@ djcross
in 1981, the world had just gone through two petrol crisis, it wasn’t like if Miterrand had been elected in 1960-65 when the economy extremely healthy.
In any case, one thing remains: when someone tells you “there’s only one possible way… my way” you can be sure that that path is not the one you should follow.
People were saying only months ago that austerity is the only way to go to get out of the crisis… now, as the “economic champions in europe” show up as having problems (UK, Netherlands…), even the most “anti-spending” leaders in Europe start saying that “maybe something should be done to improve the economical growth, rather than just cutting all spendings which leads to recession”… go figure 😉
Hollande wants to create more jobs for French workers, so he may don’t like the contract for Indian MMRCA right now (100% transfer of Rafale’s techonology to Indian to let them produce Rafale by themselves after selling only 18 “French workers made” Rafales to IAF….).
And I am worry that if he tries to renegotiate the contract of MMRCA, will he finally screw Rafale’s chance in India up totally ?
I doubt it… 18 rafales fully built in france, plus the parts to be assembled (accounting easily for another 20-30 aircraft at least) is not something you jeopardize so easily. What’s more, that deal would allow him to reduce immediate deliveries to french forces (spare a year or two at least), freeing some cash for other things he may be interested in. Another thing is that these negotiations are Dassault’s ones, not state to state, so, the only thing he may do is veto the export… that would be something veeeery smart to do when you try to persuade people to buy your stuff (stuff which you have had some difficulties to sell until now…)
Then, there’s another market in Brasil, if the french mess the IAF deal, what kind of message will that send to the brasilians?
with these two markets secured, even if a big part would be built by the customer himself, that would allow dassault to reduce a bit his price for other customers (economy of scale coming into play), helping sell some more, which would be built in France (Kuwait, UAE, maybe Malaysia, etc…)
any politician will try to keep industrial activity alive.
From what’s been written in some french medias, Dilma Roussef did not want to communicate on the FX-2 before the french election “in order to avoid political exploitation in the elections process”… one may easily imagine she’s interested in the rafale but did not want Sarkozy to be able to use the argument “how good a seller he is” for his campaign…
If that’s anywhere near the truth, the rafale could get its second export order quite soon
Freehand, in a previous post it was said that these airframes were ex-kuwaiti ones with barely 1500-2500 hours on them (and no carrier ops before joining brasilian navy)
basically, they’re “almost new”
it’s strange how some draw conclusions before anything happens…
reminds me of 1981 when, for the first time a president from the french socialist party was elected… some were in panic since “the red army was to invade the streets of paris…”
yeah, right… 😀
Hollande was elected, let’s see what he does before judging him
wanshan, let’s wait until that thing does something to compare.
the A-4, with modern electronics, especially if reengined, would be hard to beat in its weight class, by any nation. And if you add DSI… 😀
Joke set aside, it may really need inlet modifications if it was to become supersonic, which it certainly would with more than 50% of thrust increase
@ bager
I won’t go into a discussion about the engines diameters, but just one point: the afterburning part of the engine is always inside the fuselage, as its about as long as the engine itself. Only the nozzle is… well, at the rear end. Then, the M88, for example, uses a bypas system to reduce its IR signature, meaning, actively cools the AB canal by fresh airflow around it: the Ab canal is, nbasically, like “a tube inside a tube” so the external envelope of the rear part of the M88 is probably even cooler than the today’s A4 exhaust canal.
Of course, as you said, it wouldn’t be very interesting to have Ab canal “too short” (ending inside the fuselage), but, as you modernize the aircraft, you’d probably like to put inside something like a good radar, which would modify the nose (make it heavier), which you could, possibly make also a bit wider (to accomodate the radar) and slightly longer to put all the necessary electronic of the radars read end there. As a result you could shift the engine somewhat behind and, if necessary, even modify the rear part of the aircraft so that the nozzle is “outside”, even if somewhat under the tail (you could “cut” slightly the rear part of fuselage around it), so that it would look more or less like the F-104 on this pic:

flat surfaces? ROFL!!! 😀
that thunder shot looks so bulbous, a lot like what USA were doing some 40-50 years ago (F-14, F-15, F-16…)… it could really make good use of some more modern aerodynamics, like those of the gripen for example 😀
well, since we’re at it:
– navalizing the AMX would cost a lot… if you can put the EJ200 in it,k you can in the A-4 as well… just bring some modifications like the radar used in brasilian F-5s, some more avionics and you can get a quite decent light naval fighter (modernised A-4)…
that would be the cheapest option
other naval options are:
– Rafale, needing a small extension at the end of the catapult (was done and wouldn’t cost much) but the catapults may be somewhat “light” to launch it at full load
– Hornet, but there aren’t many available around as it’s not in production anymore, and buying used ones they’d start whezre they are today with the A-4, albeit with a more modern platform, but still… it would require upgrades right now….
– SH – no; it’s too big, and modifying the carrier would cost really too much (lifts, catapults, etc… )
– navalised gripen – probably too costly as it would need to be developed for a very small production run – not worth it
– navalised AMX – same as the gripen, with the fact that it’s definitely not an air superiority fighter in any case
– harrier (any sort) – forget it. it’s not in production and would need heavy modifications on the carrier to be able to operate from there, with more restrictions than the current A-4 has
– Su-33 – same thing, it has nothing to do on such a small carrier, what’s more a CATOBAR one
– Mig-29K – the size is closer to a usable one, but would need modifications for catapult use, increasing its price… how interesting for the brasilians can be to buy it, considering the serviceability they can expect, as well as the weapons that are absolutely not common with what they use today, remains to be seen
basically, they either stay with old aircraft – modernise the Skyhawks, or buy used aircraft…. the only option for new aircraft would be Rafales which, in fact, could be interesting from another PoV: if they buy Rafales for their Air Force with the ToT coming with it, they’ be easily capable to maintain and modernize their navy aircraft since, with the exception of some structural parts, it is exactly the same aircraft
@obligatory
you seem to forget what the hook problem is. they’ll try to correct it by reshaping the hook head, but if it’s still too close to the main gear, they’ll have to find a way to either:
– significantly lenghten the hook (while it will create other problrms like hook resistance to efforts, hook fixation changes to allow it to be retracted (not much fuselage left behind), and so on
– modify the hook placement which would require a major set of modifications in the rear fuselage structure i.e. a heavy and costly redesign of the aircraft (that redesign meaning different structure, meaning, in turn, different parts, weight balance, FBW programming, etc, etc…)
The real facts you will not find published, you will only find lots of guessing by armchair engineers in the know 🙂
…
well… just like the landing hook problems, development schedule precision, budget envelope compliancy… if it wasn’t for those pesky armchair engineers guessing, the F-35s would’ve been breezing out of assembly lines by now… :rolleyes:
This is an official statement made by the Brazilian Air Force to clarify the process in 2009.
things have moved on since then, now, only three official contenders are there:
– Rafale
– F/A-18
– Gripen NG (or E/F or whatever the new designation may be)
Tribes, if you want to go on comparisons: rafale made it (almost) every time to the final selection in any market it for which it competed, that is, for as long as there was technical evaluation going on and before the politics kicked in. the SH not once. its only export I know of is australia and there was no competition whatsoever (decision made by politicians as a stop gap measure because of F-35 delays)
So saying “it is the best” is somewhat streching it a bit, to say the least
They do and did before except those not bound to some NATO-standard. Romania operates MiG-21s and Hungary Gripen f.e. and that have to call Bingo after take-off nearly. :diablo:
In general it is ~10 minutes loiter reserve to bring back or to become an incident not doing so. As someone claimed before it differs for every fighter and enviroment. 😉
in french air force:
when you land, you have to have the fuel to fly to your diversion base, plus the “security reserve” which is:
in VFR:
reserve for abort landing (so take off again) and economic cruise of 10min,
in IFR:
fuel for a ground controlled approach (GCA), GCA go around and one last abort and climb for ejection
basically, significantly more than just 20 min cruise