TMorThis is a Rafale thread, not a thread to talk about the RAF. :rolleyes:
You’re off-topic.
TMorWhy should I do what french members don’t do or don’t want to do?
OOOooooh Thank God ! My ghost is here to protect the non-French from Our propaganda !
We should give him a medal for his devotion to THE cause !
:rolleyes:
Or a reading lesson…
If you are not afraid to denigrate Rafale
Sorry ?
Do you realize how ridiculously your sentence starts ?
Who wants to denigrate Rafale (or anything else) ? :rolleyes: We can talk about weaknesses without denigrating… What about you ?
why don’t you give information to people here in forum about what it is possible to find in french Senate and Assemblée Nationale reports ? Costs, delay, M88, OSF, etc…
Ooooh they learn us a lot about costs… So much that i had to ask Dassault what figure they have.
The last audited figures are from 2004. The new figures do not demonstrate anything, because Senat documents are crap.
About the OSF : they brought NOTHING. The journalists did.
About the M88…
Certainly not HK! I talk about M88 technical problems, Admiral too, not Rafale availability on CdG.
Ok… In the right order :
-I said France do not complain about the thrust of the M88 in Afghanistan ;
-though what you found about Afghanistan wasn’t about the M88, you claimed that the Navy “ALWAYS” complain about the engines ;
-H_K made you notice that the Navy has no problem with thrust ;
-you remembered that their complaints weren’t about thrust but technical and logistical issues ;
-H_K shows you that those comments come with a context about availability, and the document you quote emphasizes the problem of SPARES (which are technical parts, suffering from bad logistics 😀 )
Certainly not HK! I talk about M88 technical problems, Admiral too, not Rafale availability on CdG.
The Admiral never talked only about technical problems ALONE :
En dépit d’une flotte vieillissante et des difficultés techniques et logistiques sur le moteur M88 du Rafale, la disponibilité des appareils de l’aéronautique navale s’est améliorée avec une stabilité des dépenses de MCO. Elle est passée, en moyenne, de 52 % en 2004 à 57 % au deuxième trimestre 2007.
(still nothing to do with my point about thrust in Afghanistan)
The next extract is exactly dealing with the technical and logistical problems :
En ce qui concerne la disponibilité des Rafale, le taux de 57 % cité précédemment est un chiffre global qui concerne l’ensemble de l’aéronautique navale. Au premier semestre 2007, le Rafale a affiché un taux de disponibilité remarquable de 77 % dans le cadre de son emploi sur le porte-avions. Pour cet appareil, les problèmes sont essentiellement d’ordre logistique et portent sur les pièces de rechange du moteur ; l’objectif dans ce domaine est d’améliorer les flux d’approvisionnement.
So again, there are some technical problems, YES. Do we have details about them ? NO. Did the Admiral considered those problems are the main cause of the low availability ? NO.
Is the admiral talking about availability ? YES. It’s obvious.
“Because we have technical and logistical problems on the M88, the availibility is 57% […] in the case of Rafale’s engines, this is mainly due to logistical problems…”
My dear Ghost, you have no ethic lesson to teach us. You are free to talk about what you want, but the fact that you are brave enough to read those hawful reports doesn’t give you more merit or the right to comment on our supposed bias.
Go on… It’s obvious you have things to say. But prepare your messages a bit, and make them coherent.
What do you really want to discuss about ? In what order ? etc
Also, feel free to register on my forum. 😀 (tu pourras y accomplir un peu de ta basse besogne 😉 )
TMorTo my dear ghost :
Why do they need to be ? Are you better documented than them ?:D
Because sometimes, people like you read their reports, and repeat all over without understanding the underlying reasons of what they “discovered”. 😀
Another example :
capteurs optroniques aux performances limitées au regard des exigences des règles d’engagement
You thought : “oh, there’s a problem with the OSF”
Instead of acknowledging that the OSF isn’t primarily designed for this task, you remember that the OSF has been declared “obsolete”, and later, you link it to the IR channel inefficiency…
Question ? What are optronics used for in Afghanistan ? (you know that the OSF isn’t a laser designator)
=> Answer : air-to-ground visual identification… OSF uses the TV channel for this (IR by night ?), but the OSF is primarily designed for air-to-air… How to solve this problem ? Damocles + Rover datalink, for example… But Senat and Assemblée do not say this.
Front-sector optronics OSF for example is obsolete and the French admit it.
Sénat or Assemblée saies it’s obsolete. Well… Why ? What’s wrong ? :rolleyes: This is not enough. Just like when they say in 2004 that a Rafale cost €45M while it’s 64M in 2008… I mean that it doesn’t help in understanding why even the OSF IT will have to IR channel, and saying it’s obsolete saies nothing about it’s REAL problems sometimes reported by some journalists (fragility for example).
So they said it’s obsolete… Ok…
Are you better documented than them ?
I’m not journalist. However, can you explain me what’s the interest of such a question ?
I’m complaining about the lack of real information one can find in these documents, i’m not pretending to know more than them ! 😮
Could you prove all you say or it’s only your opinion ?
Have a look at the book by Germain Chambost “Rafale : la véritable histoire”. There is a short extract in which he explains that the navy pilots did complain publicly about some points so as to get it fixed.
In addition, yes, AESA is funded, rockets are being integrated, as well as Damocles etc…
First, this is not what I say.
But you’re laconic.
Second, you maybe afraid than some british learn what french official sources say about Rafale ? Don’t be afraid.
You know i would do the same on av-mil.net, with only French.
We have to be careful, i think, when talking about some facts. They need to be explained, as much as possible. If it’s not possible, it’s all a matter of tone.
OSF is obsolete ? Already addressed times and times in the Rafale threads.
UAE want a more powerful engine ? This doesn’t mean that the current M88-2 is underpowered in hot weather… etc.
TMorWhat game are you playing ? :rolleyes:
My claims? No, they are comments et reports of chief of staff of french navy, french Assemblée Nationale and french Senate, no more than the most official representative sources in the Country.
Should i be more accurate : you come here and say “oh bad plane !” You provide us with links and interesting documents, but you act like you have absolutely nothing to understand them. Thus, yes, you are misleading. It’s not necessarily that your comments are wrong, but being laconic doesn’t help the discussion. And as i told you elsewhere : Senat and Assemblée Nationale men aren’t journalists. They do not explain very often what you can read in their lines, in addition, when the navy saies “oh bad radar, oh bad engines, oh bad mission computer” you know for sure that they are acting like kids pushing they parents to buy a new toy. More is often better, of course… but more expensive, in general… The AESA may be cheaper, so it’s funded. The mission computer was a real need, so it’s fixed. 250kg bombs are endangering allied troops and civilians, it’s a need, and rockets are cheap : funded. The same for Damocles and the air-to-ground datalink : funded. OSF ? It’s going to be fixed too…
The thrust isn’t a big problem for our pilots it seems…
The navy has some technical/logistical problems
Which ones? French navy officials tell you something they don’t tell me ?
You wrote :
Navy continues to have technical and logistical problems with Snecma M88 engine, some officials say (finance act for 2008).
This has nothing to do with thrust.
If UAE want more powerfull engine, it’s maybe because they think that M88 is not so powerfull for their use.
Maybe. Maybe also they are just pushing to have the best equipments possible on the Rafale… Engines, missiles, radar, etc. Do they REALLY need so much ? Maybe. Maybe it’s just a matter of deterrence or something else…
TMorOSF infrared search channel would be totaly ineffective, it’s a rumor.
I see than you trust me (-only- when i underline a weakness of the Rafale). 😀
In addition, your claims are misleading :
French navy always complains about M88, maybe french air force isn’t very courageous to tell the same (or the truth ? ). UAE position about M88 seems to be a final judgment. Is the Client Always Right ?
The navy has some technical/logistical problems… Nothing to do with the thrust (then, it doesn’t deny my claim).
UAE want more thrust… not more reliability.
Still in Afghanistan, Rafale (and Mirage 2000) air to ground capacities are not so good as envisaged
Envisaged ? Rafale was to launch AASM and Scalp, not exactly for CAS.
OSF isn’t an air-to-ground system (it’s above the nose, not under).
Damocles may help a lot.
The problem with the weapons is also here to demonstrate the necessity to integrate rockets, imho.
The air-to-ground datalink will come with Damocles/Rover.
TMorthe current engine seems to be not useful in hot countries
French do not complain about it in Afghanistan… Your claim is a bit exaggerated.:D
TMorFor the F-16 E, they asked the introduction of a new kind of radar (AESA), and an IRST for example.
For the Rafale, unless they ask for ANOTHER AESA, they just want upgrades on everything. 😀
TMorThis really looks like a Rafale MLU ! 😀
TMorhttp://www.senat.fr/commission/fin/pjlf2009/np/08/082.html
– le Rafale, avec la commande de 60 unités supplémentaires (4 milliards d’euros) ;
4000 / 60 = 67M € per Rafale.
This unit price looks like the price being negociated for the next batch.
Note that Dassault and Thales are under contract for the maintenance of the first 120 Rafale.
Maybe another contract of this kind is included directly in the next order ? This would be a smart idea.
Then, those new aircraft ARE to be more expensive, at least because of the new array.
About the 2004 order :
3.114Md
1.5 to 1.6 for Dassault
0.6 for the Snecma… Oh…
Where is Thales ? There is room for 1 Md…
http://www.boursier.com/vals/FR/thales-se-felicite-de-la-confirmation-de-la-3eme-tranche-rafale-news-118773.htm
The Thales part of the order, with DRAAMA and other stuff just make €1Md… 😀
TMorIn 2004… (for F3)
And i’m not sure about what’s included in the €3.114Md contract (development of DRAAMA ? etc…)
TMorWhat’s going on with more powerful models of the Rafales M88’s. (-3?)
Let’s use the empty weight provided in the latest PDF about Rafale (Switzerland) :
10300kg (i’m not sure about what it includes, but…)
Internal fuel : 4700kg.
+1000kg payload
2x90kN ~ 18t of thrust…
TWR with full internal fuel : 1.125
TWR with 50% internal fuel : 1.32
TMorOfficial unit price for Rafale C (development costs not included) isn’t €64 million, $89,4 million, Nicolas10 ?
😀
No… Since the Moroccan deal, Dassault directly communicate the price to the Senat. It includes the commercial margin, but it’s a secret ! 😉
😀
TMorKKM57P
EF Pilots need a special neck body building trainig
Anything to do with helmet (Stryker) ?
And sorry, M2000 and Rafale pilots may have a similar training, i’m not aware of it.
Only us frech friends have no problem with it’s neck, with a more inclined seat.
You’re playing a funny game again :
1) you came and started saying Rafale pilots should have troubles with their necks. The first purpose of your intervention was to discredit the reclined seat, and say “Libelle is a superior solution” (which is wrong according to the Dassault experience with it).
2) Though i didn’t deny it (i just showed you that it’s possible to minimize the problem) and left your pro-Typhoon argument aside, you finally claims that even EF pilots have a special training, just to discredit my argumentation (which you didn’t even understood).
So much for someone whose interest is only to suggest a superiority of Typhoon over Rafale, in the wrong thread.
Come back when you’ll have learnt honesty and humility.
Sens :
Then ? Stop the nonsense, every pilots seating in the Rafale loved it. You’re an “old” member here, i think you may have read all those reports.
The intresting info is, that the Rafale B is over 12 tons empty equipped.
No…You just forget the weight of pylons, tanks, missiles, crew, etc.
TMorI think there is something wrong about the 15 pods :
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108100
July 2008 = 9 pods ordered for a total of 10.:rolleyes:
TMorMy site is a bit wrong in fact…
The Rafale A seat is at 34°. The litterature saies it was reduced to 29° on series aircraft.
In fact, the series seats put the pilot’s back at 29°, but the seat itself is at 34°. :rolleyes:
I know the F-16 pilots have neck problems with there reclined seats, but i guess if Dassault stuck to this solution, it’s that it was worse the cost (the goal was to achieve the 11G sustainment capability for the pilot with the help of Combat Egde like gear).
In addition, the F-16 pilots’ problem isn’t only due to the angle, but also to the brutal G onset, something which is software limited on Rafale so as to protect the crew.
Finally, as Arthuro mentionned it, the Rafale solution has been adopted too because it reduces pilot’s stress over a whole war campaign.
Sign In
