Regarding rhe refuelling by drogue, IMO the Canadians really should have thought about that a little earlier (unless it was planned and has since been dropped).

Regarding the drogue parachute, my sentiments are the same (unless the landing run distance was increased by LM).

Mirage 2000 seems by far the most sensible bet for an interim solution as it is already flown in Brazil and no new infrastructure would be required. This would allow Dassault to take the 2000-9’s off of the UAE’s hands and replace them with Rafales, which is part of what the UAE government requires for their new purchase. The 2000-9 is still a very capable aircraft and would be more advanced than anything currently flown in Brazil.

IIRC when India was interested in buying M2K’s from UAE, the price was higher than India was prepared to pay. Wouldn’t that problem feed back to Brazil via Dassault? Of course, Dassault could choose to sell some/all M2K’s returned by UAE at whatever price it could achieve… if it made the difference in getting/not getting a Rafale order.

Anyone know how negotiations are going to sell Rafale to UAE?

In 1956 most of the oil destined for Europe came through the canal. Closure of the canal would have little effect on oil supplies now.

In any event, what would be the point of closing the canal?

I suppose an ardent Islamic fundamentalist government somehow might get the idea that stopping ships of infidel countries using the canal would be a good idea. Or ships going to infidel countries. Or ships carrying infidel goods (eg books about polytheistic religion, media showing inappropriately dressed women etc etc etc). Or… the list could go on and on.

The management of the F-35 project might leave a lot to be desired but you can’t say it’s any worse other fighter projects can you? what yardstick, standard for comparison are you using? Rafale first flew in 1986, but! didn’t enter service until 2004 or so – how’s that for “project management”…:rolleyes:

I think there is a “bit” of a contrast in the management of these programs. I do not know much about Rafale development but it has not been characterised by repeated (ad nauseam) failure to achieve agreed timelines. Nor has it been subject to reappraisal along Nunn-McMurdy lines (OK France may not have such a device) nor has emergency restructuring (F-35 twice, no?) been demanded.

Suggesting that management of the F-35 program is no worse than management of other fighter programs is like suggesting that management of the Boeing 787 program is no worse than management of other widebody airline programs. The number of informed people who would agree with that is close to 0: just those for whom Boeing can do no wrong, whatever the facts may be.

The MMRCA is a Multi-Role Fighter. With it’s main focus on strikes against Surface Targets. Air Superiority is clearly a Secondary Role.

Rafale is omnirole. If the focus is A2G, it competes well with F/A-18. If the focus is A2A, it outperforms F/A-18. On balance, just as an aircraft (forget US interference in US product use, India seeking political leverage through buying a few aircraft etc) Rafale makes more sense to me.

The main cost is operational cost, and the cost of F-18 comes close to $20k per flight hour, PAK-FA will be >$40k, and be comparable to F-22.

If the Gripen (C/D, I presume) is reported to cost <$5K per flight hour, how does F/A-18 cost $20K? I am aware that the F/A-18 burns more fuel and has 2 engines to maintain… but 4 x as much per flight hour?

As for PAK-FA, is that down to a great deal more replacement of short life engine parts?

Cost of flying Gripen for 5000 hours: <$25 million
Cost of flying F/A=18 for 5000 hours: ~$100 million
Cost of flying PAK-FA for 5000 hours: >$200 million

If I assume a squadron flies 20 aircraft…

Cost of flying Gripen for 5000 hours: <$500 million
Cost of flying F/A=18 for 5000 hours: ~$2 billion
Cost of flying PAK-FA for 5000 hours: >$4 billion

Given the costs above, I think it is almost irrelevant whether an MMRCA contender costs $50 million, $75 million or $100 million to buy in the first place.

I believe the MMRCA selection rules say that the winner should be the lowest cost aircraft meeting performance criteria. I hope that evaluation is based on total through-life costs.

Wonder what the F-35 operating costs will be…

Excerpt from article in defence-aerospace. Note that the editor warns of strong US bias:

Given the technical and political considerations, New Delhi should conclude the MMRCA competition expeditiously, avoid splitting the purchase between competitors, and buy the “best” aircraft to help India to effectively prepare for possible conflict in Southern Asia. Because of the dramatic transformations in combat aviation technology currently underway, the Indian government should select the least expensive, mature, combat-proven fourth-generation fighter for the IAF as a bridge toward procuring more advanced stealth aircraft in the future.

Under this criterion, the European aircraft are technically superb, but the U.S. entrants prove to be formidable “best buys.”

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/122091/think-tank-examines-india%E2%80%99s-mmrca-competition.html

I am convinced that Dilma will end up ordering the Swedish fighter as she can get as many as 72 Gripens to the same price as 36 Rafales ! Gripen will fulfill all the requirements of Brazilian Air Force.

I have problems seeing it any other way, too, now that Lula is no longer president. If the BAF had been saying that they wanted the aircraft offering the best performance (Rafale IMO) that would change the situation… but from what I read, they have not been saying that.