By: Kovy
- 29th April 2005 at 18:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the F-8 was not launch by its nosegear and AFAIK, the F-8 gear was a maintenance nightmare because it used to broke quite often (in the french navy service at least).
Eventualy, the F-8 had definitly not the best gear design for a carrier capable aircraft.
The A-7 nose gear is a lot more stronger than the F-8 one I think.
Anyway, both the F-8 and A-7 gear was designed for aircraft carrier landings. That means that their fuselage was strenghtened where the gear are attached.
I really can't see how you can do that with the typhoon. There is no room for a stronger nose gear :confused:
@ Phill : Your 8 years old sources about the rafale projected costs are obviously outdated.
By: Phil Foster
- 29th April 2005 at 21:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The lack of wing fold is certainly not a plus point. Unfortunately the considerable use of synthetics in the wing (of which I'm no great fan) obviates a hinge mechanism. Although the Rafale wingspan is 10.8 metres which is admittedly 2.4 metres more than the F18C it is also about 1.8 metres shorter than the Hornet. And the Hornet is small compared to the Super Hornet. The lack of a wing fold helps maintenance so it is perhaps not the great disadvantage that many believe it to be.
I have reservations nothing more, I certainly cannot tell if it is a big drawback or not. I'd still be happy if the the Royal Navy chose it but I would not have the Rafale over the Typhoon for the RAF.
Sens. Sorry mate I'm getting my posters mixed up. I think I am trying to take on too many arguments here.
All. Just can it about the Lightning I heard you the first time and I get your point.
By: Sens
- 29th April 2005 at 23:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the F-8 was not launch by its nosegear and AFAIK, the F-8 gear was a maintenance nightmare because it used to broke quite often (in the french navy service at least).
Eventualy, the F-8 had definitly not the best gear design for a carrier capable aircraft.
The A-7 nose gear is a lot more stronger than the F-8 one I think.
Anyway, both the F-8 and A-7 gear was designed for aircraft carrier landings. That means that their fuselage was strenghtened where the gear are attached.
I really can't see how you can do that with the typhoon. There is no room for a stronger nose gear :confused:
@ Phill : Your 8 years old sources about the rafale projected costs are obviously outdated.
Hi Kovy, when you try to resolve that problem with technics and materials from the 50s, you are right. In 2005 it is no longer a problem. Even the hydraulics are smart now. In the 80s it still may have been a problem. (Rafale, MiG-29K) For the Boeing "F-32" from the 90s it was not any longer.
Despite that, with the F-35 around the corner I can not see a navilised Typhoon. Maybe European Forces will choose further naval Rafales.
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 30th April 2005 at 12:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Rafale or the Rafale M? The two gears are different, it was completely redesigned for the Rafale M. As a guess I reckon even us inept Brits can redesign the piddly Typhoon gear for carrier operations but it is a moot point. Like I said there was/is not a requirement for a navalised Typhoon and even the Rafale M is not fully optimised because without folding wings there is less space and fewer can be embarked. That said if Britain dumped the F35 I would be happy with the Royal Navy getting the Rafale M though I do have reservations about the stowage issue due to the non folding wings. The Rafale is NOT without its flaws.
Phil :)
Hi Phil
what's with the "inept Brits" cr@p. Please relax!
Harrier, Hawk, Buccaneer and Lynx are achievements that stand out. The Tornado was the first FBW fighter project in the world (it was however beaten into service by the F16) and it was BAe's FCS that made the F14 a reliable ACM performer. (I'm probably going to regret saying that).
When it comes to relaxed stability designs Dassault was at the forefront.
Does the Rafale have flaws? No, I don't think so, BUT it is a compromise solution in a way that the Typhoon isn't- so it's a Jack of all trades and the King of none.
There is no doubt that the close coupled canard generates far more supersonic drag than does the Typhoon's canard. Eurofighter knew this and Dassault too. However, Dassault needed the close coupling to maximise the approach performance when recovering to a carrier. It's the reason why the Raffie is slower than the Typhoon. The long coupling of the Typhoon gives the canard more authority. Also the Typhoon has 10% instability whereas the Raffie has about 7-8% (AFAIK) so it is more manoeuvrable. I certainly challenge you to find a post where I in any manner trash the Typhoon's agility. As regards load carrying- no contest, the Raffie wins.
The Typhoon canopy (a direct copy of the F15 canopy- IMHO the finest) is cleaner than the Rafales'. Also the Typhoon cockpit seems to be very straightforward. The Rafale's cockpit is a radical departure from what we usually see coming from Dassault, but given the considerable consultation with the AdlA and Aeronavale it's fair to say that it is probably what they wanted- but the layout is wierd.
The sidestick (supplied by the Yanks- as too is the M2k-5 HOTAS suite) is something that the pilots wanted.
We can argue till the cows come home about sidestick vs. centrestick.
Sens, when you design a fighter to be cat capable, you design a cat capable fighter. You can't compromise on that.
By: Sens
- 30th April 2005 at 13:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Sens, when you design a fighter to be cat capable, you design a cat capable fighter. You can't compromise on that."
You have to know better. See heritage of Dassault 'Etendard IV' - M or SEPECAT 'Jaguar' - M. The French cat-launch is unique.
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 30th April 2005 at 13:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Sens
Point taken. I would point out that both the Jaguar and Etendard were both designed to be able to launch from and recover to unprepared grass strips. I have a video of an RAF Jaguar taking off from a patch of grass next to the runway, then crossing the runway down onto the grass on the other side before taking off but not before launching huge chunks of grass into the air. It's an unbelievable sight! The pilot must have had nerves of steel.
My point being that both aircraft were designed for a tough environment. The Jaguar never made it (thanks to Dassault) and the Aeronavale were stuck with an underpowered underweaponed Etendard (thanks to Dassault).
By: glitter
- 30th April 2005 at 14:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it isn't. Simply because there are 4 national production lines, 4 national logistic centers, 4 national sh!t of everything.
4 assembly lines. Not 4 production lines.
To compare the production costs, we should take the fly away prices. Could you provide the numbers of the C/B-model Rafales ? How many exactly at which price ?
I think the British order comes pretty close in numbers. Got someone the prices for the British order at hand ? :D
Few months ago, UK spend more money on a limited typhoon tranche2 than France with fully develloped Rafale F3 even when the french gov bought less planes.
By: Phil Foster
- 30th April 2005 at 15:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Few months ago, UK spend more money on a limited typhoon tranche2 than France with fully develloped Rafale F3 even when the french gov bought less planes.
Puffadder this sort of comment is the root cause of my 'inept Brits' jibe and such like.
Again! Sources please not just an opinion backed up by hot air and prejudice. If you won't provide hard evidence to back up your claims I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.
By: Aurel
- 30th April 2005 at 15:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
4 assembly lines. Not 4 production lines.
Yes, but still more expansive then the Rafale production. At the end of it's assembling process, all Typhoon parts combined have seen more of europe then I did during the last ten years.
Few months ago, UK spend more money on a limited typhoon tranche2 than France with fully develloped Rafale F3 even when the french gov bought less planes.
Huh ? The British paid more for more jets ? What is strange about that ? Besides this, I think development costs are here mixed in, too.
To give a number: The German tranche 2 Typhoons come at exactly € 50 mill a pice. What I read the Rafale C is slightly cheaper ~48 mill, while B and M models are slightly more expansive.
What causes more problems with a direct comparison is the way the doubleseaters are used. The Typhoons double seaters are full combat capable trainers, while the Rafale B is more a strike variant. Therefore the fraction of double seaters within the French order is larger. That means the overall fleet will become more costly and thus equal in price to the Typhoon fleets.
Additionally, the advantage of the larger order will come into play mostly with tranche 3. Here I would suspect a definately lower price for the Typhoon.
And even if it would be 1,2 million more expansive compared to the Rafale, it would well be worth it.
It offers the larger radar, the higher cruising speed and the better supersonic performance. It is the better pure fighter.
The advantages of the Rafale are somehow not that critical to the needs of my country. Larger external fuel tanks, a higher theoretical maximum (a2g !) loadout, larger ferry range (due to 2 more wetpoints). And of course the naval variant.
Things may change of course, if the Rafale does exactly what it was aimed for: succeed in export markets.
I hope it will win in Singapore, and get's some orders from the Arab world. I wouldn't feel comfortable with the Typhoon sold to the latter.
Maybe it will become therefore cheaper than the Typhoon. But it will not get the edge in a2a combat. And that is the decisive characteristic for our needs.
Together with the higher workshare, it is the reason why Germany now buys a mostly German design, with mostly British radar and RR/MTU engine. Oh and of course a cockpit with Italian style and a Spanish aircondition. ;-)
By: Phil Foster
- 30th April 2005 at 15:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aurel I think I am reading him different to yourself. I am just confused now these coments are being changed and swapped and contradicted at an enormous rate. Why can't some people just pick a line and stick to it?
Phil
New
Posts: 1,316
By: Steve Touchdown
- 30th April 2005 at 16:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have any of the French Chaps around here got any Rafale news from recent weeks they can share perhaps?
Here's a few things that I've picked up:
1) CEAM (EC 05.330) are using at least four Rafale B now at Mont de Marsan:
One of these will be at the Istres MNA in June, but is listed as non-flying so far.
2) Rafale C s/n 102 has been seen recently at Bordeaux-Merignac: delivered as F2 specification?
3) There is a rumour of a final "end of Jaguar" ceremony/event at St. Dizier for Tuesday 29th June....which I assume has implications for EC 7 and the arrival of Rafale?
Any other news regarding Armee de l'Air Rafales around in the French magazines?
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
New
Posts: 1,316
By: Steve Touchdown
- 30th April 2005 at 16:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why can't some people just pick a line and stick to it?
Is that assembly or production line, Phil? :D :D :D
Let's just be thankful we don't have 10.2% unemployment :diablo:
By: Aurel
- 30th April 2005 at 17:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, you are certainly right. I just want some concrete numbers. I got this 50 mill. a plane fly away price for the German tranche 2 order. I'm to lazy to look up how many are on the British tranche 2 order, and how many they cost. Neither do I know the exact numbers of the actual French batch. I think this is up to the French and British forum members. They shurely know better from their local press.
It is in my opinion nearly impossible to get prices on a comparable basis. The British order includes some equipment, that the German order does not include. What about the details of the actual French Rafale batch ?
I think Glitter is in the better position to provide some numbers and details about the package. What weapons and systems (flight suits, ECM, HMCS,...) are included. For example the German tranche 2 order includes not enough pirates for all aircraft. They will be delivered in this "fitted for, but not with" manner. The pirates will be delivered seperately and plugged in only if needed.
And to the overall numbers. The largest Typhoon order is the British with 232 frame order and 65 options. (Not likely to be delivered)
The French order is larger (294 units). That means their assembly line will produce the largest single order of European fighter jets. Advantage for Dassault not BAe Systems.
Then let's go into the tranches. The second rafale batch ordered in 2004 include 59 aircraft, while the British Tranche 2 order includes 89 aircraft. I think this is what Glitter meant with "the French goverment bought less planes".
Well then let's compare it to the German T2 order: 68 aircraft at a price of € 3,4 billion. If someone could provide the bill for the 59 Rafales and what is included in that sum (weapons, development costs, ground equipment...), maybe we could agree on which aircraft is cheaper, and which provides more bang for buck.
By: Distiller
- 30th April 2005 at 17:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About a carrier-capable EF2000:
The main landing gear is scary close to the CG and provides very little tail clearance when the plane rotates, a fact made even worse by the AoA requirements of the delta (canard or not) - the EF2000 comes and goes rather flat. A lengthening of the main landing gear wouldn't be avoidable I think (same problem as on the MiG-29K). And then there is the question of the nose landing gear. The current thing surely can't take the jolt of a U.S.Navy-style cat launch, it would have to be redesigned the same way the Rafale's was, but for that there is simply no space! The intake's strength itself would not be so much of a problem since the gear is attached under that vertical intake divider. So theoretically the old-fashioned way to launch, with the steel-shoestring would be an option.
By: glitter
- 30th April 2005 at 18:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again! Sources please not just an opinion backed up by hot air and prejudice. If you won't provide hard evidence to back up your claims I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.
I really hate this kind of tactics.
dismissing abvious facts.
"The negotiations are finished," a spokesman for Eurofighter told the paper, which said the agreement to build 236 Eurofighter aircraft, worth around €14 billion ($18.5 billion), will be signed by the end of the year
:p
Yes, but still more expansive then the Rafale production. At the end of it's assembling process, all Typhoon parts combined have seen more of europe then I did during the last ten years.
Right.
It's an easy and efficient way to lowered the cost of the Typhoon, but it comes with a very high political cost.
The British paid more for more jets ? What is strange about that ? Besides this, I think development costs are here mixed in, too.
THey paid EACH planes more than the cost of a Rafale.
I think that the link I posted doesn't include that since the industrial like to split these cost in PR.
Additionally, the advantage of the larger order will come into play mostly with tranche 3. Here I would suspect a definately lower price for the Typhoon.
The RAfale F3 is already lower than the Typhoon.
How can you make it go down by pouring more money into that program ?
And even if it would be 1,2 million more expansive compared to the Rafale, it would well be worth it.
It offers the larger radar
YEs, the mecanical one.
the higher cruising speed and the better supersonic performance. It is the better pure fighter.
I fear it's a bit more complicated.
The advantages of the Rafale are somehow not that critical to the needs of my country. Larger external fuel tanks, a higher theoretical maximum (a2g !) loadout, larger ferry range (due to 2 more wetpoints). And of course the naval variant.
Better range and better playload are nothing ?
I'm happy for you
By: Kovy
- 30th April 2005 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sources please not just an opinion backed up by hot air and prejudice. If you won't provide hard evidence to back up your claims I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.
- The last eurofighter T2 order is estimated at €13 billion (sometimetimes 14) for 236 planes
13/236 = €55.08 millions / plane
By: Phil Foster
- 30th April 2005 at 19:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, you are certainly right. I just want some concrete numbers. I got this 50 mill. a plane fly away price for the German tranche 2 order. I'm to lazy to look up how many are on the British tranche 2 order, and how many they cost. Neither do I know the exact numbers of the actual French batch. I think this is up to the French and British forum members. They shurely know better from their local press.
It is in my opinion nearly impossible to get prices on a comparable basis. The British order includes some equipment, that the German order does not include. What about the details of the actual French Rafale batch ?
I think Glitter is in the better position to provide some numbers and details about the package. What weapons and systems (flight suits, ECM, HMCS,...) are included. For example the German tranche 2 order includes not enough pirates for all aircraft. They will be delivered in this "fitted for, but not with" manner. The pirates will be delivered seperately and plugged in only if needed.
And to the overall numbers. The largest Typhoon order is the British with 232 frame order and 65 options. (Not likely to be delivered)
The French order is larger (294 units). That means their assembly line will produce the largest single order of European fighter jets. Advantage for Dassault not BAe Systems.
Then let's go into the tranches. The second rafale batch ordered in 2004 include 59 aircraft, while the British Tranche 2 order includes 89 aircraft. I think this is what Glitter meant with "the French goverment bought less planes".
Well then let's compare it to the German T2 order: 68 aircraft at a price of € 3,4 billion. If someone could provide the bill for the 59 Rafales and what is included in that sum (weapons, development costs, ground equipment...), maybe we could agree on which aircraft is cheaper, and which provides more bang for buck.
Not really mate I don't hold much store by any of the figures I see. One day you hear a 'definitive' figure and the next day it changes. Kovy and the Xenophobes (good name for a 60s tribute band me thinks :D ) might well be right. The difference here is that they will not be budged on one simple fact. If there is a price difference between the two it is not a very big one and arguing on the basis of relatively small (alleged) difference is pathetic.
There are others things that annoy like the inflation of Eurofighter prices and the deflation of Rafale prices, the dumbing down of Eurofighter specs and the 'bigging up' of Rafale specs. You also see a lot of the 'Rafale mob' slagging off the Typhoon but the 'Typhoon mob' seem to be quite gracious of the Rafale. Maybe its a cultural thing I don't know but its hard to teach an idiot anything if you ask me. To think some of these people really expect the likes of me to vote in favour of a more unified Europe? Sheesh, in the face of such disrespect they can bloody well swivel on it.
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 29th April 2005 at 18:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the F-8 was not launch by its nosegear and AFAIK, the F-8 gear was a maintenance nightmare because it used to broke quite often (in the french navy service at least).
Eventualy, the F-8 had definitly not the best gear design for a carrier capable aircraft.
The A-7 nose gear is a lot more stronger than the F-8 one I think.
Anyway, both the F-8 and A-7 gear was designed for aircraft carrier landings. That means that their fuselage was strenghtened where the gear are attached.
I really can't see how you can do that with the typhoon. There is no room for a stronger nose gear :confused:
@ Phill : Your 8 years old sources about the rafale projected costs are obviously outdated.
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 29th April 2005 at 21:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have reservations nothing more, I certainly cannot tell if it is a big drawback or not. I'd still be happy if the the Royal Navy chose it but I would not have the Rafale over the Typhoon for the RAF.
Sens. Sorry mate I'm getting my posters mixed up. I think I am trying to take on too many arguments here.
All. Just can it about the Lightning I heard you the first time and I get your point.
Phil :)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th April 2005 at 23:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Kovy, when you try to resolve that problem with technics and materials from the 50s, you are right. In 2005 it is no longer a problem. Even the hydraulics are smart now. In the 80s it still may have been a problem. (Rafale, MiG-29K) For the Boeing "F-32" from the 90s it was not any longer.
Despite that, with the F-35 around the corner I can not see a navilised Typhoon. Maybe European Forces will choose further naval Rafales.
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 30th April 2005 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Phil
what's with the "inept Brits" cr@p. Please relax!
Harrier, Hawk, Buccaneer and Lynx are achievements that stand out. The Tornado was the first FBW fighter project in the world (it was however beaten into service by the F16) and it was BAe's FCS that made the F14 a reliable ACM performer. (I'm probably going to regret saying that).
When it comes to relaxed stability designs Dassault was at the forefront.
Does the Rafale have flaws? No, I don't think so, BUT it is a compromise solution in a way that the Typhoon isn't- so it's a Jack of all trades and the King of none.
There is no doubt that the close coupled canard generates far more supersonic drag than does the Typhoon's canard. Eurofighter knew this and Dassault too. However, Dassault needed the close coupling to maximise the approach performance when recovering to a carrier. It's the reason why the Raffie is slower than the Typhoon. The long coupling of the Typhoon gives the canard more authority. Also the Typhoon has 10% instability whereas the Raffie has about 7-8% (AFAIK) so it is more manoeuvrable. I certainly challenge you to find a post where I in any manner trash the Typhoon's agility. As regards load carrying- no contest, the Raffie wins.
The Typhoon canopy (a direct copy of the F15 canopy- IMHO the finest) is cleaner than the Rafales'. Also the Typhoon cockpit seems to be very straightforward. The Rafale's cockpit is a radical departure from what we usually see coming from Dassault, but given the considerable consultation with the AdlA and Aeronavale it's fair to say that it is probably what they wanted- but the layout is wierd.
The sidestick (supplied by the Yanks- as too is the M2k-5 HOTAS suite) is something that the pilots wanted.
We can argue till the cows come home about sidestick vs. centrestick.
Sens, when you design a fighter to be cat capable, you design a cat capable fighter. You can't compromise on that.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 30th April 2005 at 13:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Sens, when you design a fighter to be cat capable, you design a cat capable fighter. You can't compromise on that."
You have to know better. See heritage of Dassault 'Etendard IV' - M or SEPECAT 'Jaguar' - M. The French cat-launch is unique.
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 30th April 2005 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Sens
Point taken. I would point out that both the Jaguar and Etendard were both designed to be able to launch from and recover to unprepared grass strips. I have a video of an RAF Jaguar taking off from a patch of grass next to the runway, then crossing the runway down onto the grass on the other side before taking off but not before launching huge chunks of grass into the air. It's an unbelievable sight! The pilot must have had nerves of steel.
My point being that both aircraft were designed for a tough environment. The Jaguar never made it (thanks to Dassault) and the Aeronavale were stuck with an underpowered underweaponed Etendard (thanks to Dassault).
Posts: 1,842
By: glitter - 30th April 2005 at 14:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
4 assembly lines. Not 4 production lines.
Few months ago, UK spend more money on a limited typhoon tranche2 than France with fully develloped Rafale F3 even when the french gov bought less planes.
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 30th April 2005 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Puffadder this sort of comment is the root cause of my 'inept Brits' jibe and such like.
Again! Sources please not just an opinion backed up by hot air and prejudice. If you won't provide hard evidence to back up your claims I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.
Phil :)
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 30th April 2005 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, but still more expansive then the Rafale production. At the end of it's assembling process, all Typhoon parts combined have seen more of europe then I did during the last ten years.
Huh ? The British paid more for more jets ? What is strange about that ? Besides this, I think development costs are here mixed in, too.
To give a number: The German tranche 2 Typhoons come at exactly € 50 mill a pice. What I read the Rafale C is slightly cheaper ~48 mill, while B and M models are slightly more expansive.
What causes more problems with a direct comparison is the way the doubleseaters are used. The Typhoons double seaters are full combat capable trainers, while the Rafale B is more a strike variant. Therefore the fraction of double seaters within the French order is larger. That means the overall fleet will become more costly and thus equal in price to the Typhoon fleets.
Additionally, the advantage of the larger order will come into play mostly with tranche 3. Here I would suspect a definately lower price for the Typhoon.
And even if it would be 1,2 million more expansive compared to the Rafale, it would well be worth it.
It offers the larger radar, the higher cruising speed and the better supersonic performance. It is the better pure fighter.
The advantages of the Rafale are somehow not that critical to the needs of my country. Larger external fuel tanks, a higher theoretical maximum (a2g !) loadout, larger ferry range (due to 2 more wetpoints). And of course the naval variant.
Things may change of course, if the Rafale does exactly what it was aimed for: succeed in export markets.
I hope it will win in Singapore, and get's some orders from the Arab world. I wouldn't feel comfortable with the Typhoon sold to the latter.
Maybe it will become therefore cheaper than the Typhoon. But it will not get the edge in a2a combat. And that is the decisive characteristic for our needs.
Together with the higher workshare, it is the reason why Germany now buys a mostly German design, with mostly British radar and RR/MTU engine. Oh and of course a cockpit with Italian style and a Spanish aircondition. ;-)
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 30th April 2005 at 15:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aurel I think I am reading him different to yourself. I am just confused now these coments are being changed and swapped and contradicted at an enormous rate. Why can't some people just pick a line and stick to it?
Phil
Posts: 1,316
By: Steve Touchdown - 30th April 2005 at 16:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have any of the French Chaps around here got any Rafale news from recent weeks they can share perhaps?
Here's a few things that I've picked up:
1) CEAM (EC 05.330) are using at least four Rafale B now at Mont de Marsan:
B302/330-AC, B303/330-EA, B304/330-EB & B305/330-EC
One of these will be at the Istres MNA in June, but is listed as non-flying so far.
2) Rafale C s/n 102 has been seen recently at Bordeaux-Merignac: delivered as F2 specification?
3) There is a rumour of a final "end of Jaguar" ceremony/event at St. Dizier for Tuesday 29th June....which I assume has implications for EC 7 and the arrival of Rafale?
Any other news regarding Armee de l'Air Rafales around in the French magazines?
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Posts: 1,316
By: Steve Touchdown - 30th April 2005 at 16:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that assembly or production line, Phil? :D :D :D
Let's just be thankful we don't have 10.2% unemployment :diablo:
Steve
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 30th April 2005 at 17:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, you are certainly right. I just want some concrete numbers. I got this 50 mill. a plane fly away price for the German tranche 2 order. I'm to lazy to look up how many are on the British tranche 2 order, and how many they cost. Neither do I know the exact numbers of the actual French batch. I think this is up to the French and British forum members. They shurely know better from their local press.
It is in my opinion nearly impossible to get prices on a comparable basis. The British order includes some equipment, that the German order does not include. What about the details of the actual French Rafale batch ?
I think Glitter is in the better position to provide some numbers and details about the package. What weapons and systems (flight suits, ECM, HMCS,...) are included. For example the German tranche 2 order includes not enough pirates for all aircraft. They will be delivered in this "fitted for, but not with" manner. The pirates will be delivered seperately and plugged in only if needed.
And to the overall numbers. The largest Typhoon order is the British with 232 frame order and 65 options. (Not likely to be delivered)
The French order is larger (294 units). That means their assembly line will produce the largest single order of European fighter jets. Advantage for Dassault not BAe Systems.
Then let's go into the tranches. The second rafale batch ordered in 2004 include 59 aircraft, while the British Tranche 2 order includes 89 aircraft. I think this is what Glitter meant with "the French goverment bought less planes".
Well then let's compare it to the German T2 order: 68 aircraft at a price of € 3,4 billion. If someone could provide the bill for the 59 Rafales and what is included in that sum (weapons, development costs, ground equipment...), maybe we could agree on which aircraft is cheaper, and which provides more bang for buck.
Posts: 4,674
By: Distiller - 30th April 2005 at 17:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About a carrier-capable EF2000:
The main landing gear is scary close to the CG and provides very little tail clearance when the plane rotates, a fact made even worse by the AoA requirements of the delta (canard or not) - the EF2000 comes and goes rather flat. A lengthening of the main landing gear wouldn't be avoidable I think (same problem as on the MiG-29K). And then there is the question of the nose landing gear. The current thing surely can't take the jolt of a U.S.Navy-style cat launch, it would have to be redesigned the same way the Rafale's was, but for that there is simply no space! The intake's strength itself would not be so much of a problem since the gear is attached under that vertical intake divider. So theoretically the old-fashioned way to launch, with the steel-shoestring would be an option.
Posts: 1,842
By: glitter - 30th April 2005 at 17:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are talking of devellopment cost.
Same player shoot again.
Posts: 1,842
By: glitter - 30th April 2005 at 18:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I really hate this kind of tactics.
dismissing abvious facts.
http://www.latribune.fr/Dossiers/defense.nsf/DocsWeb/IDC1256F950039F30AC1256F2800110646?OpenDocument
la commande des 59 avions de combat Rafale F-3 pour un montant de plus de 3 milliards d'euros. Une enveloppe de 3,114 milliards d'euros est prévue en crédits de paiement dans le budget du ministère de la Défense.
1 Rafale F3 = 52 millions.
Ouch, I can't find the very recent UK deal only, but I find that
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=988
"The negotiations are finished," a spokesman for Eurofighter told the paper, which said the agreement to build 236 Eurofighter aircraft, worth around €14 billion ($18.5 billion), will be signed by the end of the year
:p
Right.
It's an easy and efficient way to lowered the cost of the Typhoon, but it comes with a very high political cost.
THey paid EACH planes more than the cost of a Rafale.
I think that the link I posted doesn't include that since the industrial like to split these cost in PR.
The RAfale F3 is already lower than the Typhoon.
How can you make it go down by pouring more money into that program ?
YEs, the mecanical one.
I fear it's a bit more complicated.
Better range and better playload are nothing ?
I'm happy for you
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 30th April 2005 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
- The last eurofighter T2 order is estimated at €13 billion (sometimetimes 14) for 236 planes
13/236 = €55.08 millions / plane
http://www.analisidifesa.it/articolo.shtm/id/4701/ver/EN
- The last rafale F3 order is estimated at 3.11 billion for 59 planes
3.11/59 = €52.71 millions / plane
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_breve/1,13-0,37-862804,0.html
The eurofighter T2 order is 4 times bigger but the plane is still 2.3 million more expensive than the rafale F3
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 30th April 2005 at 19:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You silly man you. :D :D :D
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 30th April 2005 at 19:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not really mate I don't hold much store by any of the figures I see. One day you hear a 'definitive' figure and the next day it changes. Kovy and the Xenophobes (good name for a 60s tribute band me thinks :D ) might well be right. The difference here is that they will not be budged on one simple fact. If there is a price difference between the two it is not a very big one and arguing on the basis of relatively small (alleged) difference is pathetic.
There are others things that annoy like the inflation of Eurofighter prices and the deflation of Rafale prices, the dumbing down of Eurofighter specs and the 'bigging up' of Rafale specs. You also see a lot of the 'Rafale mob' slagging off the Typhoon but the 'Typhoon mob' seem to be quite gracious of the Rafale. Maybe its a cultural thing I don't know but its hard to teach an idiot anything if you ask me. To think some of these people really expect the likes of me to vote in favour of a more unified Europe? Sheesh, in the face of such disrespect they can bloody well swivel on it.
Phil :)
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 30th April 2005 at 20:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you suggesting i'm a xenophobe ?