Scorpion82Yes I know… but….
…not according to the Serbs.
My point is that radar operators wont be sitting hopeless.
The have their own tactics.
So how much NATO aircraft were shot down by the airdefences?
There were a lot of HARMs launched and they missed, but there were also a lot which disabled their targets and the fact that very view NATO aircraft were lost indicates that the HARMs basically did their job.
Scorpion82@Greg,
you have to know the way a lot of HARMs were launched, it was in pre-emptive mode. The HARMs did their job in supressing enemy air defence.
Scorpion82And how much of them are operationally used and not just mock-ups or prototypes which never made it into service?
Scorpion82No aircraft has unlimited upgrade potential. There are physical limits to every airframe, with regards to internal volume, payload, power generation/cooling, etc..
That is only true for non russian designs, the russian ones are entirely different and light years ahead of everything else.;)
Scorpion82Thanks Trident. Nice pictures indeed. Reminds me on the Su-27KI camo (no. 305). This aircraft is really a beauty.
The knaapo site doesn’t open :(. Is the first flight date directly 2 October?
Scorpion82The second Su-35 prototype has made its maiden flight, are there any more details known (exact date, images)?
Scorpion82BTW where we are at it. How much Rafales are currently dedicated test assets?
M02, B01, M1, B301, B302 & C101? I suppose some stock production aircraft are used for some tests as well?
Scorpion82Just to get some things straight.
Here are the costs of the original contract for Austria and how they were made up.
1.132 Mio. Euro für 18 Eurofighter Typhoon
+ 195 Mio. Euro für die Finanzierung
+ 632 Mio. Euro System-& Simulatorkosten
1.959 Mio. Euro (Fixpreis!)
Translated
1.132 mln € for 18 aircraft
+ 195 mln € for finances
+632 mln € for system- & simulator costs
= 1.959 € total
There are people here (including me) who have followed these process from the very beginning, people who have/had direct contact with sources in the know. There is a difference between media articles based on guesses or wrpng facts and between getting reliable info directly from a source.
Scorpion82Well, explan me how they can get a AESA radar system in changing only the antenna due to cost of changing the whole system and processors?
Typical case of “talking sh!t” but no idea what is fact. Captor-D was designed with an AESA upgrade in mind. That includes the processor. That is the reason why there isn’t that much to change at all and CAESAR was in fact a Captor-D with new powersupply, antenna and ACU…
Scorpion82The unit price for each 59 Rafale F3 of the 2004 order was €48m (C version) to €52m (M version)
I don’t know if 48 vs 68 is ‘significant’ or ‘marginal’ so, I’ll call your comment a “Jackonikal comment” 😀
More to the point:
€48m was for a F3 version. If you want to compare both offer, you’ll have to compare it with Eurofighter T3 and add T3’s quotation.
Which is?
Ehm just because of T3 and F3 doesn’t mean its the same. The 3 means nothing here. Compare data for aircraft of a given time! T2 and F3 (batch 3) were both ordered in 2004 and delivery schedules are almost the same! Comparing it to T3 is nonsense.
Scorpion82The sources are mentioned by “number” next to the price in the summary table. The greek press, be it defence or political also gives considerable higher price for the EF (i posted an article about it and about fuel cost per hour some pages ago in this thread).
The Saudis paid 4,4 bln pounds for 72 EF and for full support (maintanance and trainning) the bill could go to 20 billion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6998774.stmThat’s 61 pounds per plane without support.
According to Al Jazeera, at the end, the contract was signed for 8.9 bln$ without maintanance costs.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/09/200852512492667454.htmlThats about 123 mln $ per plane, plus support and trainning.
Different Tranche blocks than the Austrians maybe?
Look, even if so, then the Rafale is in any case cheaper. An Italian once told me that the real cost is 120 mln euros (yes, euros). Actually one said that if you put full structures and missiles, it goes to 150.
If we didn’t have a specific threat and need and specific money, i would go for EF for the fact alone that the money remain within the “family” and is good to help european aircrafts because this helps further the european industry to become more competitive. If we didn’t live next to Turkey, i would be against any american aircraft in our inventory and for a new fighter i would go ALL EF, just like Germany does. Why give our money to the Americans instead of helping the european products? But, unfortunately, we have a specific threat and the aircraft that we need,will be ordered now and to be delivered before 2014 i would guess. So a EF with “future” developments is nice, but we need something now. And “future” means “pay again to put you the upgrade”… EF IS the favourite still in the greek press. It’s just not mine anymore.
And 2 things i read in a forum. Mr Bonsignore (part of Monch Pubblishing group), went to ILA in Berlin. One Luftwaffe officer, with high rank and even higher amount of flight hours, told him about the EF “By its own it’s a magnificent machine. But we wanted a weapons system, not a sport car”. I think this sums it all up. We can wait or pay again for an already expensive aircraft, to become a complete weapons system. The Rafale is cheaper and is in Afghanistan. The F16 is even cheaper and mature. We need money for F35 soon. We can’t allow ourselves to take the most expensive which is also the less mature.
Why not going with the direct prices quoted for the T2 Typhoons fly-away. Austrian deal 1.132 bln for 18 aircraft (fly-away). T2 for the customers 13 bln for 236 aircraft (fly-away only). Do the math and you are far away from the figures. And these are BTW fixed prices. Of course you have to add costs for upgrades, spares etc. but that applies to every aircraft.
Scorpion82@Hyperion
First I want to note the following thing:
please read my claims more carefully
Most of your answers have nothing or not much to do with my statements. I guess you misinterpret a lot I say and honestly I hate to repeat myself again and again, because people don’t bother to read and understand.
Don’t take this as offence, just as a friendly reminder for the continued discussion ;).
Yes, i don’t speak exactly about the specific component, i care about the range at which the missile can be fired, be the combo of the OSF components, not the single rangefinder. They why Rafale has not the single FLIR component, is clear here:
You have to understand that it is difficult to just launch a missile at a target which you know is in that direction. Of course you can launch the missile, but its pk would be rather low without any detailed target data being available. THAT is the problem!
But since you insist about the LRF, i don’t find impossible that the LRF can achieve a distance of 40km range. I don’t have the exact for OSF , but is only logical to think, according with the mentality that was built, that the French put the medium range components so to able to fire the MICA and thus put a similar capability LRF too, otherwise, why not put just the long range FLIR and bother for cameras and LRF?
I don’t consider it impossible either, but what the report suggest is a range for the IRST/TV component and it would be just interesting to know for me if it is the same for the LRF. Do you understand what I mean by that?
So, i can’t say the one of the Rafale, but the tech is available, the French have been using it even on MirageF1, the OSF is supposed to cooperate for medium range tracking, i would bet it can do LRF too at 40 km, since this is your main interest.
I would neither bet for nor against it.
I understood. Simply i don’t care if you can see him at 200km. I care at what distance you can actually shoot him.
Being aware of an enemy before he is in range for the weapon is never a bad thing. If you have AWACS support radar range is less important, but it might be that an aircraft relies on its own radar more. You can actually increase the effective range of the missile by flying fast and high, as you usually don’t do that in an average mission profile you have to get there fast and the earlier you detect the enemy the more time you have to achieve these conditions. It’s of course irrelevant if you are flying against a stealth AC which you can’t attack at such long ranges anyway.
I am simply interested in the Rafale (or EF), compared to F35, if we order either of them NOW.
Much depends on the delivery timeframe and requirements as well.
Technically, the EF is better air dominance aircraft. And EF vs Rafale, i would bet on EF any day. I wouldn’t think twice. But my interest on both is Rafale or EF vs F35, as they can be delivered to us if ordered tomorrow. I think this is why we have the continous misunderstandings.
Well both AC have their advantages and disadvantages, from a ECD vs F-35 point of view I might prefer the Rafale as well, as long as no MICA IR like weapon is available. Yet it remains to be seen if the IRST range would be long enough against the F-35 which incorporates IR reduction measures as well. The TV camera is not suited for search, but ID.
I agree. But based on what Rand expects for the Su by 2020, i wouldn’t be so optimistic for the Captor, today.
Agreed, but note that these are estimations under unknown conditions and as said by the time the F-35 becomes available to Turkey Rafale and Typhoon will both have been further developed. As I understand it Turkey won’t get any F-35 before 2016, but I might be wrong (not following the timelines that close).
Is it so necessary?
EF 77 mln euros
Rafale C 51.8 mln euros
Sorry but that is exactly what I was concerned about. What is included in the costs? Rafale obviously fly-away, Typhoon not just fly-away. It’s no secret that T2 Typhoon fly-away cost is a bit above 60 mln €, still more expensive than for the Rafale, but not that much as often advertised. Just comparing the numbers without knowing what is included and from where they do come is not going to give you an accurate figure for comparisons! What about life cycle costs etc.? These are at least as important as well.
Because that’s why the OSF has 2 “blocks” of components, as you can read in the imageshack link. And because the French did that so that it can cooperate with the MICA IR. The Pirate isn’t built with this mentality, but for target ID and detection. It can’t cooperate in a similar way with the Amraam for example.
PIRATE is designed to complement radar or “replace” it in situations where RF silence is required. The question is if AMRAAM can be launched be PIRATE only, theoretically yes, practically we have no confirmation. You should also outline that you mainly speak about the use against a stealth AC.
No. I don’t understand why people think of the MICA IR as a dogfight missile. MICA can be used to both short and medium BVR fights, up to ranges comparable to the first Amraam models and has unique capabilities for such a missile. It can even act itself as a mini IRST in a way, and search for targets autonomously. In our Mirage2000-5 for example, that don’t have their own IRST, MICA IR is used to passively track on its own enemy aicrafts, without radar emission.
Once again you missed my point. The MICA IR is of course both WVR & BVR missile. What I refer to is the range of the MICA IRs seeker, which is unlikely to match the performance of the IRST. Any MICA launched at longer range will LOAL, not LOBL. That is the point, not more, not less. At ranges where the seeker can LOBL you are likely to be able to use weapons such as ASRAAM/IRIS-T can be used as well. Note that the seeker range for such weapons, especially for the MICA IR is much less than the missiles actual flight range performance. Using the MICA IR seeker as IRST is fine, but again the range is unlikely to be that long at all.
The range also significantly exceeds the one of IRIS-T or Asraam (search on your own or ask our french friends here). Practically it’s the same missile as MICA EM but difference seeker and functions.
As said don’t confuse max flight range, with missile seeker range, these are 2 entirely different areas.
Scorpion82Well, and you claim to be “serious”? gets the RBE2 range by a relevant source, and not by the lips of a french air force guy talking wise without precisions!
Where have I stated any ranges for the RBE2 here? NO WHERE!!! I don’t know what your problem is, but you obviously try to make me look like an idiot by completely misinterpreting what I say, putting words in my mouth I never said and try to make your point with that. Hmmm from where do I know this behaviour…
would like to know more, radar are designed to guide a missile, why getting a 200 kms range, with wavelenght band that any foe can detect when you don’t got any missile able to reach 100kms range?
Ah and detection and tracking a target to prepare the attack are entirely irrelevant for a radar for sure. BTW mr. smart a$$ tell me what are the radar wavelength of both radars? Let me guess you don’t know…
We meet lots of ppl on the net claiming “sources”,
And what…? Let me guess you must be in the know as having designed and flown both aircraft to know everything about them… :-p
get me any link from DGA or thales than give the OSF datas details and RBE2 one!
Give me any data/sources which prove your claims of superiority.
ell, explan me how they can get a AESA radar system in changing only the antenna due to cost of changing the whole system and processors?
Captor-D for T2 examples has been actually designed with an AESA upgrade in mind… But that’s of course to much for someone like you to know.
Scorpion82These are completely different aircraft and behavior of one does in no way predict behavior of the other one. Exactly like X-31 vs Typhoon.
But as with X-31 and Typhoon, the MiG-29 and Su-27 are quite similar in their aerodynamical configuration, yet their performance isn’t quite different, putting range appart despite they are both in very different size/weight classes.
Scorpion82Nobody will provide range data. I spoke about the same thing too.
You obviously don’t speak about the same thing! READ laser range finder… You still don’t understand that I don’t speak about the IRST/TV components. What I speak about is the LRF.
Toan must know more. Track is different than detect (see the RAND screenshot too where for PIRATE reports detection range, not tracking range). The SU is supposed to track at 27nm. Why is it so weird to have OSF2 track at 40 km?
See above 40 km is not even special for the current OSF, what I speak about (once again) the range of the laser range finder. Is it so difficult to understand?
BTW the 50 km/90 km ranges for the Flankers OLS is indeed detection range against a non AB target from all the official documents.
Let’s put it this way. I don’t consider anymore this purchase as a countermove for the F35, but as the replacement of A-7. YET, it comes out a fighter that can kill easily at least turkish F16s in BVR and have a good fighting chance against F35 to help out our own F35s in BVR. So, leaving alone that i would prefer F16s, because are cheaper. Between the 2 europeans.
You put it in the context of your interest as you are a greek, I don’t bother with a greek/turkish scenario at. I don’t even bother with the F-35 VS Rafale/Typhoon that much.
– Rafale may be able to fire MICA IR at 40km on its own power in a clear sky. And it’s cheaper. And from 2009 it will have LOAL and data link capability (add the Erieye to this). Also Rafale will come with aesa.
Rafale has LOAL MICA+datalink capability right now, it was reported in 2007 or so that such a test has been conducted. Though I’m not 100% sure, but it were operational F2 standard aircraft. At the time the F-35 becomes available both Rafale and Typhoon will have been further developed and feature more advanced EWS, likely or definitely new EO/IR sensors AND AESA. There is no point discussing about Rafale with AESA vs Eurofighter without AESA.
– Now, the Su is supposed to see with its aesa radar of 2020 the F35 at 25nm. What would be your best guess on the capability of the Captor today as far as range is concerned?
No exact range data, no exact RCS data, I have no guess here.
Also Amraam is radar guided, hence it is logical to expect it to have more troyble locking and maintaining the lock on the F35, unlike IR missiles.
One of very view thinks I tend to agree with.
Did i mention the EF is much more expensive?
More than one time, provide direct data with source…
So why buy the EF if it can’t deal with F35 in BVR any better than the Rafale? Unless of course one thinks that the detection and tracking ability of the Captor is today superior of the hypothetical aesa radar of the Su in 2020 that RAND takes as measurment. But it will still be inferior in BVR to the F35, right? So why buy it at this point at such high price?
As long as now powerful enough or new sensors are developed to overcome the stealth advantage EVERY non stealth AC will be in a disadvantaged position, independant if Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Su-3X or MiG-29X/35. I can’t see any obvious advantage for either aircraft against a potential stealth threat. IIR missiles in combination with passive sensors (IF effective enough against such a threat) might offer better chances yes, but they won’t guarantee a good fighting ability against such a threat anyway.
Oh, if we had infinite money, then by all means, buy the most expensive now and buy 400 F35 in 4 years from now again.
As said I don’t bother with your personal concerns about evil turkish clap greek fighters like baby seels :-p
Weather influences. Luckily Greece is a sunny country and the option the way i see it is between someone that can lock at 40km (even without external targeting data from Erieye) at good weather and something more expensive that no matter what the weather will always have trouble to lock the F35 at 40km and costs 20% more.
Well the missiles won’t lock at 40 km at all its the board sensors and I see no reason why the PIRATE shouldn’t be able to do this. Weapons is then again another story.
Who would you pick? Because let’s even suppose that the EF will detect (not track) the F35 at 50km in PIRATE.
And why do you suppose the OSF will be able to detect & track at greater distances than the PIRATE?
The MICA IR on the other hand, can lock before launch or after launch and receive data from the datalink and use its own IIR sensor even from the beginning and seek the 40000 lb exhaust of the F35 that will be using flares.
Yes at a range at which you can easily use ASRAAM or IRIS-T as well.
Who would you pick?
I would pick the aircraft which best suits my requirements AFTER a comprehensive evaluation of the potential contenders.
Pirate is FLIR and nothing more.
It is an IRST/FLIR device, though in its initial form it was limited to the FLIR function as this is less complex.
Sign In
