Loke@ Loke : What everyone seems to forget is that Gripen NG doesn’t exist, there are still quite a few development to go to make it real, and development = risk, and risk = money. So while I have great faith in Saab in terms of cost management, nobody can say for sure as of today, how much it will cost. That’s for the basic version. When talking about a possible naval Gripen we must be even more cautious. Unless Brazil select it (which seems very slim) I don’t see India and Saab paying an expansive development for just 30 to 60 jets. So unless Saab can find a way to make the Gripen suitable as a alternative for the F 35 B/C as well (which I doubt), the naval Tejas will fly sooner.
We don’t know the development status of the NG; what we know about the Tejas so far is that it keeps becoming more delayed, and that it has failed on several parameters.
Naval Tejas may fly sooner than a naval NG but it may not meet the requirements…
In the meantime NG development keeps moving forward.
On verra.
LokeThere is absolutely nothing technical in the summary of the leaked reports. Anyone with a good comprehension of the english language will figure this out. Even the dumbest politician. It’s pretty straight forward.
First you complaint he did not read the reports; when I point out to you why this does not make sense you switch and says he should have read the summary of the summary reports… :rolleyes:
Again; he has experts that prepare summary reports for him. They are no-technical. We have not seen those so we do not know how they compare to the summaries in the two leaked summary reports however what we do know is that the leaks are incomplete, and highly biased….
I don’t understand why so many French are complaining so loudly; this would not be the first competition where the Rafale scored very high on the technical bit but lost in the end, partly due to high cost, partly due to politics…
No wonder you end up in flame wars with the rest of the community all the time!
I was not around when you lost in Korea and Singapore, but presumably the French were as agitated then as now? Of course one difference is the leaks… that probably makes it harder to accept that you lost this time?
Why not enjoy the victory in India instead?
And why not enjoy the fact that Rafale scored so much better than the mighty Typhoon? 😀
But I guess it’s in the French soul to complaint and be Les miserable? :p
LokeAs a matter of fact, he made a decision based on something else than a technical evaluation. Quite an achievement.
As he should; as a politician he should make decisions based on a number of factors: Technical, financial, industrial, political, etc. It’s a balancing act, and he cannot let just one single factor determine everything.
Politicians are also not technical experts. They cannot read technical documents, they need to rely on briefings from the experts. High-level briefings that even a politician can understand and relate to.
I know many French are bad losers, but this is becoming ridicilous…!
LokeAwesome. Maurer confirms that the report is true, and that he didn’t even bother reading it. We all know here that a most fighter competitions are BS, but it’s nice to see a politician confirming.
Nic
I think you are wrong.
In a proper evaluation a large number of reports are produced. Most of them are very technical; in addition they may contain a lot of confidential information that should be shared with a very limited number of people.
The leaked reports are summary reports; however they are still written in a very technical language. I strongly suspect that the intended audience for these two summary reports is NOT the politicians. They are normally not supposed to read such technical reports.
Instead they are offered briefings at an even higher level.
One may note the following:
1. We have seen just parts of these two technical summary reports; if we had seen the complete reports we may have had a different picture.
2. We have not seen any of the other reports; if we had seen some of the other reports we may have had a different picture.
One important requirement seems to have been related to the number of a/c that could be fitted into a given budget. It seems that Rafale failed on that key requirement. It also seems to me that next on the list was Gripen.
LokeQRA : Quick Reaction Alert.
Ah, the Q looked like an O to me.
It seems very strange to me that the uprated Gripen scores so poorly; also I am very surprised that the Eurofighter is not scoring higher on QRA!
And why is the Rafale scoring so much higher on QRA than both Gripen and the Typhoon?
How come?
LokeDo you guys believe the Swiss will change their minds after the revelation and order now the Rafale instead of Gripen?
The main aim of this campaign could perhaps be to have the deal cancelled, and thereby weaken Gripen’s chances in other competions.
For sure the Rafale will not be ordered, it did not meet all the requirements (in particular those related to the number of air frames given the limited budget).
LokeFigure 2.4: Any thoughts on what is meant by “Mission preparation”?
And what is “data dissemination”? Funny that all 3 scored low on that one.
What is ORA?
LokeAccording to http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f18.html#performance the endurance of the F-18 is 1h45 minutes (CAP endurance 150 nm from aircraft carrier); in addition ferry range is at “above 1800 nm” (3333 km). The “MS21” is then given a score of less than 4…
This seems rather strange to me, to say the least. Gripen C/D has a ferry range of 3200 km, just slightly less than the Hornet, the NG has been qouted having ferry range of more than 4000km, and combat radius of 1300 km in a2a config and with 30 minutes on station. It’s hard to see that the NG with a significant increase in internal fuel should score so low on endurance compared to the Hornet. Which seems to suggest that what is referred to as “MS21” in this document in not the “Gripen NG” that has been offered to e.g. India and Brazil, but rather a beefed-up Gripen C/D.
Also here: http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/25029.pdf it says that the max loadout is 5,300 kg; this is the C/D loadout, for the Gripen NG, max loadout has been qouted as 7200 kg. In addition, the empty weight qouted (7500 kg) is higher than what is qouted for a Gripen NG, again this also points to a beefed-up C/D and not the Gripen NG. Also look at http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-for-Switzerland/The-Gripen-Fighter/ and note that empty weight is not qouted, and neither is the max loadout weight.
The implication of having a beefed-up C/D (basically the Gripen Demo) compared to the “Gripen NG” could be the following:
1. Shorter loiter time/range
2. Less maximum loadout
3. Higher RCS
4. Higher empty weight (which has obvious implications for TWR and several other parameters).
There could also be other things of course.
Saab has said they don’t know yet what configuration Switzerland wants to go for. Perhaps another config has been offered, which is the “Gripen NG”?
LokeI am not able to download — are there other sites the report has been uploaded to?
Also, I thought there were 2 reports; is the first or second?
LokeMr Kovy, I thinks your numbers are too much opimistic. But I think quite possible to achieve 300 exports. I dont think Indian navy will buy rafael-M because they will use mig-29k and tegas on IAC1, and then move to f-35c/emals on IAC2.
I think there is a possibility that the Tejas mk2 will either be too much delayed, or perhaps even fail to meet the requirements that IAF and the Navy asks.
I suspect this is why Saab is still present in India with the NG, and this could also be why they have opened an office in the UK where they work on the Naval Gripen NG.
Rafale could be an option of course however the higher costs would eventually become an issue.
My understanding is that the IAF plan was that the Rafale would be the Medium fighter, the SU-30mki the Heavy fighter, and the Tejas mk2 the Light fighter. If the Tejas does not work out, what is plan B for the light fighter? Gripen NG seems to be perfectly positioned.
The Nay could of course still go for the Rafale instead of Naval Tejas, however, again the Naval NG would be the perfect substitute for a failed Naval Tejas, also in terms of size and capabilities. Slotting some of the avionics developed for the Tejas mk2 into Gripen NG could perhaps be one option, thereby creating a hybrid Gripen/Tejas with substantial Indian contents.
On verra.
“They focused largely on the Air Force programme and the (naval Tejas) did fall behind…. There have been many promises made by the ADA but they failed us,” he is quoted as saying.
He may have a point: the naval Tejas was supposed to fly last November, but the last we heard it was still in ground tests. We’re not even talking about catapult launches and arrested landings, but merely the aircraft’s first flight.
“It is often said that there is only 15 per cent difference between both versions,” he is quoted as saying. “The Navy has always maintained that it may be 15 per cent in terms of material and systems, but it is a substantial part. And they underestimated it.”
This all reminds me of a quip Richard Aboulafia made when I interviewed him about the LCA last year: “The Tejas is a victory of the guys in lab coats over the guys in flight suits.”
To be fair, the Indian Air Force is by all accounts less than delighted with the Tejas, which seems as far as ever from achieving its final operational capability. It was apparently rushed into its initial operational capability in early 2011 for the sake of the Aero India show.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2012/02/surprise-naval-tejas-criticise.html
With LCA Tejas final operational clearance slipping to 2014, and the programme still struggling to meet performance specs for the second phase of initial operational clearance (IOC-2), the aircraft project has dipped into another difficult phase. According to sources, several requirements (that were watered down during IOC-1 in January), are still to be met. The parameters include wake penetration certification, all weather clearance (ironically, tests were stalled because of the monsoon earlier this year) and lightning clearance. Earlier this month, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne said again that final operational clearance was delayed by a full year — moving down to 2014.
http://livefist.blogspot.in/2011/11/troubles-slow-tejas-again.html
LokeWhat’s the latest on the OSF NG?
WIll there be an IR channel, or will Rafale rely on the MICAs also in the future?
LokeCould somebody post a detailed description of the configuration of the Indian Rafale? Things like: What kind of IR sensors, what scan modes for the AESA, SPECTRA, HMD, other updates to MMI, etc, etc.
Also, how will it differ from the Rafale flying today (we all know about the AESA but what else?)
LokeDefinite evidence that Rafale is the best fighter… EVER. 😎
Congratulations to France and Dassault — TMor you should really change that avatar now!
Loke*cough*
Can you also tell me the next National lottery winning number, please ? 😀
I could but I think I will keep that to myself now… 🙂
Congratulations to Dassault and France! 🙂
Rafale is a formidable machine and with this export order it will definitely start to realize it’s full potential.
Hmmm I wonder if a guy know as bluewings will post this news over at Strategypage….
LokeNorway made a “complex set of simulations” which showed that while conventional non-stealthy aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and next generation Saab Gripen are perfectly adequate for wars like Afghanistan where there is a permissive threat environment, only the F-35 was suitable to fight a high-end adversary. Barth Eide, without mentioning a country by name, said that such a high-end threat existed in Norway’s vicinity.
“There was only one aircraft that would do,” he said.
Sign In
