Year of the Rafale
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 64
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am Belgian
Well, what do they have to buy?
What is on the market today?
------------------------------------------
F-15; F-18; F-16, all American, all from a previous generation.
And getting the tattoo of becoming an American slave buyer does not go well in that area.
F-35 ; Yep, still in testing mode.
And Israel controls who might, perhaps, if possible, eventually, with reduced capability, get it in that erea. Order now to get in line for a ? ? ? delivery date. Best friends go first.
Typhoon? Too expensive, not all around, UK, no firm leadership.
Buy and the participating countries can start "the next battle" of "who gets the profit", and "who gets to build what".
Way, and I say WAY too many subcontractors for steady and guaranteed supply of parts if anything happens in the area.
Who do you negociate with? Thousands of procedures in a dozen of languages, and when all is said and done, => Come the politicians.
Rafale? Also older generation, no customes and construction line close to closing. So we can be sure the frensh put the Rafale in "Promotion".
Buy one and get one for free.
(Plus a VIP visit to the Moulins Rouge".)
What else can one buy?
Russian? OK, you can fly the first week, from the second week on, you can start to cannibalise to get at least some back in the air.
Chinese? That are Chinese airframes, with Russian engines. Can you read "double trouble"?
Sweeds Gryphen. Aj, that tooth hurts. They already have a victim in Brasil.
Too small a production, 50% is US technology, no chain, logistical nightmare, and what has it proven till now??? All we hear is not so good at all.
=> Rafale it will be.
What is on the market today?
------------------------------------------
F-15; F-18; F-16, all American, all from a previous generation.
And getting the tattoo of becoming an American slave buyer does not go well in that area.
F-35 ; Yep, still in testing mode.
And Israel controls who might, perhaps, if possible, eventually, with reduced capability, get it in that erea. Order now to get in line for a ? ? ? delivery date. Best friends go first.
Typhoon? Too expensive, not all around, UK, no firm leadership.
Buy and the participating countries can start "the next battle" of "who gets the profit", and "who gets to build what".
Way, and I say WAY too many subcontractors for steady and guaranteed supply of parts if anything happens in the area.
Who do you negociate with? Thousands of procedures in a dozen of languages, and when all is said and done, => Come the politicians.
Rafale? Also older generation, no customes and construction line close to closing. So we can be sure the frensh put the Rafale in "Promotion".
Buy one and get one for free.
(Plus a VIP visit to the Moulins Rouge".)
What else can one buy?
Russian? OK, you can fly the first week, from the second week on, you can start to cannibalise to get at least some back in the air.
Chinese? That are Chinese airframes, with Russian engines. Can you read "double trouble"?
Sweeds Gryphen. Aj, that tooth hurts. They already have a victim in Brasil.
Too small a production, 50% is US technology, no chain, logistical nightmare, and what has it proven till now??? All we hear is not so good at all.
=> Rafale it will be.
Rafale? Also older generation, no customes and construction line close to closing. So we can be sure the frensh put the Rafale in "Promotion". Buy one and get one for free. (Plus a VIP visit to the Moulins Rouge".)
Is it your opinion that it is currently a 'buyer's market" these days?
Originally Posted by Vilters
Rafale? Also older generation, no customes and construction line close to closing. So we can be sure the frensh put the Rafale in "Promotion".
Buy one and get one for free.
(Plus a VIP visit to the Moulins Rouge".)
Buy one and get one for free.
(Plus a VIP visit to the Moulins Rouge".)
When you say it's older generation, it's still a relatively new, current and relevant aircraft. There is some capacity for growth, but as it is it's still the active generation. We've a long way to go until F-35 reaches maturity, no?
Typhoon deserves the same status, but as you say, the consortium thing will always come back to haunt it when it comes to new sales. That's not to say that it should be a worthy contender.
It's probably only a minor point but Rafale refuels at about 3 times the abysmally slow rate of the TypHoon, as was noted by the RCAF during the Libyan campaign. Thus when flying CAP, more Typhoons than Rafales would be needed as their off-station time would be significantly greater.
Whereas the F-35A cannot refuel from any Canadian tanker in its current form. And if the Canadians were to specify an unique version with a probe, they would have to pour yet more money into the Lockheed black hole of F-35 development costs.....
More significantly, either Rafale or F/A-18E/F offers twin-engine safety, which over the icy wastes of Northern Canada must surely be more of a consideration than 'stealth'?
Whereas the F-35A cannot refuel from any Canadian tanker in its current form. And if the Canadians were to specify an unique version with a probe, they would have to pour yet more money into the Lockheed black hole of F-35 development costs.....
More significantly, either Rafale or F/A-18E/F offers twin-engine safety, which over the icy wastes of Northern Canada must surely be more of a consideration than 'stealth'?
Here is the pricing: France Offers 25% Discount to India on 36 Rafale Jet Deal: Economic Times
This apparently is a further discount off the original price. The whole deal is not expected to exceed $8bn, with the objective to pay a little over $200m per aircraft. It also comes with a package of maintenance, spares and pilot/technician training included.
They were offered 20% off the Eurofighter.
This apparently is a further discount off the original price. The whole deal is not expected to exceed $8bn, with the objective to pay a little over $200m per aircraft. It also comes with a package of maintenance, spares and pilot/technician training included.
They were offered 20% off the Eurofighter.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bang for your buck on Gen 4.5 imo says either F/A-18E or Rafael. F-15SE close third. The difference is in the logistical support..spares etc. I'd trust the Americans over the French in that regard tbh. The Americans know the value of a dollar full stop. The French seem to get selectively ideological occasionally...
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
The Charlie model has a probe. I guess plumbing a fleet of RCAF birds shouldn't be too difficult.
All the above would necessitate changes to manufacture, retooling and separate assembly areas. Then you've got testing and certification of the installation and re-evaluating the RCS. All that for how many airframes?
Maybe the refuelling system could be redesigned, but it could well be expensive, time-consuming (in a program that's already late and over-budget) and may come with other penalties. I'm not sure LM or the JPO would have much appetite for it at the moment. I can imagine the U.S. response being something like, "You've come all this way, why do you want to start major changes to the program now?"
Indeed, Courtney. Even using the -B model AAR system in the -A would require extensive design work, plus a number of clearance flights due to the different aerodynamics of the -A and -B......
The cost of which would undoubtedly be dumped on Canada.
Nope. Rafale would be a much better and more cost-effective solution. Neither would it require those outrageously expensive $600K helmets, presumably tailored for each F-35A pilot...
The cost of which would undoubtedly be dumped on Canada.
Nope. Rafale would be a much better and more cost-effective solution. Neither would it require those outrageously expensive $600K helmets, presumably tailored for each F-35A pilot...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A, B or C for Canada
I have never understood a number of things about the F35 project, one of them is why have a stealth plane as an interceptor?
As regards Canada's requirements I would have thought that the C with a longer range, more robust landing gear and the appropriate type of AAR system would be better and indeed most probably cheaper in the long run solution.
As regards Canada's requirements I would have thought that the C with a longer range, more robust landing gear and the appropriate type of AAR system would be better and indeed most probably cheaper in the long run solution.
The C does not have a significantly longer range than the A . It carries more fuel, but is heavier and draggier for it.
According to Jane's, the C has a radius-of-operation of 600 n miles (1,111 km; 690 miles), while that of the A is 590 n miles (1,092 km; 679 miles). If you're interested, the B's comes in at 450 n miles (833 km; 517 miles).
Both the A and C have the same payload also (8,165 kg [18,000 lb]) - it's 6,804 kg (15,000 lb) for the B, and both have the provision for six underwing stores-points.
Assuming they're ever cleared for the full envelope, then the A is cleared to +9g, while the C is cleared to +7g (+7g for the B).
The more robust landing gear etc is nice, but is the extra weight offset by any tangible operational benefit? I'm not sure that it is.
Add in the increased price tag of the C, and the only benefit that I can see Canada deriving from such a buy is the hose-and-probe refuelling system.
According to Jane's, the C has a radius-of-operation of 600 n miles (1,111 km; 690 miles), while that of the A is 590 n miles (1,092 km; 679 miles). If you're interested, the B's comes in at 450 n miles (833 km; 517 miles).
Both the A and C have the same payload also (8,165 kg [18,000 lb]) - it's 6,804 kg (15,000 lb) for the B, and both have the provision for six underwing stores-points.
Assuming they're ever cleared for the full envelope, then the A is cleared to +9g, while the C is cleared to +7g (+7g for the B).
The more robust landing gear etc is nice, but is the extra weight offset by any tangible operational benefit? I'm not sure that it is.
Add in the increased price tag of the C, and the only benefit that I can see Canada deriving from such a buy is the hose-and-probe refuelling system.
On the subject of probes, how is it that the French seem to be unable to design an IFR probe into their aircraft? With the exception of the SuE and the Jaguar, all of their jets have that ungainly bent pole on the nose.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Super-Etendard, Jaguar and also Mirage F1 (South Africa and Lybia versions) have the extendable/retractable probe.
A very nice design, which did entailed quite a few nicknames ...
Unfortunately, it does require some space in the nose, with the associated mechanism, to the expense of a radar or range-finders
Moreover, there is always the remote possibility that this thing would not extend, somewhere over the ocean or an african desert - although to my knowledge (I flew all the above-mentioned aircraft) it never happened
Tunnel testing did show the drag penalty to be minimal even non-existent, even in supersonic - M2.2...
And everybody do like it in fact - "first batches" Mirage F1 without it did seem unbalanced for sure
Some F1 (Iraq) had a probe tip slightly longer than the others, if loking closely (jokes, again...)
A very nice design, which did entailed quite a few nicknames ...
Unfortunately, it does require some space in the nose, with the associated mechanism, to the expense of a radar or range-finders
Moreover, there is always the remote possibility that this thing would not extend, somewhere over the ocean or an african desert - although to my knowledge (I flew all the above-mentioned aircraft) it never happened
Tunnel testing did show the drag penalty to be minimal even non-existent, even in supersonic - M2.2...
And everybody do like it in fact - "first batches" Mirage F1 without it did seem unbalanced for sure
Some F1 (Iraq) had a probe tip slightly longer than the others, if loking closely (jokes, again...)
I suspect that you could write BEagle a check for a couple of boom-equipped A330-MRTTs for less than what LockMart would charge you to put a probe on an F-35A.
The fixed vs. retractable probe is interesting because chronologically the French went from fixed to retractable to fixed. The F1 probe is a bit cumbersome, I must say. They presumably worked out the drag and RCS issues.
Philip G - You need the stealth aircraft to do air defense, because you just spent all your money on stealth aircraft and can't afford another one for air defense.
The fixed vs. retractable probe is interesting because chronologically the French went from fixed to retractable to fixed. The F1 probe is a bit cumbersome, I must say. They presumably worked out the drag and RCS issues.
Philip G - You need the stealth aircraft to do air defense, because you just spent all your money on stealth aircraft and can't afford another one for air defense.
Low Observablewrote:
You can write me as many cheques as you wish, but I have absolutely no connection with the A330MRTT programme. But I Know A Man Who Does and I'm sure that he would certainly be happy to oblige.
Although later models had fixed probes, the early Buccaneer had a retractable AAR probe. Zipping along in his mighty white beast one day, some naval aviator spotted an unusual switch and decided to try it - whereupon with much mechanical complaint a probe suddenly appeared in front of him, before it gave up the unequal struggle with aerodynamic forces.....
A later naval aviator was so impressed by the new (fixed) probe on his grey banana jet that he decided to give it a try. Finding himself a tanker he made contact successfully, on came the green light on the pod and 'fuel flows' was called by the tanker crew. But our hero's trusty Looker reported that none of the fuel tanks appeared to be taking fuel, so they gave it up as a bad job and thundered off back whence they came, intending to raise a snag after landing.....
In best naval tradition, after it was parked the wings were folded and the airbrake opened. However, when some unwitting matelot tried to fold the radome, it was rather reluctant to move at first - but then did so only to shower him in several hundred pounds of fuel.....
It seems that contractor A installed the probes, but contractor B did the pipework - and only contractor A had done his part of the mod programme. The moral of the story being that sailors shouldn't just stick things into other things when the mood takes them......
I suspect that you could write BEagle a check for a couple of boom-equipped A330-MRTTs for less than what LockMart would charge you to put a probe on an F-35A.
Although later models had fixed probes, the early Buccaneer had a retractable AAR probe. Zipping along in his mighty white beast one day, some naval aviator spotted an unusual switch and decided to try it - whereupon with much mechanical complaint a probe suddenly appeared in front of him, before it gave up the unequal struggle with aerodynamic forces.....
A later naval aviator was so impressed by the new (fixed) probe on his grey banana jet that he decided to give it a try. Finding himself a tanker he made contact successfully, on came the green light on the pod and 'fuel flows' was called by the tanker crew. But our hero's trusty Looker reported that none of the fuel tanks appeared to be taking fuel, so they gave it up as a bad job and thundered off back whence they came, intending to raise a snag after landing.....
In best naval tradition, after it was parked the wings were folded and the airbrake opened. However, when some unwitting matelot tried to fold the radome, it was rather reluctant to move at first - but then did so only to shower him in several hundred pounds of fuel.....
It seems that contractor A installed the probes, but contractor B did the pipework - and only contractor A had done his part of the mod programme. The moral of the story being that sailors shouldn't just stick things into other things when the mood takes them......
Retractable probe on the Bucc
The problem with the retractable probes on the early Mk I was not that they didn't work - they extended and retracted fine - but that they were too short. As you approached the basket it rode up in the slipstream over the nose. The only person who ever achieved contact ('Punchy' Doust?) chased the basket all the way round before making contact inverted, which, for some reason, wasn't considered satisfactory.
When you extended the thing, an elaborate system of doors opened, the probe emerged and the doors closed behind it. In the days of the Great White Detergent anti-flash paint jobs, a Bucc was sent down to somewhere crabby to stand in a line of similarly painted V-thingies for the benefit of a team of senior NATO chaps to look at. The crew extended the probe to show the aircraft had one. After the senior honchos had passed, an RN Captain was left standing, staring at the probe.The looker asked him if he had any questions.
''Yes. I can see the aircraft has a probe. But how on earth does it retract and extend?''
''Well'' explained the looker helpfully, ''it's a bit like the Duchess of Argyle reaching inside someones Y-fronts.''
The Captain looked at him coldly for a moment.
''She's a cousin of mine, as it happens''
The looker was left contemplating the possible ruin of his career.
(I doubt if anyone under the age of 70 will understand)
When you extended the thing, an elaborate system of doors opened, the probe emerged and the doors closed behind it. In the days of the Great White Detergent anti-flash paint jobs, a Bucc was sent down to somewhere crabby to stand in a line of similarly painted V-thingies for the benefit of a team of senior NATO chaps to look at. The crew extended the probe to show the aircraft had one. After the senior honchos had passed, an RN Captain was left standing, staring at the probe.The looker asked him if he had any questions.
''Yes. I can see the aircraft has a probe. But how on earth does it retract and extend?''
''Well'' explained the looker helpfully, ''it's a bit like the Duchess of Argyle reaching inside someones Y-fronts.''
The Captain looked at him coldly for a moment.
''She's a cousin of mine, as it happens''
The looker was left contemplating the possible ruin of his career.
(I doubt if anyone under the age of 70 will understand)
Last edited by Schiller; 7th May 2015 at 20:51.
I am under 70 and currently incapacitated with mirth. I think it's the combination of esoteric aircraft lore and technology with the workings of the British class system and an apocalyptic social pratfall.