LokeSupposedly, their offered price was only a few percent lower than Eurofighter. The cost/capability comparison made that seem far too expensive, & Eurofighter was chosen. The reason for the surprisingly high Saab bid has been argued about ever since. I think Saab tried resubmitting it at a lower price, but too late.
Some speculates that the sellers of Gripen expected the price offer from eurofighter to be much higher than it actually was.
Others point to the fact that, at that time, BAE was handling Gripen exports. BAE is also involved with the Typhoon, which at that time had no export customers. By setting the price of Gripen high BAE could create a “win-win” situation for themselves: Either they would sell Gripen and make loads of money, or the Eurofighter consortium would score the first export customer. Note: These are speculations, that you typically find on internet forums 😉
BAE still owns part of Saab, but BAE does not handle Gripen sales directly anymore (I think it’s done by Gripen Int. which is owned in by Saab and BAE?).
I have also read somewhere that the actual price of the Austrian Typhoon became much higher than the Austrian politicians originally anticipated and that this was partly the reason why they reduced the order from 24 to 18 and later to 15. Cannot find the link anymore though.
Currently Gripen and Typhoon are competing in Switzerland, India, Romania(?)and probably some other countries as well.
L
LokeThe USAF colonel mentioned, indeed, that f 15 and F 16 had troubles with the jammers on the Indian MiG 21. But there are some details you didn’t retained: 1) those jammers are made in Israel 2) those F 15 and F 16 have conventional radars. The colonel never said that F 22 with AESA had troubles due to jamming.
I don’t think the F-22 flew against the mig with the Israel jamming equipment, although I may be wrong. And actually he did say that the F-22 should retain it’s cannon and although I don’t remember the exact wording my understanding was that the reason he wanted to retain the F-22 cannon was that he was not entirely confident that the Mig would not be able to jam the F-22 — and according to aviationweek (or was it the DEW line?) this guy had been an F-22 test pilot.
I am no expert, but that was my understanding of what he said. Of course he may be wrong since he is after all a pilot and not a radar expert. On the other hand, most of the people posting here are probably not radar experts either 🙂
L
LokeBut the F-35 would never engage the Su-35 directly. In every scenario that the F-35 is likely to face the Su-35, the latter will likely be an export model. And if somehow this was direct combat between first run models than how likely is the F-35 going to face the Su-35 without F-22 intervention? The ‘Su-35 clubs F-35’ article is merely a distraction away from Russia’s real problems in the future; they simply have not been able to keep pace with the atf programs in the west.
What about all the countries that will fly F-35 but may have no access to F-22? And what about a country withouth F-22 but with early-block F-35 that faces the Russian version of SU-35?
That’s the scenario Norway could be facing in the high North…
I agree with your point about this article being a distraction, and I am not too worried about Norwegian F-35 meeting Russian SU-35 🙂 Most likely it will not happen and if it does, Norway would in any case lose the first phase of such a conflict. Quantity has a quality of it’s own. The second phase: Either Russia would be **** by NATO, or Russia would immediately pull back and start negotiations.
L
LokeToo bad so many posters have a “Snoopy vs The Red Baron” mentality. Air-to-air combat is a very distant second place to killing ground targets.
The primary users (i.e. military services who are buying the most jets) will use F-35 as a light attack airplane, not as an air superiority fighter. Therefore, the F-35 design is optimized for the light attack role (with respectable self-defense ability), capable of penetrating sophisticated IADSs, which includes SU-35s.
The first objective of the attack airplane is to kill it’s assigned ground targets. Ideally, the attacker would avoid DCA to keep from “kicking the hornet’s nest”. But if DCA was preventing successful completion of the mission objectives, then DCA would be engaged with AIM-120s. DCA doesn’t have to be K-killed. A mission kill would be satisfactory as long as the ground targets are destroyed.
Would that not depend on the country? A small country (like Norway) wants a multirole jet, and perhaps defence of own air space would be considered more important than bombing the neighbour. Although I could be wrong of course.
The US and other big countries presumably will have other requirements than small countries.
L
LokeFor some reason I think the F18E/F is the best contender due to political pressure. Then the EF, since it’s more in the interest of India to please 4 countries than 1. I’m not sure technical merits will play the key .
The biggest advantage of the Rafale there is the ToT I think. If the Indians get full ToT I wonder if the EF team would follow.
Nic
My understanding was that the EF team has offered India to become full partner — presumably that would imply a quite high level of ToT?
L
LokeI want to thank all of you for the responses. I now feel considerably more informed about Rafale and it’s prospects.
I think based on the conversations in this thread that the MRCA contract in India is absolutely key for Rafale and future export prospects. India loves the Mirage 2000 and has been happy with how it has performed. I think that it would be too much at this stage in Indo/American rapproachement to expect the Rhino to win the upcoming Indian contract for 120+ new planes. Gripen NG might not have enough capability. The MiG-35 is a possibility of course, but to me it is going to be between Rafale versus Typhoon and if Rafale loses it might have a very difficult time overcoming the perception in the marketplace that it is Pepsi to the Typhoon’s Coca Cola.
Gripen NG will be very capable — look at the links in the recently opened Gripen thread.
The price is also very good. Norway will pay 20-23 billion NOK (USD 2.9 — 3.3 billion), depending on what source you rely on, for 48 planes including everything but fuel and weapons for a 20-year period. In addition fuel costs will be much lower than for most other planes — estimates show that compared to F-35 Norway could save another 10 billion NOK (USD 1.4 billion) on fuel costs due to less consumption. Heavy twin-engine fighters like Rafale, Typhoon and SH would probably be in the same ballpark as the F-35 when it comes to fuel consumption?
Anyway my guess is that a combination of politics and the level of Technology Transfer will decide the Indian tender (and hopefully not more shady methods…) — IMHO Rafale is definitely a front runner, but so is Typhoon, Gripen NG and SH, all very capable 4.5 gen planes. If costs plays a major role then Gripen’s chances would look very good actually…
L
Lokewell the typhoon is a four nation programme so it is normal that the number of aircraft produced is higher.
As far as exports are concerned, the reasons of rafale lack of success are for the three campains the rafale was involved in)
-The lack of polotical clout in korea (36 000 GI stationned there!)
-The depreciation of the dollar (30%) and the lack of political clout in singapore. (US navy fleet in the balance to protect singapore…)
-In Marrocco massive failure of the french authorities…Two negociators for the rafale with Dassault and the DGA with different prices suggested. (plus failure of package deal offers)And that is it for the rafale for the moment. We should wait for brazil where the rafale is in the final stage but also Switzerland and india. Lybia and the UAE are state to state negociation.
But Rafale was also in competition in Holland, Norway (and Denmark?).
Holland of course never had a real competition. Norway OTOH has a real competition, but only with Gripen and F-35. So why did Rafale drop out of the Norwegian competition? Unlike Eurofighter that pulled out by themselves I think Dassault was given hints that their chances of winning were very low. They left the party early. I am not sure why this happened.
I think it may be related to either politics and/or the lack of compability with American weapons. Or something else? I am not sure actually.
L
LokeFrom what you are telling us, Rafale seems to be an incredible plane — why has it not yet made any export sales? :confused:
L
LokeThe DEW line confirms the story:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
Inside the Air Force has picked up this statement from Nellis AFB Public Affairs:
The YouTube videos “IAF SU-30 MKI Red Flag Lecture Part 1 & Part 2” were of Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 pilot and the Director of the Requirements and Testing office at the United States Air Force Warfare Center, Nellis AFB, Nev., giving a private impromptu briefing in August 2008 to local Daedalians. The Daedalians are a group of retired military pilots. Col. Fornof did not mean to offend any U.S. allied forces, as he knows firsthand the importance of training with allied forces and the awesome firepower they bring to the fight. His comments during this briefing were his personal opinions and not those of U.S. Air Force Warfare Center or of the Air Force.
Thanks to Chi’s comment on this blog, I was able to find the web site advertising the meeting where the anonymous YouTube pilot gave his now infamous Red Flag lecture.
Here’s the online notice advertising the 24 September meeting of the Daedalians and the Thunderbird Chapter of AFA. Here’s the link back to the site, but gaining access could be tricky. (I ended up having to google the URL, click on the cached page and play with the username/password box a few times. I’m actually not quite sure how I got it to work, so good luck.)
Monthly Meeting – 9/17/2008 6:45:54 PM
Fellow Daedalians,
The upcoming weeks will offer several events at Nellis AFB if you are interested. I have included some event notes below but first, let me tell you about the September 24 meeting.
We are joining with the Thunderbird Chapter of AFA to host a USAF Warfare Center panel to discuss “The Future Fight”. After our dinner of London broil, Brig Gen Hoog will introduce the panel members, who then will discuss how the Warfare Center is preparing for the future fight today. After a short presentation, they will open the floor up for questions and answers. It should be a very informative presentation that you will not want to miss.
RSVP’s for this event will be especially important to ensure the proper dining room set-up with our local AFA chapter, so please let me know if you are planning on attending.
L
LokeLatest from Jane’s:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw081104_1_n.shtml
UK procurement officials are considering options to push back the first purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, amid growing speculation that funding shortfalls are threatening UK participation in the programme.
Jane’s has learnt that UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials have raised the possibility of not buying three low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft over the next two years at a cost of some GBP450 million (USD742 million) and delaying purchases until production-standard aircraft are available in the middle of the next decade. A decision not to acquire LRIP JSFs was recently taken by Italy, Lockheed Martin announced on 10 October.
The ministry’s highest procurement planning group, the Investment Appraisals Board (IAD), is due to make recommendations on the LRIP JSF purchase at its January meeting. However, some ministry sources suggest a delay might be used as a mechanism to save UK participation in the US-led programme by pushing back the JSF spending ‘bow wave’ until well into the next decade, easing the ministry’s ‘funding gap’ in the near term.
The UK MoD was not able to respond to Jane’s ahead of publication.
L
LokeI always get a kick about the power of the F414 when it comes to Super Hornet. The engine is artificially starved for air in the Super Hornet yet people continue to cite it as having the same massive test scores for power as the model used in the bench testing.
Gripen NG will have increased air inlets to make sure the F414 gets the air it needs 🙂
The jump in thrust from RM12 to F414 is anyway smaller than from F404 to F414 (ca. 25% vs 35%) since RM12 was boosted by ca. 10% compared to F404.
L
LokeThe Swiss evaluates all 3 contenders (Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon). Each participiciant sents 2 twinseaters for air and ground evaluations. The Gripen was actually the first to be evaluated from July to early August. Rafales evaluation started in early october and will last until early november. The Typhoon will be evaluated from early november to early december. In january 2009 it is planned to request final bids from all 3 manufacturers and a final decision is planned for july 2009.
I’ll post some further details about the Rafales current evaluation in the next post.
I am sorry to go off-topic but…
Another interesting thing about the Swiss competition was that Super Hornet was also in there, originally, but they withdrew, I think they said something like “SH is too sophisticated for the needs of Switzerland” or something like that. Also very interestingly was that the SH guy recommended Switzerland to buy Gripen (!). Perhaps because Gripen contains a lot of US parts? Or was there another reason?
Anyway, I have the impression that SH is a very good air craft (the same can be said about Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen), at a quite reasonable price(?) and was therefore surprised they were given hints that their chances were not that good. Anybody have any ideas why?
L
Lokehttp://www.air-defense.net/Forum_AD/index.php?topic=8521.0;wap2
I found some direct pilot quote with a quick google search of this article in the forum I’ve talked you about.
simple google traduction :
Arthuro,
thanks, very interesting.
Regarding “technology of the weapon system”, do you know what was referred to? The MICA perhaps? I have to admit I never read about it, maybe I will do that…
I hope somebody will buy Gripen NG, so we will see it fully developed; the sensor fusion and MMI in the NG has been described as “very innovative” by e.g. the Danes that are evaluating it right now as part of their tender.
Apart from Switzerland and Romania (?) I believe Rafale is mainly competing against NG and not Gripen C/D… so watch out 🙂
Will there be any significant upgrades of the Rafale MMI in the next 6 years or so?
L
Lokesign,
gripen pilots admitted their lack of sensor fusion during the last rafale vs gripen confrontation in Reims. There was a report about that in the monthly airfan.
Arthuro,
Do you have a quote, or link to one?
Thanks,
L
LokeFrance has done it and created a fairly poor aircraft, Sweden has done it and created a mediocre aircraft, the UK decided not to go it alone and has come up with a rather good aircraft without having to pay all the R&D costs.
Oh, and that’s before you get to all the aircraft that BAe have on the drawing board.
Here we go again… what is poor about Rafale? And what is mediocre about Gripen?
IMHO all three Eurocanards are pretty good planes, all with their weak and strong points.
Typhoon is perhaps better than Rafale in a2a, but try landing Typhoon on an aircraft carrier… Or try to set up a decent small-country air force on a shoe-string budget with Typhoon (Ask Austria and Hungary how things are going :diablo:).
L
Sign In
