Scorpion82To sum up the article posted by Sintra above:
– The entire leadership has voted for the Gripen
– Gripen represents best value for money
– The savings are good for the rest of the military
– Reports about Gripen having failed in the evaluation are not commented as the evaluation report is confidential according Ueli Maurer
– Costs for the 22 Gripen = 3.1 bln Franken
– Cost difference between the Gripen and its competitors has not been disclosed but is said to be significant
– Gripen meets requirements and is the best solution “We can’t always afford the best of the best”.
– Deal should be finalised by late 2012
– Financial terms have yet to be defined
A pity for the Rafale which faired best in the evaluation which isn’t surprising for me given the maturity in weapons/stores integration and the fact that the French were able to demonstrate their AESA radar.
IMO the Gripen is a good choice to replace the F-5, whether it is a good choice wrt a potential F/A-18 replacement in the future, however, is yet another question.
The offered variant is the JAS 39C/D.
Scorpion82@EEL
Serviceability is a difficult science depending on various factors many depent on the procedures adopted by the customer, availability of spares and acceptance of faults.
Mission rate of 100% doesn’t necessarily equal a 100% fleet availability. If you have 4 ac deployed for example and two of them are scheduled to fly a mission you usually prepare at least one ac as a spare. If one fails the spare ac is taken and the mission flown. This may happen multiple times and at the end you can claim 100% mission sucess rate (sortie executed) while availability of the deployed number of aircraft was in fact lower!
Scorpion82I see. Very interesting. All other LO/stealth designs including those for prospective 5th gen fighters have had horizontal S-ducts.
But from this view, wouldn’t the engine face be at least partially visible from the inlet?
The compressor is partially visible. Similar to that one of the Rafale judged from eyesight. I have seen both.
Scorpion82I’ll check the true causes tomorrow if time permits, but AFAIR most of the so called “emergency” landings in Malta (Mirage and Rafale) had to do with scrupulous observation of peace time procedures by which you shall divert and land cautiously on the closest runway. These were due to minor malfunctions.
In a few other cases, returning back to the home base was impossible (sudden lack of air tanker, broken fuel probe, etc) so that a landing in Malta was mandatory.But there was no emergency per se.
Agree fully. Aircraft often divert to alternates for various reasons. In many cases it’s no true emergency, but a pre-cautionary measure. Other ac may not have diverted to Malta, but that certainly depends on the routes of the different ac and their home bases. There were two landings from Rafales reported at Malta afaik. Not a big deal considering the timeframe and number of flights.
Scorpion82What many people appear to be ignorant or unaware of is the very fact that many national companies have been swallowed by larger foreign companies over the years! That doesn’t make their products foreign IP.
Perfect example is Pilkington-Thorn Optronics the UK partner in the Typhoon’s PIRATE infrared sensor. Pilkington-Thorn Optronics was latter swallowed by Thales among other UK based avionics suppliers and it became the UK substitute of Thales (Thales UK). The facilities, locations and personal didn’t change in most cases and these UK based companies are still responsible for PIRATE, just the name of the company changed and they are part of a larger concern now. Not more not less. That doesn’t make a PIRATE a “French” development!
Another example is the TERPROM from BAE Systems also fitted to the Typhoon. BAES sold the business unit responsible for the TERPROM to Goodrich. So the same UK based company is still developing/producing TERPROM, though the company’s name has changed to Goodrich! That doesn’t make this system a US product.
Another often mistaken example is the F-22’s ALR-94 which was developed and manufactured by a US company (Kaiser and someone else IIRC). This company was swallowed by BAES. So the manufacturer stated now is BAES NA, it’s still the same company under a new name and part of a larger concern. That doesn’t make the AN/ALR-94 an UK product.
These are just some of many examples and people should apparently try to look at who was the original creator of this or that system, item or whatever and where it is built. The perception that the Typhoon is some kind of “largely reliant on US technology” product is complete bull! There are some minor components which are really developed and manufactured in the US, but not most of the parts listed above by Mildave.
Scorpion82@TMor
My respect for speaking that out! That’s exactly what I have repeated a couple of times and why I’m disappointed by some French who I regarded as more balanced and fair in the past. I want to point out that this unfair behaviour is not a French specific problem, you can find it in all camps whether Eurofighter, Rafale, this or that US or Russian fighter etc. What’s the premier problem is that a few can actually damage the reputation of an entire community and the smaller that community is the more significant the perception as the negative examples are always better remembered than the positive examples.
Scorpion82Except that some skills are lost, and more money is needed to recover them and become autonomous.
This may happen I agree, however, it is important to view the industry of a country as a whole. Just because some systems are developed/manufactured in collaboration for ONE weapons system doesn’t mean that the national industry isn’t able to deliver systems sourced from national suppliers only. Take the UK’s Vixen radar family as an example.
The Danish story is a no brainer thus far, as it is linked to the possible sale, no sale = no participation. The Norwegians might be involved in some development, but how many systems are really property and what’s the content on current and future aircraft? It’s apparent that this deal covered future development. The current Gripen isn’t fitted with any Norwegian systems afaik and wiki is no credible source for me.
Wheather France is going to develop another fighter alone is irrelevant.
I disagree if this isn’t going to be the case than the same arguments you bring up now would be true for France and they would just have extended their national design capability. As said collaboration programmes don’t necessarily mean that you loose capabilities, though this might happen depending on the arrangements and whether your countries industry is working on other projects involving such technology (f.e. engines, radar…) or not.
Weapons in use or planned for the Typhoon from US:
AtA:
-AIM-9 Sidewinder already replaced by ASRAAM and IRIS-T
-AIM-120 AMRAAMAtG:
-AGM-65 Maverick Not slatted for integration since ages
-AGM-88 HARM Possibly
-Paveway™ IV planned yes
-II/III/Enhanced Paveway True though PW III is currently not planned
-JDAM not planned for integration
Scorpion82As far as the Gripen is concerned, teaming agreements in development concern the US (engine, weapons…), UK(radar, HMDS…), Italy (radar, self defense…), Norway (communications, …), Denmark (???)…
Really? Which communication systems are the Norwegians supplying? It has been rumoured that the UK helped with the PS05/A, but I would yet like to see a confirmation for that. They are supplying the AESA antenna only. Italians aren’t involved at all. I think you underestimate the Swedish content on the Gripen or overestimate the foreign one. No doubt that your basic argument remains unchanged, however.
Typhoon is EADS (european but mainly Franco-German), Alenia Aeronautica (Italy) and BAE Systems (UK). Then you have to add heavy US dependence for various subsystems including weapons(3/4), Israel for designation pod…
It’s not like British, Italians or even Germans couldn’t do it themselves on the base of knowledge and technical capability, the will to go it alone is missing however and I’m yet interested to see whether France will built another fighter all alone in the future, I have my doubts… Btw there is no HEAVY US reliance on the Typhoon, only minor and quickly replaceable components come from the US. Wrt GPS licences and LINK16 IP the US is in charge, but that’s also true for the Rafale! The only US weapons in use on the Typhoon are AMRAAMs and PW II. Rafale uses PW II/III from the US. Not such a big deal. I don’t know why everyone makes such a big deal out of it.
Scorpion82@Killerbean
P1E = Phase 1 Enhancement
It’s the first phase of the so called future capability plan/programme (FCP) which is now split into two parts (A & B). The P1E upgrade was contracted on 30th March 2007 and is addressed by under Change Proposal 210 (CP210). CPs are the industries proposal to a so called change request. The upgrade will be incorporated on the last tranche 2 aircraft and is likely to be retrofitted to all older examples, as T1 Typhoons are all being upgraded to the block 5 configuration within the retrofit 2 programme (R2). Some elements might even find their way into T1 aircraft, but there isn’t much known. Afaik new radios, IFF and GPS are already slatted for block 5s and they are now being fitted with the latest SRP 4.3 software, first introduced on block 8B aircraft from T2.
The most recent operational standard is block 9 with the SRP 5.1, but there are virtually no details known about the detail enhancements offered by this latest software iteration. Block 10 aircraft will incorporate the P1E part A, dunno whether aircraft fitted with the P1E B will receive a new block designation or whether they will retain the block 10 designation.
Block 10 testing is well under way since quite some time and deliveries should start somewhen in 2012.
What does it include? I’m to lazy to look up the details of part A and B. Part B was scheduled for late 2012, might slip into 2013, however.
In the end T2 Typhoons will receive the new SRP 10 (part A) and later SRP 12 (part B) software. It will yield a couple of enhancements to the MMI including full integration of GPS guided munitions with dynamic and pre-planned targeting options, the ability to deliver multiple munitions in a single pass, possibly (not confirmed) automatic target recognition software compatible with Captor and PIRATE, enhanced DASS with new dual-polarized ESM/ECM antennasnew TRD (Ariel Mk2) and improved DRFM enabling new jamming techniques, enhanced MIDS with much greater data transmission capacity, new radios, IFF and DGPS (likely those being retrofitted to block 5s as well), an all new crypto variable management system, improved TERPROM with weapons support functions and possibly vectorised maps and additional AG modes for the Captor-D (both not confirmed). PW IV and GBU-48 will be integrated and the former should be cleared for supersonic speeds with P1E B. Full integration of the Litening TGP and digital integration of the IRIS-T (ASRAAM is integrated with the digital interface since block 5).
We’ll hopefully learn more details in the future. It’s actually interesting that Eurofighter hasn’t been overly vocal about the various changes and improvements made ever since the introduction of the T2 examples. That’s one of the reasons while many seem to believe that Typhoon hasn’t evolved, but the truth is it has, you just won’t notice the difference from the external view. Most people appear to measure progress by the number of weapons/stores being integrated and are ignorant towards the internal hardware and software changes which can have major implications on capability.
Scorpion82Yes quite easy to distinguish from the first two prototypes by the lack of the sensor probe on the nose.;)
Scorpion82Actually, yes we should …:D
Snecma can have the motor turning by spring
but Dassault does not want to go through the
re-design of the air-intake widening before it
gets a solid order, :rolleyes:Good day all, Tay.
Weren’t the re-designed intakes ready? Though TooCool12F has a valid argument as the M88-3 was larger as well so it may not have fitted into Rafale’s engine bays which would have required a more extensive re-design. In the end of the day not surprising that they didn’t went ahead paying for something with no orders in sight.
Btw good to see that some can see the point I was making:).
Scorpion82Depends. No one can say this for sure. Everything else is just speculation. My personal opinion is that once the P1E is established integration of new weapons will accelerate.
Scorpion82Brimstone 2014+
Storm Shadow 2014+
Smaller Paveways 2012 (PW IV)
Taurus rumours from the Luftwaffe suggested 2017 (take them with a pinch of salt)
Meteor under way as CP270 (2015 possibly initial integration)
Scorpion82@Kovy
There is a difference between PR pictures/articles just to make the buzz and pictures/articles about REAL developments that are actually taking place, with flight trials and measurable progresses.
The scalp is flying on Rafale since 1997, not just for fun and nice pictures but to have the difficult job of opening the flight enveloppe done as far as possible. Same thing with the AASM which integration proved to be very complicated (you bet, 6 instable 250kg iron logs that can be released at once each with a different trajectory). Talking/boasting about all the difficult work done during those developments is legitimate.
After 8 years since the first Scalped Typhoon picture on the ground, what has been the progress ?
They managed to move the scalps from the inner to the mid wing pylons… good job.
You know that this is completely simplified. Eurofighter has released images and even came up with fitting trials (on ground only) when the customers expressed their interest in these weapons being integrated on Typhoon. Thus far priorities have been different and the integration has not been formally contracted by the respective (potential) customers. So who can you really blame on that? You chose examples where progress has been made, where are the 9 t or 11 t versions of the M88 proposed since the mid 90s? Some benchtests and that’s it, development not completed and with no customer requiring it (or being willed to pay for its development) we won’t see it anytime soon. So should we blame Dassault and co? I don’t think you would do this for valid reasons! The point is you guys try to make an argument out of everything, regardless how stupid it is and ask silly questions which everyone of you could answer himself. Interestingly you are quick in pointing out the HMD example and how it was cancelled as there were other budgets priorities. We don’t find stuff on the Typhoon for equally trivial reasons. Industry offers options and might even do some work in advance (AESA, TVN f.e. on the Typhoon), but as long as no customer is willed to support this development isn’t completed as simple as that.
You are talking about the HMD in a thales commercial. Well, that’s a Thales product, that does exist and is even is service so why shouldn’t they promote it in their own com. The fact that the French Air Force has decided to wait for the next HMD generation (and get the aesa instead) is another story.
Since the planned HMD has been posponed, Dassault does not communicate about it anymore.
A Thales commercial completely linked to Thales contribution on the Rafale’s avionics suite, since when is the HMD part of it…? As aforementioned things like these can be found from all manufacturers, some of them might never materialise, others may take longer and maybe we’ll see other stuff not previously proposed. It’s not a Eurofighter unique situation, but you guys try to present it as such for whatever reasons. Btw I say guys as you aren’t the only one who comes up with such arguments.
No doubt Rafale is more developed on some fronts, it’s well known and acknowledged even by the evil Typhoon fans. In the end you are just flogging dead horses and argue about non issues.
Scorpion82Btw, the set back in the UAE is another “placed” media hype and their tactics to reduce the costs, nothing else! We heared the same rumors about additional F16 B60 orders, that they asked for infos of F18SH and now they do the same with EF. But at the fact is, they never rejeted Rafale, nor did they invited any other manufacturer to a competition, because they now about the side advantages France can offer offer them.
Many people simply forget that the UAE is more than happy with their Mirage 2000s and that most of them are brand new. They even cleared another upgrade just some months ago, so they have no need to hurry, or to pay big prices, let alone start a real competition. They either buy Rafale if they get a buyer for the Mirage, or they simply keep the Mirage, but anything else is just speculation.
So issuing an RfP is not an invitation to bid? Media hype or not, what we have seen last year were just cable leaks IIRC. What we have now is a direct confirmation of briefings and one RfP. It remains to be seen how this will develop, but downplaying it is a little bit too easy.
Sign In
