stuff that the Indians didn’t, and they’ll be seeing an aircraft where the helmet and PIRATE are in daily use, not test items, and where PW4 and a non-austere Litening integration are flying pretty much every day, and will be in frontline use by mid-year.
The weighting of risk may be very different today to the Swiss weighting, and the Malay determination of scores in Sensor Fusion, Detection, Acquisition and Identification will be different too. Things have moved on a long way in the Typhoon world since 2008.
Sorry for being slow but what does the highlighted text mean?
No doubt Typhoon has moved on, however, so has also Rafale. What is more important though, could be other factors.
If a country is doing a “clean” and “well run” process then they will have a set of requirements; check the list of a/c against those requirements; short list those that meet the requirements; and pick the cheapest among those remaining.
IF Malaysia is doing that, then all the improvements of the Typhoon is not going to help unless Malaysia has some very peculiar and strict requirements that makes Typhoon the sole candidate and not e.g. Rafale or SH. What would help would be lower prices, and here Rafale may have an advantage since selling to India should allow the French to lower the prices in other competitions.
In many cases however as we all know, it’s also about the politics. Also politically I question how strong Typhoon will be, but I don’t know Malay politics so perhaps I am wrong.
So to me, Malaysia is between the Rafale (will be used by India, and is independent of the US), the SH (presumably more cost-effective than Rafale, and good if Malaysia wants to strengthen US ties) and the Gripen NG, if they want to be really cost-effective. I don’t see where the Typhoon would fit in actually.
Sign In
