TooCool_12fActually yes, though apparently some people fell from the skies…
As I said in the first post, a potential Sea Gripen, though not operational as of now and perhaps equally or more expensive in the long run, would have far more british participation than any Rafale. After the F-35, would be the “next best thing”.
So you think they will merely want weapons and external pods? In such a case, these would not take any considerable amount of time. However I doubt that they would be willing to buy, and french would be willing to sell, the whole set of its avionics. I could be wrong, but I just can’t see Thales giving away some SPECTRA sets to BAE just like that.
British industry would have to be involved imho. If not anything else, for appeasing the public oppinion over buying something not british. For what I know, they could even ask for EJ-200 integration. Don’t know if it’s possible, but I would certainly love to see that…
Anyway, this is pure speculation, so…
Just a footnote, there are not 300 Rafales flying, and personally I doubt there will ever be, even including potential exports.
if they sell the aircraft with spectra operational to some remote country, and not propose it to the RN (providing UK shows some interest in that deal), that’s as well as not trying to sell anything to the british. SPECTRA is a vital part of the rafale concept, and without it, they could just as well propose “navalized” M2000 instead.
About the number of rafales flying, in 2008, the total number of rafales in french air forces, AdlA and MN, (C, B and M variants) was planned to reach a total of 286 aircraft in the end, number which, even if reduced, shouldn’t fall so much lower… now, if brasil deal goes forward, things are likely to improve for other markets, and adding to that the british deal we talk about (considering that if they are in RN service, there is a british deal 😉 ) rafales should be able to top the 300 aircraft flying without difficulty
TooCool_12fWhy would you change the name? Typhoon is typhoon in pretty much any country using it…
anyway, if the british would like to call it differently, I guess they’ll find a name for it…
on second thought, that could be a poll: find a “british” name for the rafale in RN service (so forget about bad jokes 😀 )
TooCool_12fFAB should just go for F-18s. Both the politicians and the air force seem to at least agree.. the Super Hornet is a solid #2 choice! 😉 unlike that shifty Rafale which can occupy first and last spots, and is no longer the pretty girl on the block since the pak-fa came out. the F-18, at least, has its functionalities.
the major problem Lula has with the F-18 is that it is american (fact that’s pretty unlikely to change), just as gripen’s engine, among other things inside. Considering that he wants to be as independent from the US as possible, he can’t choose neither the F-18 nor the gripen. Had the gripen been proposed with, say, EJ200 engine, or even a SNECMA one (any type) that may have been a whole different story… thing is: is isn’t.
TooCool_12fthing is, in the article it says the raptors locked onto french EM emissions… nowhere does it talk about AWACS.
Had they say, they got awacs coordinates and shot their missiles from longer range than what MICA could reach, it would make sense… the way it’s presented, it doesn’t, that the whole point
TooCool_12fIt doesn’t look like the aircraft is turning at all, at least no high G turns. Try again.
I took these pics and it was turning, hard… sorry 😉
TooCool_12ffrench buying a sea gripen while building the rafale? now that would be interesting to see the politician responsible for that trying to justify it… :D:D:D
TooCool_12fI remember a report about a speech in UK parliament where one person defended the keeping up with JSF as, basically:
“you have to understand that, if we drop the partnership in JSF, we might have to buy a french aircraft!”
with strong emphasis on “french”.
I found it quite curious behavior.. I’d think that a person with some sense of responsibility would try to get the best thing for those serving their country, but what bothered him was only the fact that it came from the french…
anyway, if RN drops the JSF (total speculation) the rafale would prpobably be the best choice for them, rather than “navalized” versions that would still have to be developed, tuned and what not… after all, france could’ve built its own aircraft carrier and instead decided to let it be built in UK (I don’t remember hearing many brits complaining about that one, btw). The three carriers may be perfectly identical (except for specific stuff, like electronics etc…), which could eventually simplify the production
TooCool_12fof course, as I said previously, we can always speculate about it.. but as it was an exercise in EAU which are the next market targeted by dassault (and the french government for that matter), it still looks highly unlikely to me they go overthere to do anything but what put the rafale in the best possible light…
anyway, I guess we’ll still be around this in 6 months from now at the pace the things go… 😉
TooCool_12fWho knows?
I would guess that the Rafale bests the Gripen in terms of STR thanks to its high TWR, but I believe the Gripen has a higher ITR.
Even though the Rafale and Gripen have the same configuration they are not the same. The Gripen appears to be more unstable, and so it makes more use of the avaliable lift. When a Rafale begins a turn(and holds a turn), it pushes the tail down like a stable aircraft, but it doesn’t use quite as much elevator input as a stable aircraft. The canards helps to maintain an even turn rate, as do the elevons. However, in pushing the tail down the Rafale does not enjoy positive lift on all surfaces, and it doesn’t use the wings total lift capability.
The Gripen on the other hand always has positive lift on all surfaces. The Gripen doesn’t push the tail down in order to turn, instead it adds lift using the canards, the elevons are tilted downwards adding lift, instead of killing lift.
If anything the Gripen is more maneuverable than the Rafale. The Rafale enjoys a TWR advantage but at the same time it is probaly a more draggy design in comparison to the Gripen. The Rafale is short and stubby and it has a wide fuselage and a very large vertical stabilizer. The Gripen is long and slender, with a small vertical stabilizer. Its long slender tail cone helps to reduce drag as well.
Pics of manuevering Rafale.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France—Air/Dassault-Rafale-C/1615008/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France—Air/Dassault-Rafale-C/1600267/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France—Air/Dassault-Rafale-B/1542953/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France—Navy/Dassault-Rafale-M/1365639/L/Pics of manuevering Gripen
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hungary—Air/Saab-JAS39C-Gripen/1637899/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Czech-Republic–/Saab-JAS39C-Gripen/1595148/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Czech-Republic–/Saab-JAS39C-Gripen/1402383/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hungary—Air/Saab-JAS39C-Gripen/1553970/L/
according to wiki, the rafale and the gripen have very similar wing loading, 326kg/m² for the rafale and 336kg/m² for the gripen… add to that that the NG will be heavier with similar (same?) wing and it’s not sure at all their wing loading stays on par with the rafale… from there on, not at all certain they’d be able to outturn a rafale.
What’s more, the rafale has the ability to pull up to 11G’s if necessary (even if, normally, the 9G limit is used as “standard”)… now, if you pull 2 more G’s at the same speed, you get a tighter turn or a higher turn rate.. how much load he may be able to carry around at such accelerations, I don’t know, but in any case, it won’t be less than what the Gripen NG can carry for similar flight conditions (mission).
as for manouvering pics, it all depends on at what moment of the manouver the pic was taken
I can show you others:
http://tc12f.free.fr/webgallery/picture.php?cat=39&image_id=1809
http://tc12f.free.fr/webgallery/picture.php?cat=20&image_id=855
rafale manouvering and flaperons aligned with the wing or even downwards
TooCool_12fwe can always think of such a possibility, but what’s the point of going all the way to do so? If it’s just about F-22 training and calibrating its sensors, they can do so in the US.. and what interest would it have for the french to go tehre and just play targets? especially with their latest fighter which they have so much difficulty to sell.. do you think that a sticker on its rear saying “F-22s most coooperative target” would make it sell better? I doubt it… 😀
TooCool_12fmy feel is: had this board existed in the early ’90s, there may have been same discussion about “how perfectly handled the A-12 Avenger II program was”…. with no cost overruns, perfectly under projections and under budget… basically, a perfect example, set by real professionals of how things should be managed..
TooCool_12fComplete denial of the facts. LRIP costs are BELOW projections. Even the proposed FY2011 budget projects/esimated flyaway unit cost of the F-35A BELOW $100 million beginning in FY2014.
Below what projections? if it was true:
– why would anyone bother to remember Nunn-McCurdy in the first place?
– why did the congress have to reduce orders?
– why did the have to refinance development?
you claim costs less than projected and still, there’s more and more money pouring in it… now, there are only two possibilities:
a/ you’re completely on another planet (figuratively speaking)
b/ somebody is getting very very rich with taxpayers’ money
my bet goes on “a”
TooCool_12fit also depends on when the payments take place.. according to some analysts, the dollar may very well go up to something like 1.16€ by the end of summer… if they calculated the price in dollars when it was over 1.5€, this summer, the same amount in euros will appear much cheaper
TooCool_12fThe programme will never be cancelled. Too much depends on it.
I don’t expect it to be cancelled, at least for now.. but if the US Navy pulls out of it (and they seem to prepare something that way), other countries may do so as well… making it a similar scenario to the F-111 one…
With development price going up, and less orders, every aircraft may cost too much for some services, leading to firther restrictions in numbers, which would result in another increase in price, etc…
TooCool_12f“F-35 Nunn-McCurdy?”
Should I explain you what a question mark is?
no, but you should look what “Nunn-McCurdy” means… 😀
Sign In
