Scorpion82Just as Scorpion, i think we’re getting close to the critical number of pages on this thread (nearly 26 pages if 30 messages displayed per page).
But i’m going to post it here, as i’m not sure about moderators’ opinion.
We have new reports and data about Rafale orders… It’s really sad. 🙁
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/budget/plf2009/a1202-tV.pdfWe will never have 294 Rafale ordered for France, finally.
The number has been reduced to 286 (-22%) so as to match the 300 fighter plan for 2020 decided by the Livre Blanc.In 2004, 59 Rafale F3 were ordered but later reduced by 8 so as to pay the “Rafale roadmap”. Now, those 8 Rafale will be ordered by the end of the year. (2008)
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/cr-cdef/08-09/c0809012.pdf
In 2009, it’s still planned, the following order of 60 Rafale post-F3 (AESA, DDM-NG, OSF-IP) will be signed. We still don’t know how many will be for the AdA or the MN, because it will depend on export contracts…On December the 31th of 2008, we will have a total of 42 Rafale delivered (instead of 57 originally planned). The rate will be of 14 Rafale per year. But it seems, according to L’Express that in the 2009-2014, the delivery rate may vary between 8 to 11 per year, depending on the export (50 to 66 Rafale for 6 years?).
Of course, export success is highly needed, not for a matter of money, but to maintain the production rate.
There’s still no order for the Meteor, which is seen as critical for the export markets, because Typhoon and Gripen may certainly get it before the Rafale. However, it should only be for 2018 ! :mad::mad::mad: What is wrong with this missile ???
Thanks for the updated info TMor. I read that the RBE2 datalink is not fully compatible with the Meteor’s two-way link. RBE2 AA would be needed anyway to use the Meteor to full potential. Maybe the RBE2 AA will receive a new missile DL which can handle the Meteor? I could imagine that the postponed Meteor is another cut by the lack of funding.
Scorpion82first of all, read the text, basicly well known factor is that 39A was the first 4 gen fighter, just read some old articals and get updated.
None of the comented planes are known for there swingrole cability. Data fusion was good in 39A, together with datalink(this is to date unbeaten), thou it did lack some sensorcapability of 39C or any of the later 4 gen. So there were a generation swift.Also the F-15 is basicly a stable platform, F-16 and F-18 are “just” instable
Gripen is very instable. Just as the rafale and eurofighter or any other 4 gen.
My point was and is that the JAS 39A/B which entered service in 1996 were not as technologically advanced as is the Rafale, Typhoon or JAS 39C/D which entered service after 2000. I didn’t said that there were no advances over aircraft like the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 and I didn’t insist that the JAS 39 isn’t a 4th generation fighter! If you feel pissed by facts its not my problem
And the Eurofighter is essentially a Italian/German design so obviously Scorpion is a nationalist fanboy seriously bitter about not having his own national fighter jet design to cheer on. It’s just ridiculous to watch and further degrades the quality of this forum.
Be careful Signatory! I’M GERMAN, not british, hence your accusation of me being a british nationalist is dumb a$$ nonsense. I just see things as they are and me being german but acknowledging the british contents in Eurofighter is completely contradictionary to what you want to accuse me for!
Scorpion82A quickie:
Can anyone recall the planned split between Block 5A and Block 8 in the Austrian order, when they still planned 18 new build aircraft?
Basically Austria ordered 18 block 8 aircraft, but as the Eurofighter GmbH couldn’t hold delivery schedules due the late contracted T2, it was agreed in 2005 to divert 6 block 5 aircraft to Austria (2 German, 2 British, 1 Italian and 1 Spanish.
AS001 is ex SS011
AS002 is ex GS027
AS003 is ex IS019
AS004 is ex BS035
AS005 is ex BS036
AS006 is ex GS028
Scorpion82That’s just simply untrue and show how little you know about the Gripen A/B and the RM12 engine. The Gripen 39A was incredibly advanced as the world first 4th gen fighter aircraft and delivered with swingrole capability and its highly developed datalink from start. 10 years before the RAF took delayed overbudget single-role Typhoons into service. And anyone with a clue would never refer to the Gripen development programme in A/B vs C/D but in the Batches and Blocks delivered through-out the production.
The first of Batch 2 Gripen 39A (after the first 30 jets) for instance received a significant avionics upgrade with 10 times as fast computers as the early jets and the last Batch 2 Gripens 39A were essentially the export base standard 39C including new APU and further developed avionics and the new cockpit. EBS39C added World wide climate, IFR (not ordered by the SwAF), further RCS reduction, heavier MTOW, increased service life and parts reduction. The US content is not 35% it’s 35% of the VALUE, with the engine parts (60% GM, 40% Volvo) being the most expensive part. Otoh the Typhoons got 80%+ Italian avionics…
Words might have been a bit unlucky, but apart the datalink what was so special about the Gripen in comparison to the F-18C or F-15E or F-16 blk 50/52 at that time from an avionics point of view? Not much! I know that A/B Gripens were delivered in different configurations, but to reach a similar technological standard as the Rafale or Typhoon it took some years more. I didn’t said 35% US content, but foreign content. I didn’t said the Swedes needed anyone to design the aircraft, but they needed help to realise it. Engines and FBW are of US origin for example. Changes/contribution from the Swedes apart, they haven’t done all the work alone and also haven’t developed “everything” from scratch.
What I say is that the A/B modells weren’t on the same technological level (generally seen not nitpicking on a certain feature) as the Rafale or Typhoon, the Gripen C/D basically is, but it took a couple of more years to achieve that standard.
BTW 80%+ avionics from Italy? No way, avionics development workshare was similar as for the entire aircraft. GEC Marconi isn’t an italian firm, if that confused you.
Scorpion82You Mr. Lordassap are Marc Sampaix, as is GlobalPress and as was Thunder, Fonk, Nungesser-C and what ever identity you used. You layed your own traps to unveil your identity, yet you are to dishonest to admit it and claim to be the man with a white west you aren’t and you know that. Hiding in multiple identities you claim to be inculpable, because it wasn’t you:rolleyes: The fact is it was you just hiding behind another identity! I won’t jump on your points, not because of the lack of knowledge and comprehension you accuse me for, but because of the fact that it neither makes sense to discuss anything with someone like you, not is it possible to have any halfway civilised discussion with you. I reacted agressive, yes and it would have been better to deal with it in another way, but my reaction was caused by YOUR insults when I was not even engaged in any discussion! Scorpion the fanboy yeah yeah.
Scorpion82Sensless discussion = INTERPRETING FALSLY comments and technical points one doesn’t fully comprehend (or refuse to).
Mr Lord,
to be honest I’m sick of that way of discussion. I was called by name, accused for saying things I never said and offended by Mr. Global even before I was involved into any discussion, you quickly jumped on it and I had to react, though there would have been better ways (at least for me) to deal with that kind of behaviour. I don’t mind to reply to your posts anymore . In the case you continue to call my name and accuse me for things I don’t even said or direct offenses at me, I’ll just report it to a mod.
Scorpion82It’s not just money…. It’s vision…. I mean lack of vision, lack of resolve, lack of … well just about everything that is needed to get things from concept to operational in realistic, affordable, sensible timescales. How on Earth can anyone decide what to spend money on if it is not likely to go operational until 20 years after its conception, and is then expected to have some operational life? ! How can our military men predict what they’d need in 20 years time?
Eurofighter…… a good example of an utter waste of money and disgraceful timescales…..
I saw the ACA mockup at Farnborough in 1982. EAP flew 4 years later. Eurofigher went operational in 2003! It was conceived in the Cold War. What the hell happened? 20 years of development costs a lot more than 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 years. Bae Hawk was designed and went operational in about 4 years. Gripen was started about the same time as ACA (1982) and went operational in 1996 (I think). That’s bad enough, but it was from a country of only 9 million tax payers. Eurofighter was an international consortium with a headstart (EAP).
The ‘Abominable No Men’ will shake their silly heads and employ a consultant to report that you can’t design things any faster. Don’t listen to them. They haven’t a clue, or they have some other agenda. Today we have incredible design and analysis tools. We just don’t have the resolve to get the job done. Time is wasted working in huge global partnerships. Different time zones, cultures, engineering protocols, etc. of global partners cause huge costs in time and money. We need to return to small design teams, and probably private ventures. A lot of successful aircraft in the past have been private commercial ventures either at conception or at some time in their development.
The ‘My Maclaren goes faster than your Fiat’ idiots will point out that it doesn’t shoot down MiG 99s very fast, or dodge the sci-fi radar and SAMs that will be developed in 10 years time very well. They are prepared to wait 3 times longer for something that cost so much it should fly to our Moon, and will be obsolete as it goes operational for a country that can no longer afford to run it!
UK is a disgrace.
Sorry about the rant, but I am really pissed of with UK. It’s my country, but I don’t belong there any more.
Well that is something you have to set into relation. The Gripen A/B for example was not that advanced and used many off the shelf products such as the F404 (though upgraded in many ways). The much more advanced and complex C/D modells were delivered around the same time as Typhoons or Rafales. And BTW just take a look at the Su-34, F-22 or Rafale. ALL these aircraft took way longer to develope and enter service. You are right about the problems of the multinational cooperation, but everything has a downside!
Scorpion82The Swiss requirement is basically 22-33 aircraft. The number depends on costs and capabilities. If one contender is more effective than the other than even a lower number of the more capable one would be accepted. It’s at least what those swiss guys say.
Scorpion82Scorps,
You’re being a tad unfair. Gripen is conceptually a Swedish aircraft, and is largely a Swedish design.
Rafale’s an achievement, though, to be sure.
Well that’s of course true, but the fact remains that the Swedes are a little bit limited with their ressources and relied on the US and also Brits in some very important areas including FCS and engine to mention just some quite important examples. BTW the similarity between BAes P106 and Saabs 2110 (which became the Gripen) was astonishing.
Scorpion82BTW the foreign contents of the Gripen (from UK and US) is 35%! The Rafale is so far the only and probably last european fighter ever completely designed and developed in a single nation. It’s quite an achievment, given the huge financial burden.
Scorpion82The typhoon will be right at the bottom in that competition when in full AB. 😀
Thrust is not necessarily an indicator for noise. Even more nasty are frequencies. The really most ugly sounding plane I ever heared (at least of which I can remember of) is the Harrier. This beast sounds really terrible.
Scorpion82I 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
Boeing withdrawed in April that year. The unofficial version is that the Swiss prefered a European product at this time.
Scorpion82Rafale evaluation swiss – details
The evaluation of the Rafale started is carried out on the ground and in the air. About 30 flights, including night trials will be conducted.
The 2 Rafales (B301 & B307) arrived at Emmen AB on october 9 and they will leave in early november.
The aircraft arrived with three 1250 l or 2000 l tanks and 2 MICA IR + 2 EM attached (didn’t get the serial of the aircraft associated with the tanks :(). Test flights carried out included/include dogfights and general aircombat demonstration evaluation, some AG and recce trials, including representive 250 kg dumb bombs, Damocles and RECCE-NG being used on individual flights.
Noise measurement is part of the evaluations and the aircraft visit different ABs including Payerne, Sion and Meiringen.
Some bids about the offer:
The french offer closer cooperation than ever before, this includes using french ranges and airspace for training, full technology transfer, swiss participation in the further development of the aircraft and training for technical and flying personal in France. According Dassault representives its an offer without any restrictions.
Scorpion82Are the Swiss currently evaluating the Rafale? 😮
When did all that start?
The 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.
Scorpion82a significantly better MMI (and I have a lot of largely anecdotal evidence to support this)
Well this is an area where I (personally) would just say “in my opinion it is better because…”. The problem about the MMI topic is that you quote pilots etc. something which can’t be cross checked by the people here. Some might also hear different stories from other people (pilots for instance) which may contradict. I’m personally quite familar with Typhoons MMI, but not so much with Rafales (though I would like to learn more about it). MMI is about many things and it is also a bit subjective. I can quite imagine how a scale to measure the effectivness of MMI works. So far your annecdotal evidences are mainly claims like “more intuitive”. The problem with that is that many people can not really deal with such a statement (including me). It’s not that those people don’t know what “intuitive” means, but more how this actually works out. Given my knowledge about the Typhoon (I consider myself quite comprehensively informed, not because of my arrogance, but because of people in the know were impressed; But I for sure don’t know all, nor am I an expert at everything) and that about the Rafale (Which I consider quite good for a non french guy with mostly no direct contacts) I can not really see a “vast superiority”. And I’m quite sure that this is exactly what many here think, because they want to know more, they want concrete examples, not vargue statements, if they are true or not is a different topic, but it’s just natural that people are sceptical (There’re way to much people on the internet who pretend to know this or that but can’t prove it and some, not necessarily all are indeed just fakes who want to play the smart a$$).
I agree however that, even when there is sceptism a little bit more respect and no offenses like they happen here quite often would be appropriated. It would be better to say it once, but if you can’t give more details just let it be, because it won’t answer people’s questions and just makes your self looking like a biased person, even if you aren’t.
Sign In
