TooCool_12fif LePen wins, perhaps there’s a chance France could export Rafale to Russia. She’s very pro Russia. Russians would probably love to have a few.
she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to win…
the one time her party managed to get to second round (because the socialist camp was divided with 5-6 candidates), the score was 82% for the other candidate (Chirac).
You’ll sooner see jf-17’s operating on QE carrier than Marine Le Pen becoming president of France
TooCool_12f@ BlackArcher
if you read my post a bit further, you’ll get the response to your question 😉
in any case, “being within your rights” is something you may say as a private person. a state that holds a competition, with established rules is supposed to follow these, or elsewhere, the whole competition has no sense.. you just say “I want the cheapest thingy you offer” and you get what you asked for: a piece of junk not even worth the pennies you spent on it
In switzerland, they, basically, went to a Mercedes Benz shop, tried the best model, then went to the next door and tried the best BMW, and then walked to the other side of the street and bought a Dacia…. basic model, saying they couldn’t afford anything above anyway…
You ask they can take the typhoon offer into consideration and say to dassault they’ll switch their choice for a new L-1? Dassault can lower its price, or file a lawsuit to invalidate the whole process (just the possibility of bribery could delay the whole thing for years). It would be fully within their rights to do so, as they played by the rules and won, and then Indian officials would have changed the rules. In the end, it is India that would loose the most. They’d get an unfinished fighter after a long procedure, that nobody among its initial builders wants to keep or update, as a result they’d have to pay for all developments which, in the end would cost them much more (ask austria about the “15000€ per flying hour that was promised by the Eurofighter consortium…. today their flying hour costs 50000€). If one looks just for a second at the fuel consumption… the Rafale with less fuel has 30% longer range, which means that at its best the typhoon still will need 30% more fuel for the same mission. Include that into your operating costs, not speaking about lack of support once the other partners would have left and you’ll get something that they’d have to pay you if you wanted to spare any money on it.
What’s more, people talk about Dassault vitally needing that deal… it’s BS. They live from bizjets, first of all, then, they have their primary customer that needs that aircraft and will keep using it for several decades, as well as upgrading it (because they will NOT buy a US built one, especially since the US are stuck with their flying brick that gets new problems on a daily basis), so Dassault has NO NEED to sell it elsewhere. It wold be good (making money) but it’s all but vital for them, especially if it becomes a way to loose money.
TooCool_12fin switzerland the proceedings were different, as the swiss asked for proposals and what appeared was that it would be the best competitor that would be chosen, not just the cheapest one. you can search but there was no bids opening date as far as I know.
the swiss government made its choice recognising they did not take the best but the cheapest offer, which, in itself negates the very rules they appeared to be applying. Had they said that, you can be sure the swiss air force wouldn’t have shortlisted the gripen (not unlike india who made a second competition for tankers and making sure the IL-76 won’t make it).
Still, the swiss government can’t sign the contract unless it is voted and so, that “decision” is more or less a proposal, and dassault adapts its offer to the “changing rules” the swiss government seems to play with.
In India, the rules were perfectly clear since the beginning and until now the indian officials appear to have respected them 100%. That is why the Typhoon try to shove their aircraft down IAF’s throat looks promised to failure to me
TooCool_12ffact is, India has given the rules, and Dassault won the right to “exclusive negotiations”.
Besides, the whole idea behind the defined date for opening of the bids is that no bidder shall be allowed to adjust his price based on his competitors one.
The result of it is that if India decided to bring the Typhoon back into the game for the MMRCA, it would be in violation of the rules they have decided to apply and contradiction with their statements about a transparent and fair competition, something that would allow Dassault, as well as all other bidders to contest the validity of it all. Already, SAAB tried to get back into the game and were turned down, I doubt Typhoon would have any chance even without the condescending declarations from various UK politicians, especially M. Cameron
TooCool_12fI don’t think so. It’s much harder to modify an aircraft for carrier use, than it would be to modify the same aircraft for land.
The cost would simply not be worth it. Much more effective to upgrade the sensor fusion to give the pilot an edge.
I wasn’t talking about navalizing a B model, but putting a double cockpit like the B with an M airframe (already naval)
there would few pieces (relatively speaking) to be treated differently (corrosin protection for example) as the cockpits are same in both cockpits (and each crew member can display what he needs independantly of the other one).
It’s a very small evolution, compared to a navalization of an aircraft, that’s why I said that, if a navy was interested in the two seater version, dassault could propose one relatively easily
TooCool_12fthere was a link from a blog about MMRCA competition stating the rafale aesa would feature 1001 modules and 180km detection range… for what it’s worth… if we wait for french officials to tell us something valuable, we’ll wait for something like 60-70 years from now 😀
TooCool_12fMildave, you never know… should India, or Brasil, or UK ask for naval two seaters, Dasault would most certainly be able to propose it again…
overall, two seaters have same cockpits back and front, so the equipment would be the same as for a B model, except that the airframe would be “naval”
relatively cheap “extension” especially if there’s a market where to sell it
as for training, they train on a B model for rafale handling as such, and once they’re cleared to fly the aircraft, they start training for carrier in the M model. first with simulators and ground facilities, and then, on carrier.
One may say it’s even better than Super Etendard crews that have no two seater in any version to train on. when they take off for the first time in their aircraft, it’s a single seater…
TooCool_12fas philip said, it’s the air force that switched for more two seaters.
the navy had the M ( single seater) and N ( two seater) on offer, but decided to order only single seaters.
it has nothing to do with “first or second batch” as they could just as well order two seaters for next batches – the first batch are the rafales that were built as F1 standard (12 airframes if my memory serves well), that just started undergoing upgrades to get to the F3 standard (if not F4).
As far as I remember my readings from about ten years ago, it was on offer, even if not ordered by MN initially, but from wiki, it’s the financial and training constraints that brought the abandon of the N version (just saw it).
TooCool_12f@ PhilipG
the two seat naval rafale is developed, it is the Rafale N ( there was one built if my memory serves well)
it’s just that the MN decided to order single seaters only as they considered it suited their needs better
TooCool_12fwell, he was advisor for saab and boeing and still, as far as I understood, he praises IAF’s professionalism and seems to approve the Rafale buy in that article (or I missed something?)
TooCool_12fMy thought is that Dassault would LOVE to produce more, and the french government as well, (they’d be able to delay a bit french deliveries and that would help their financial situation for the time being)
But the price is certainly tailored with taking into acocunt the number of airframes produced b y Dassault. Should there be more, I guess the price would go up as well
TooCool_12fthough, the rafale was made to do it: go downtown and blow stuff to pieces and then come back, and that over enemy territory. That is the whole purpose of an attack aircraft that does strike, rece and nuclear strike as last resort.
You may not like it, or not agree, but people who planned it, and developped it have done just that: a fighter that is armed to go into enemy territory and reach its target and fight its way out if needed.
It already went over Lybia when others waited outside for the Tomahawks to soften the defences, that were deemed too dangerous (according to an article in Air Forces Monthly, if I’m not mistaken).
TooCool_12factually, over enemy territory, they can keep the radar silent… if anyone tries to detect them, they’d get his bearing with SPECTRA, look through passive ways (IR) and react as needed. In case they need to use the radar, it’s given for a quite comfortable range which should reach way further than any serious airborne threat they may encounter.
Anyway, we can discuss it ad nauseum, in the end, the real capabilities being classified, it’s all just speculation…
TooCool_12fif you remove between 25 and 30% of orders, there should be a clear impact on the flyaway price… That rise in price, combined with the rise that should result from development problems could very well result in cancellation or reduction of orders from export customers who are, for many of them, rather broke…
TooCool_12fyou may have to strenghten the nosewheel and its suporting structure in order not to get ripped off as the catapult tries to pull it hard enough for it to remain airborne after it left the deck… then as it is heavier, you need to strenghten the rest for landings… now how much work would it require, and how much heavier it would become before even carrying anything useful?
If they didn’t do it, there is abviously a reason for that
Sign In
