Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Rafale wins Indian order

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Rafale wins Indian order

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 17th Jan 2013, 15:55
  #201 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,388
Received 1,584 Likes on 721 Posts
India Mulls Big Jump in French Rafale Order

PARIS — India could buy up to 189 of the Rafale fighter jets currently being used by France to bomb Islamist militants in Mali, sources close to negotiations on the multi-billion dollar deal have told AFP.

The possibility of an additional 63 jets being added to an expected order for 126 was raised by India when Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid visited Paris last week, they said. “There is an option for procurement of an additional 63 aircrafts subsequently, for which a separate contract would need to be signed,” a source said. “Presently the contract under negotiation is for 126 aircraft, but we are talking about the follow-up.”

The Indian press has estimated the value of the deal for 126 Rafales at $12 billion (nine billion euros). A 50 percent increase in the number of planes ordered would take it to around $18 billion in a huge boost for the French defense industry.

India selected French manufacturer Dassault Aviation as its preferred candidate to equip its air force with new fighter jets in January 2012. Under the deal on the table, the first 18 Rafales would be built in France, but the next 108 would be assembled in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

“The first aircraft will be delivered three years after signature of the contract,” the source added. An industry expert said the time lag reflected India’s request for two-seater jets rather than the one-seater model that Dassault currently produces...........
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 16:25
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong but the Indians were after Naval and Land based aircraft hence the selection of the French aircraft.

I will get my coat....
zero1 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 13:03
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 100
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
considering the cost of F35's maybe Canada should buy 130ish for 12B, and require final assembly/license production here
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 14:06
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,806
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Certain RCAF views about the excellence of the Rafale during the Libyan campaign have certainly been expressed to their leadership.... Dassault have also responded to a recent Canadian RFI.

Unlike the TypHoon, Rafale refuels extremely quickly from the CC-150T used by the RCAF, a significant issue when 8-ship formations are considered.

Rafale might well be capable of STOBAR from the RN's carriers with less modification to the carriers than would be required for F-18E/F/G...
BEagle is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 17:14
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,780
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rafale might well be capable of STOBAR from the RN's carriers with less modification to the carriers than would be required for F-18E/F/G...
Why the "might"? Surely it would just be a matter of asking the French for the plans to their carrier?
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 17:17
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rafale is a great piece of kit, would be even better with Eurojet's iso the M88's.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 17:59
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Why the "might"? Surely it would just be a matter of asking the French for the plans to their carrier?
He said STOBAR.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 18:27
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,780
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Point taken. But anyway, Dassault reckon Rafale is STOBAR capable:

Le Rafale Marine compatible avec les porte-avions dotés de tremplin | Mer et Marine

Last edited by Trim Stab; 18th Jan 2013 at 18:28.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 18:45
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,806
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Point taken. But anyway, Dassault reckon Rafale is STOBAR capable:
That will depend upon the take-off run available and whether the ship is equipped with a ski-ramp.

Hence my use of 'might'.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2013, 17:24
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong but the Indians were after Naval and Land based aircraft hence the selection of the French aircraft.

I will get my coat....
You're wrong!! The MMRCA is for the IAF only. The IN has already bought Mig 29M for their carriers and there is a Naval versioi of the Tejas also being proceured so they will eventually operate two types of FJ aircraft from their carriers.
eaglemmoomin is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2013, 17:44
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kbrockman
Rafale is a great piece of kit, would be even better with Eurojet's iso the M88's.
Does the Eurojet fits? And isn't it optimized (too much?) for high alt / high speed?
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2013, 18:02
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
It is seemingly irresistible to start swapping bits in perfectly serviceable aircraft. It always ends in tears, very expensive tears. May I politely suggest we just stick with the M88's?
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2013, 18:27
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is seemingly irresistible to start swapping bits in perfectly serviceable aircraft. It always ends in tears, very expensive tears. May I politely suggest we just stick with the M88's?
I was just trying to make a point that the EJ200 would be better because it is a better engine, doesn't mean that they should start swapping it immediately, anyway the people at SNECMA are now upgrading the M88 from version 2 to 4, meaning the added possibility of max. 20000Lbs of thrust iso the original 17000.

France is going for the 4 version because of its improved reliability-lower maintenance costs, I think they are passing for the extra oomph for now.


As for possible engines, the F404/414 from GE, the Eurojet200 and M88 are all basically direct competitors thrust, size and weight-wise, the first Rafale ,the A, had F404 engines, same as the predecessor of the current Eurofighter.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2013, 20:05
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kbrockman
I was just trying to make a point that the EJ200 would be better because it is a better engine
[disclaimer: genuine question] Better overall? How is that defined? I'm thinking thrust, weight, size, fuel consumption (hence fuel fraction), Ir "stealthness", price (tag), price (maintenance), reliability... and find myself unable to make an educated conclusion (I admit lacking knowledge on both engines).

Originally Posted by kbrockman
France is going for the 4 version because of its improved reliability-lower maintenance costs, I think they are passing for the extra oomph for now.
Yes. There was a choice to make: You could not (if I understood correctly) have both the improved reliability and the extra-thrust.
The choice indeed was made in favor of keeping the 7.5t thrust with better reliabiliy/lower costs, instead of going to the 9t thrust version (which BTW also brings the need to redesign the intakes), deemed unnecessary.


Originally Posted by kbrockman
As for possible engines, the F404/414 from GE, the Eurojet200 and M88 are all basically direct competitors thrust, size and weight-wise, the first Rafale ,the A, had F404 engines, same as the predecessor of the current Eurofighter.
Yes, but the Rafale A (demonstrator) was substancially bigger than the production aircrafts... Hence I fear we can't draw any conclusion, here

Last edited by AlphaZuluRomeo; 27th Jan 2013 at 20:16.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2013, 20:52
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I was just trying to make a point that the EJ200 would be better because it is a better engine
Not disputing your point about it being a better engine, but making a point about the process of doing refits, especially given the attitude of big industry/MoD which is that such things are a licence to make/waste money for years.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2022, 07:53
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,366
Received 545 Likes on 147 Posts
Rafale

Is it an autocorrect thing or do people still not realise that the subject of this thread is called the RAFALE?!

It is named after a term roughly translated as a volley of fire.

It is not named after either an Italian painter or a ninja turtle.

BV

Sorry, one of my pet hates.
Bob Viking is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.