LokeIf i have to guess, we will end up with Rygge as the main airbase, and perhaps Andøya airbase as a forward QRA base, with 4 units on high alert at all time.
My 2 cent though..
Rygge!?? Perhaps you mean Ørlandet?
LokeYou’re not going to see a naval Rafale in Indian Navy colours. Its already slated to be operating two types of aircraft in the MiG-29K and the N-Tejas. If a third type is to be acquired (for its second indigenous aircraft carrier) it will be fifth generation aircraft – a naval PAKFA if the timeline is promising or the F-35C.
Why did Eurofighter present ideas for a naval Typhoon then? Who is the potential customer?
Perhaps there is some uncertainties around the N-tejas, and perhaps having a backup solution could be wise?
LokeGood points Eagle1 — I actually forgot about the potential significance of carrier capability.
I believe both Saab and Eurofighter presented plans for naval versions for Gripen NG and Typhoon respectively… presumably there was a reason for presenting such plans… If that becomes a real factor then Rafale has a clear advantage over Typhoon.
I know some very high figures have been qouted on operating costs for Typhoon however I suspect relevant figures may not be that different from Rafale’s. The current Typhoon operators are working hard together with Eurofighter to reduce their operating costs and presumably all those efforts have had some effects although I have no information on how much they have reduced their operating costs. Also I am sure both companies will give some quite optimistic projections on future operating costs… 😉
Every deal is different of course but still the “warning shot” from UAE and the fact that Rafale so far has not a single export customer whereas Typhoon has two, is also something to think about. In particular it’s interesting to note that UAE invited Eurofighter to respond to an RFP…
LokeI hate to repeat myself but:
1. Typhoon is very expensive but Rafale is also not cheap, as recently demonstrated in UAE…
2. Both Typhoon and Rafale made it to the shortlist; so both are “acceptable” for the IAF.
3. According to the IAF, after the downselect, the final selection will depend on costs and offsets. The company that can offer the best package in terms of costs and offsets will be chosen.
4. The leaks so far seem to indicate that there is not much difference in the cost of the of the planes in the MMRCA (also se point 1 above); thus estimates of life cycle costs and offsets should then decide.
I have no idea who will win.
Regarding the a/c themselves; I think we all can agree that both a/c are very capable. IMHO Rafale is technically more mature at the moment but over a 40-year period the current superiority of Rafale over Typhoon seems less relevant.
LokeI don’t think Rafale is out of UAE just yet; after all they did negotiate for 3 years!
It is really up to the French now; can they improve their offer or not? If they can improve the offer and meet UAE’s expectations then I actually think they have very good chances of bagging that deal!
However if the French cannot improve their offer then yes it does not look good…
LokeThis Rafale negotiations have been going on for couple of years and Sarkzy was popular to certain in beg. now either sarkzy will be booted out or spend rest of his life arguing with Germany on bailouts.
Sarkzy is not Iron lady or Tony Blair.i simply dont see UAE doing business with him.
EADS is another matter with its EU wide content and RR engines.
What?
The newsreports so far seem to indicate that UAE were quite happy with Sarko and wanted to do business with him; however it seems they had issues with Dassault.
I think we don’t have enough info to try to guess the outcome of this.
However what I found interesting is that they are going public with this. Now why are they doing that? My guess: to put a pressure on Dassault and France. And why would they do that? I don’t think they would do that unless they were still interested in Rafale.
For how many years have they been trying to sell Rafale now?
(OTOH Boeing has not had much more success with SH; only one export customer so far…)
LokeIf Brazil is serious about her air force, any 4. gen fighter bought at this stage should be considered first as a stop-gap and second as the “lo” in a hi-lo mix with a future 5. gen fighter.
If Brazil also wants to partner in developing the 5. gen fighter then they should take that into account.
To my knowledge France is happy with the Rafale for the next 30 years so they may not be the best partner for a 5. gen development program.
I doubt the SH would fit because I don’t see Boeing develop a 5.gen fighter with Brazil.
Hmm, that actually leaves Gripen… 😉
(of course I may be wrong and they have no plans to develop their own 5. gen)
LokeGiven that the Indian MoD is negotiating the weapons package independently and is retaining the option to integrate third party munitions (read: Raytheon proposal), the obvious choice, if it does want an anti-ship missile integrated (I have my doubts), is the Harpoon Block II. Its already received orders for its Jaguar-IMs as well as the IN’s new P-8Is, makes sense to stick to the type. Come to think of it, even the RAF might be interested – the Sea Eagle’s been retired and they have surplus Harpoons (after the Nimrod MR2’s axing).
I thought the Harpoon was getting rather old and dated?
Loke recommends:
http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/missile%20systems/jointstrikemissile/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile#Joint_Strike_Missile
Unless your missile has a very low RCS it may have issues reaching the target. The JSM will have a 240 km range it seems.
It’s interesting to note that Harpoon block III was canceled; presumably because the Americans are moving onto newer and better things?
RBS 15: I think the latest air-launched version is RBS-15F (delivery to Thailand), but I don’t really know how this differs from the mk II.
LokeArrogance!? In a French company!??
There have been rumors on this for ages but those rumors have always been vehemently denied.
There is no mafia in Italy.
There are no arrogant French.
… 😉
LokeWhat about fuel consumption? I would assume they both use roughly the same amount of fuel for a given mission?
Or does the slightly smaller Rafale have an edge also here?
I am still surprised they decided to go for such expensive twin-engine birds at this late stage with 5. gen fighters popping up all over the place.
Edit: I just realized the 70000 figure does include fuel costs for the Typhoon — but perhaps not for Rafale?
Loke??????
They built their plant on the world’s biggest marsh?
still impressive that they made it work…
Perhaps a simpler solution would have been to build the factory on solid ground? Perhaps that’s what the pesky French did!?
Loke“The lowest bidder will be announced after six to eight weeks,” ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar said.
The acquisition process is being kept secret to ensure transparency, said another ministry official.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8146889&c=EUR&s=AIR
That last sentence sounds funny to me…
LokeClaims backed up by actual test data, as in turn rate, max speed, etc. For example, the max speed of the F-35 is given at M1.6 (with weapons). If you look at the performance charts of the F-18E, it can only do ~m1.4 when loaded with 4 missiles.
Perhaps there are reasons why India dropped the SH and kept only Typhoon and Rafale in the race?
Not that it matters much; Japan will choose an American bird; SH if F-35 is too much delayed, and F-35 otherwise.
A pity Europe cannot join forces and develop at true 5. gen a/c. Oh well c’est la vie.
LokeVideo for the concept of MLA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpiR0SqdUPM
It seems that Rafale has to use all its three heavy-load pylons to carry the MLA, so each pylon’s load for carrying MLA should be: 4,000 / 3 = 1,333 kg ~ which is lighter than carrying a SCALP-EG (1,360 kg) or a full 2,000 L external fuel tank (1,850 kg), not to mention a Brahmos (2,500 kg).
No there were two MLA suggested, the “smallest” one is the one I believe weighs 4 tons. The bigger one weighs more (10 ton).
The study therefore started with an operational Rafale. The installation of the launcher under the airplane must comply with restrictions associated with the store station (vertical clearance, landing gear and doors displacement, allowable weight). An initial single body launcher (a storable solid propellant stage and a storable liquid propellant stage) was considered for linear installation under the central station of the fuselage. This version allowed for 50 kilos to be placed in low earth orbit for an initial analysis, which is a remarkable feat for an airplane of a size significantly smaller than that of the Mirage IV.
Additionally, the CNES was looking for an airborne launcher able to place in heliosynchronous orbit, at approximately 800 km in altitude (that of Spot satellites), Myriade-class satellites (150 kg). The Technical Department’s teams therefore designed a tri-body configuration that could fully use the Rafale’s external stores capacity: the central linear body is completed by two lateral bodies (solid propellant type) to form a first stage installed under the store stations of the wings. The different parts of the launcher are linked by fixed arms that do not impede the deployment of the landing gear. This 10-ton class launcher can be used in a wide variety of missions. Its performance could be improved even further with new propulsion technologies
Swerve yes you have a good point, combat is a different situation. However a 4-ton load on one hard point is still very impressive.
I wonder what the limit for a combat config would be?
LokeRafale can easily carry 2.5 tons – and indeed, far more – but that is not the same as carrying a single 2.5 ton object. I think a 2000 litre fuel tank is the heaviest single object that any of its hard points can accept, & that’s rather lighter. And there is also the matter of length, as you say.
Different versions have been considered, all using an unmodified operational Rafale as carrier aircraft. Derived operational versions would allow launching microsatellites weighting from 50kg (linear version) to 150 kg (“Trimaran” version) into a 800 km sun synchronous orbit.
MLA-Demonstrator description
The MLA-D is a 2-stage launch vehicle attached under
the wing/fuselage of an unmodified fighter Aircraft.
Figure 7: Astrium-ST MLA-D definition
The main dimensions are about 6.5m long, 0.9m
diameter (with an increase diameter on the forward
section). Total mass of the demonstrator is 4t.
The definition of the MLA is compatible with two
European aircrafts available in the countries partners of
the project, the EADS, BAE Systems and Finmeccanica
Eurofighter and the Dassault Aviation Rafale.C. Talbot 6 AIAA/7th Responsive Space® Conference 2009
Due to the difference of architecture of the two aircafts,
MLA is attached under the fuselage in the case of the
Rafale, and under the wing in the case of the
Eurofighter.
http://http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS7/SESSIONS/Session%20I/1005_Talbot/1005P.pdf
Sign In
