Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Proves Itself
SYSOP    8/7/2011 7:59:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54   NEXT
Reactive       12/19/2011 9:10:38 AM
Personally I think they dropped the Hornet because they don't trust America as a supplier. 
 
I don't think they trust anyone as a supplier, least of all their major supplier (Russia), I think the issue with the US platforms is that technology transfer is governed by strict export controls - they can't offer anything like the TOT that others can.
 
With France the objective is to get a foreign sale irrespective of such considerations, they offered full TOT to Brazil as well.. In other words, selling the platform itself is only a small part of the picture where technology is concerned which is why F-35 can be sold to countries that have questionable safeguards, and should also hint that no one producing bleeding edge technology unrivalled elsewhere would be willing to distribute it, not for the meagre return of a single export order which pales into insignificance when compared to total program costs and unique domestic industry capabilities.
 
That should hint at something... 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/19/2011 10:54:49 AM
Deici :
""The ones of us who are best informed are able to make judgments that cover most angles ""
 
There is no such poster left here on SP (Wrt aviation) .
 
""no amount of sane, polite argumentation, proof, blunt/rude explication or outright flames whether based on science, specifications or actual conflicts are ever going to change his mind. ""
 
Because when I speak about the Rafale , I know what I 'm talking about when the others don 't .
 
""Personally I think they dropped the Hornet because they don't trust America as a supplier.""
 
Possibly and as Reactive said , the USA can ' t provide a full ToT . But that is only half of the story , the main factor being that the SH failed on technicals .
Reacrive :
""and should also hint that no one producing bleeding edge technology unrivalled elsewhere would be willing to distribute it, not for the meagre return of a single export order which pales into insignificance when compared to total program costs and unique domestic industry capabilities. ""
 
First , if the F-35 was "bleeding edge technology" you wouldn 't sell it (see the F-22) . Then , the USA only have to push a button to ground all futur F-35s if they want to , even the UK 's ones . Also , building a strong military cooperation with another country can sometimes be more important than selling a single piece of hardware but this is blatantly ignored by some ... As an example , Brazil is looking at having 2 aircraft carriers , who are they talking to : France .
Same with "unique domestic industry capabilities" , when you sell it , the buyer is always behind the seller technologically speaking (or he wouldn 't buy it) . By the time the buyer is working out his new technology , the technology is already superseded . So , there is very little risk for the seller .
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene    Back to subject : Rafale in Lybia (1)   12/19/2011 12:01:58 PM
US pentagon officials seem to have a better opinion about French army in Lybia then some forumers here : see this New York times article in August :
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/world/africa/27military.html?_r=1
" target="_blank">link
 
"
“It’s a very strong lead example to the rest of the alliance in taking charge of this mission,” a top American military official said Friday"
 
"
Since March, the United States has continued to fly critical refueling and surveillance flights, but has been obsessive about stepping out of the way and letting NATO, and to a large degree France, take the lead. So although France is admired in important quarters at the Pentagon, the building is still getting used to a strange new relationship."
 
"
In the Pentagon, the French have also gained respect for their contributions in Afghanistan. France currently has about 4,000 troops in that country, largely in the east, and 74 of them were killed over the last eight years."
 
67 this year :(
But as you see, Pentagon officials have way better opinion to French army (and Rafale) then some US armchair fighter forumers... (I said some, i definitely dont  want to bash US army or US forumers community globally).
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/19/2011 1:21:52 PM
BW, 
 
You miss the point, TOT does not refer to selling a platform itself but rather the technology behind it.
 
You can reverse-engineer anything to a degree but there is a world of difference between that and the full information content available to the manufacturers, from design schematics, software, manufacturing processes, materials, cicuitry, etc etc, a lot of which you can never decompile, to use an analogy you might have a printed sheet of paper but that does not by a long shot tell you how to build an inkjet printer. 
 
And in terms of software, RADAR/FCS/EW etc the source code tells you everything, without it you can only decompile to a limited degree. SoSPECTRA for example would soon be available to any 2nd rate (Brazil) air force who wanted to buy a few Rafales, if it offered a fraction of the capability you claim it would be the single most sought after technology on earth, Russia and China would have found a way to acquire it by proxy. The actual truth is that it is not what you think it is, apply a little logic to the above and you can't deny that there is a flaw in your reasoning, especially given Russia and China are both actively pursuing LO/VLO designs, that even FRANCE is pursuing LO designs (Neuron), could it be they all know something that you don't?
 
It wasn't down to technicals (F-18) imho, it was because India wouldn't get nearly as much out of the US due to their very-stringent export regs, the actual plane itself is far less important to India than developing indigenous capabilities, if you look at the contract it essentially just a means of paying for advanced manufacturing skills, which is why the two planes that made it are the two western designs with the least ToT restrictions. (Other than the Russian design which offers India very little anyway considering the T-50 "joint-venture"). 
 
Remember, 50% of the contract value has to be reinvested in Indian defense.
 
You're thinking about this wrong, the platform is of secondary importance. 
 
 R 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/19/2011 1:31:44 PM
And again, BW, in this case they want:
 
a) You to give them full access to the technology (as if you were an original partner in the program).
b) You to invest half of the contract value in building it using Indian skills in India.
 
So as I say, these are not bleeding edge, either of them, they are fast becoming obsolete in a 5th gen world and at this stage both manufacturers will do anything to export them while the production lines are still open for direct foreign sales.
 
And that means selling the tech itself, something the US will not do a) because it's not in their interests (they actually face the prospect of repercussions) and b) their avionics are cutting-edge. 
 
LO is the future my friend, and EF/Rafale are the past.
 
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/19/2011 2:14:23 PM
Hail Reactive,
 
Btw i'm not BW. 
 
Your point is interesting, but...Even if you give the source code of a "n" version of a system, you give the "know", but not the "know how".
I have no clue about active cancellation, inverse gain jamming or range gate pull-off or velocity gain pull off or whatever use Spectra for jamming. I just know that Rafale users seem very happy with it (well pilots said so to me in Le Bourget this year, aswell as a DGA officer).
 
They also quoted that the smaller size of the antenna wasnt an issue to them, largely compensed by the awesome data integration that allowed them a huge gain of time in decision making as compared to their competitors (this is personal view of the pilot i could talk with).
 
Finally i would like to point that the fact that Rafale didnt export in Korea, Singapore and swiss do not mean that it is not a very capable aircraft. Korea and Singapore are US dependent market, and swiss clearly stated that they preferred Saab's plane because (i) it was sufficient for their needs and (ii) it was way cheaper. 
Gripen may btw become a blockbuster in incoming years, strongly threatening F16 I on several markets (well those where US cant pressure with sufficient diplomatic weight...). Rafale was originally designed for french needs and seem to be very satisfactory to its users. Better if it is exported (and a good choice for buyer imho, depending on its needs of course) but not crucial for us.
 
I'm not very optimistic about Indian market, as they need 126 planes while EU countries want to reduce their commands by 124 units. Better for EFA contractors to buy it and sell it back with crazy discount then pay huge penalties to EADS.
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/19/2011 3:55:50 PM
Reactive :
""You miss the point, TOT does not refer to selling a platform itself but rather the technology behind it. ""
 
I know what Transfert Of Technology means , thank you . I ' ll come back on it in a moment ...
You also said :
""It wasn't down to technicals (F-18) imho""
 
Yes it was . India dropped the SH (and the F-16 , the Gripen and the Mig-35) right AFTER the tech eval , before to know what was going to be the TOTAL offered TOT . We even know which aircraft performed the best (Rafale then Typhoon) and which aircraft lacked the most (Mig-35 then F-16 then Gripen then SH) .
 
India 's Admiral Arun Prakash (Navy pilot) said :
""Having flown both the F/A-18... and the Rafale..., I can say that while the former would certainly have met all the IAF requirements competently and economically, the breathtaking performance of the latter leaves one in no doubt that it is a “generation-next” machine. "" .
 
Another Indian source :
""Senior IAF officers, however, emphatically rule out selecting either American fighter says an IAF officer involved in the selection process: “The US companies, which flaunt their technological leadership, are feigning hurt that their fighters were found technologically unsuitable. But it was their misjudgement to offer the IAF fighters like the F-16 and the F-18 that are decades old. It is arrogance to claim that these have been modernised and are good enough for a country like India. ""
 
I could posts dozen of links saying that all the aircraft not short listed failed on technicals .
The Rafale won all the technical evaluations it has been in and always lost on political grounds (Korea , Singapore and Marocco) . India always made it clear (and from the very begining) that they were to shortlist the best 2 aircraft then see the offered ToTs . Hint : money is not a problem for them .
The problem with the US aircraft Companies is not so much their arrogance but the fact that they beleive that their stuff is the best around when it is not . The general US public also beleives in such BS , one just has to read some US forumers ...
They may design the best radars out there (for now) but a good radar doesn 't make a good fighter . There are so many other things involved ...
So , you are clearly wrong when you say :
""You're thinking about this wrong, the platform is of secondary importance.""
 
When you have tons of money to spare and when you are surrounded (?) by Pakis and Chinese , you go for the best and then , you try to get as much ToT as you can get and not the other way around . 
Wrt the "shape based" LO design , some (with less money than the USA) have different things in mind like playing with the opponents means of detection with powerful and bleeding edge electronics . The goal is the same : to survive .
Wrt Spectra being sold to India , we have no problem with that for 2 reasons :
-1) it is the only item "sealed" on the Rafale and they will only get futur updates if they pay for 
-2) we don 't care about Russia or China , only the USA do . 
 
You said :
""LO is the future my friend, and EF/Rafale are the past.""
 
Evading radar waves with LO shapes is only a part of the equation , the electronics being the other part . The most important part in fact , I say . In the futur , electronics will more and more rule the battlefield and not the LO shapes .
If you disagree with that , you are delusional .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/19/2011 4:03:36 PM
halloweene :
""I'm not very optimistic about Indian market, as they need 126 planes while EU countries want to reduce their commands by 124 units. Better for EFA contractors to buy it and sell it back with crazy discount then pay huge penalties to EADS. ""
 
Yep , I got the same feeling ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       12/19/2011 5:41:19 PM


 

Name         Weight  DryThst MaxThst  DryT/W&SFC   Max T/W & SFC  Mx

F110-132    4,050lb 19,100   32,130     4.71 / .64             7.9/2.09               TBO 4,000 TACs

F100-232    4,065lb  22,000   32,500    5.41 / .73?          8.0 / 1.91              6,000 cycle depot insp

- Numbers are for ideal inlet, installed thrust less 

M88-2-4     1,978lb  10,950   16,404    5.54 / 0.8            8.29 / 1.72            Hot section TBO 600hrs

EJ200         2,180lb  13,490   20,250    6.19 /.74-.81       9.29 / 1.66-1.73    Mx interval >400 hrs

F414          2,470lb   14,756   22,000    5.97/.85?            8.9 / 1.85?            2,000hr hot section  

  - est SFC with F404-400 numbers

 

Standard caveat - these are all standard day, sea level, 0 airspeed.  I've generally gone with the higher performance numbers versus derated efficiency settings.  Bottom line, the F100 & F110 have some lower engine T/W ratios, which seems to largely be the result of more robust construction for a longer lifespan.  The also enjoy better Mil SFC, but worse Max SFC.  The EJ200 and F414 seem to have a performance edge, although F414 SFC numbers aren't published.  With the M88 having quite a bit shorter TBO cycle, and having twice as many engines, the F-16s should enjoy an engine in engine mx time, although at the loss of redundancy.

A F-16blk60 and Rafale C have virtually the same empty weight, fuel (w/CFTs for Blk60), and very clue thrust to weight.  The F-16 should enjoy a slightly longer radius at Mil power on internal gas only, but will burn thru his gas quicker at high AB settings.  The Rafale enjoys a 60% greater wing area, so it should have a large advantage in instantaneous turn and probably a sustained advantage, while the smaller frontal area and wetted wing of the F-16 may give better unloaded acceleration.

 

 

Far more parasitic drag,wing chord on the Rafale's cranked delta is optimized for thick air. Not a true statement therefore.
 
We have only manufacture's claims about M-88 ECO as opposed to actual user data on F-100s, so comparisons have a HUGE fudge factor on sustained core temp op-limits. Best guesses are what thew Armee del'Aire report-NOT Jane's.   
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Holloweene, you are not QUALIFIED.   12/19/2011 6:06:10 PM
You can't read very well.
 
Part 1

A demonstrator has been shown to go to 9T, but would need redesign of air intakes (slightly bigger)

.You can find easily the data here http://www.snecma.com/-m88-.ht... (M882-4E and 9T demonstrator)


Poussée avec PC (kN) 75 90
Poussée sans PC (kN) 50 60
Consommation spécifique avec PC (kg/daN.h) 1,70 1,70
Consommation spécifique sans PC (kg/daN.h) 0,80 0,80
Débit d’air (kg/s) 65 72
Température Entrée Turbine (K) 1 850 (1 577°C) 1 850 (1 577°C)
Taux de compression 24,50 27
Taux de dilution 0,30 0,30
Longueur (mm) 3 538 3 618
Diamètre d’entrée (mm) 696 790
Masse (kg) 897 985


Now lets compare to your so vaunted PW100 IPE
T/W ratio 8.1 (M88) vs 7.8 (PW)
dry fuel consumption : 76kg/kN.h (M882-4E) or 80 (M88-2) vs 77.5 (PW)
wet 175 kg/kN.h vs 198 kN/h


 


"France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system"


I think you should go and explain that to Bull engineers that built one of the most powerful supercomputer in the world (ranked ninth at ISC conference, june 2011)


In June, the TOP500 (published in the ISC 2011) has again awarded the title of most powerful supercomputer Tera 100. Already elected No. 1 in Europe in the previous ranking in November 2010 established the United States,
100 Tera confirms in a highly competitive market the progress of the technology developed by Bull with the CEA-DAM (Military Applications CEA).


from http://news.bull.com/bulldirec...


Ever heard about ST microelectronics? (5th mmic constructor in the world)




 


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics