Dassault VP : Rafale's successor will join Eurofighter Consortium-like Euro Consortium.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
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 NEXT

jackjack 10/24/2009 10:28:08 AM

shame we cant edit here, i forgot about the f-35

i thought the same thing when i heard it isnt going to have a back seat, but it seems it was designed for autonomous operation

Quote Reply

MK 10/24/2009 12:58:58 PM

Some stuff to correct:

We wanted a 30% workshare not 50%

I was of the impression that the french demanded a 50% workshare at one point, though I don't know if it was more towards the beginning or the end of their participation in the EFA programme. It might be that my memory is entirely fooling me here. Anyway I share your view that the french primarily bailed out on political and industrial grounds than anything else. That apart I don't see any corrections, but merely thoughts being added.

It was not Dassault who decided to leave program but french procurement authory (DGA) because other were willing to give Dassault 30% of worksahre and lead on program but British wanted R&R to get the lead on engine which would put Snecma at risk of losing its design competency.

It's hard to believe that the decision was soley up to the DGA. It was certainly in the interest of Dassault and SNECMA too. Dassault launched the ACX in 1982 a year before FEFA was conceived. From the very beginning Dassault was pushing hard for the other partners to accept their ACX configuration. There is a reason why they demanded design leadership. SNECMA worked on the M88 since the 1970s and the programme had made quite some progress until then. It was clear that the french wouldn't give it up all. Though it's reasonable that the remaining partners weren't interested in becoming Dassault's slaves and just paying the bill. Evil tongues say the french were never seriously interested at all and it's odd if they really believed they could persuade the germans and brits to give up all, just for France's sake.

The main issue was to preserve french expertise and not give it for free.

They could have gained a lot either. And the EFA was actually not the first european collaborative programme. If the french seriously expected to take the cake, don't give away anything and the others paying the will they were either blind or simply naive.

This is ridiculous.Single fighter are good enough.Twin seater are only better to drop LGB but since JDAM or AASM exist it is less important.

My statement was actually aimed at Jackjacks claim.

The french state can afford such a project if our military command is able to rationalize french defense budget and spend correctly its money.

It's certainly more complicated than you might imagine and the slow pace of the Rafale programme, including cancelation of certain features etc. shows that going the way alone is not necessarily the best they can do.

Quote Reply

MK 10/24/2009 1:09:55 PM

1. They may have chosen PESA for that reason, but they were wrong, weren't they as it can't even support air to grpind weapons delivwery as they thought? (Afghanistan again) AESA was the right tech jump, and they (Thales) did not take that path. The Americans DID as they introduced AESA into their legacy aircraft about the same time as the Rafale actually IOCed. Timing is everything when you make a decision and Dassault got that wrong too.

Europe lacked behind in AESA technology, but wanted to ensure to maintain or gain the required expertise on their own. Waiting until the AESA technology would have been mature would have meant that european fighters would have entered service even later.

2. Eurofighter planned an AESA upgrade path as soon as they thought it might be practical. CARSAR waits because CAPTOR is good enough for the Typhoon's indicated air to air mission emphasis, and the Consortium doesn't have the money for it yet. If the Saudis insist, then CAESAR will be fitted. Its sort of what then French hoped they could do, get some one else to fund all the promised Dassault upgrades never delivered. Now France has to fund that herself, and she finds she lacks the Euros and the tech base to do it all. Just getting the jet engines fixed will eat a huge chunk of programmed Rafale funding.

CAESAR is just a demonstrator funded by the EuroRadar consortiums, it's actually not a production radar. A decision for Captor-E is yet awaited at the end of the year, when the T3A capabilities package is agreed on. France actually funded AESA development at the expense of 8 batch 3 aircraft and LRIP started a year ago.

Its NG, based on the same garbage that went into Werdgetail. As for Thales original research, that is a joke. CECAR is based on original research. AMSAR was more or less a tech share of that, with Thales holding its hand out and with little actual contribution. The chief contrbutors EADS (German branch) and BAE systems did most of the work and the research.

AMSAR was launched in 1993 and aimed for R&D of the required technologies for an airborne AESA radar for a fighter sized platform. It merely formed the base for any further development. CECAR is a government funded programme aimed at risk reduction for an AESA for the Typhoon.

Want to tell me why acceleration + wingloading would not be an air combat factor, and why an engine that shows poor acceleration would not handicap a fighter designed as a bomber first and an air to air fighter second, as it applies the designed low altitude intrusion tactics for which that plane was deliberately designed?

And can you tell us how the Rafale's wingloading and acceleration is bad? What about providing data rather than claiming this or that to be fact without proper evidence or backup at all?

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 10/24/2009 1:11:40 PM

JackJack

i may have had threads mixed up or perhaps missread something. I was sure someone had said the single seat rafale was a poor strike platform and claimed the decision to switch to 2 seats proved that aircraft was a failure.

apologies if thats not what was said and im making things up as i go along.

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/24/2009 2:49:43 PM

i was slapping a troll, so i was very bias with that post to have effect . the aircraft isnt a failure, the same than a single seat fa-18 etc. isnt

you said "The Rafale is more orientated towards maritime strike role"

my true opinion is that it is a shame the money couldnt be put into a marine 2 seater, as it seems what the navy would of liked

it would have been a better strike platform. but your pilots will adapt and use the single seat to its full advantage

i know us aussies like our twin seats, which is why i questioned why the f-35 wasnt going to have a back seat

Quote Reply

Das Kardinal 10/25/2009 6:23:40 AM

i was slapping a troll, so i was very bias with that post to have effect . the aircraft isnt a failure, the same than a single seat fa-18 etc. isnt

you said "The Rafale is more orientated towards maritime strike role"

my true opinion is that it is a shame the money couldnt be put into a marine 2 seater, as it seems what the navy would of liked

it would have been a better strike platform. but your pilots will adapt and use the single seat to its full advantage

i know us aussies like our twin seats, which is why i questioned why the f-35 wasnt going to have a back seat

Compromises as usual. The two seater version has less fuel, no gun (IIRC). For naval strike range is probably even more relevant (buddy refueling only does so much...).

BTW, did Herald become Hamilcar ?

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 10/25/2009 6:50:15 AM

id expect a twin seat / strike F35 vto have a stretched fuselage if only to accomodate the extra fuel required - possibly an elngated bomb bay too.

I too have been wondering about the herald/hamilcar thing. the posting style certainly implies such although i cant see why he would change names

Theres only one way to be sure so

Hamilcar are you the poster formally known as herald.

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/25/2009 11:49:11 AM

how it was simply explained to me, the f-35 has a lot of auto functions taking the work load of the pilot, freeing him up, so it doesnt need a back seat

Quote Reply

french stratege 10/25/2009 12:09:37 PM

2 seaters fighters reduce workload of pilots in missions with LGB where you need a targeting pod, reco to manage the reco pod, and dedicated SEAD missions where you manage jamming system.

Still in any case you can do it with a single pilot but it reduce efficiency has pilot can not all the time use pods to search or analyse situation and targeting.

F35 will use JDAM mainly and Rafale will use AASM mainly.In both case you use it mainly in bombing on coordinates and you can do it with a single seater.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 10/25/2009 3:12:38 PM

Hamilcar has been corrected again by MK and I will just add my 10 cents .

Hamilcar :

""Want to tell me why acceleration + wingloading would not be an air combat factor, and why an engine that shows poor acceleration would not handicap a fighter designed as a bomber first and an air to air fighter second, as it applies the designed low altitude intrusion tactics for which that plane was deliberately designed?""

If you would just check the thrust-ratio of the M88-Eco and response time as well as the thrust-ratio of the Rafale , you wouldn 't say such thing Hamilcar . Against the M2000 , Mig-29 , Tornado , Gripen and the F-teens , the Rafale has to be carefull not to overtake its opponent in dodfight during vertical accereration and cornering . This is coming directly from a Rafale pilot . In low altitude intrusion tactics with heavy loads , the Rafale ' subsonic acceleration is so far second to none . Typhoon has not been tried in this situation yet .

""Aircraft do not fly unburdened, nor fly into their worst regimes as a deliberate choice. The Rafale is unnecessarily draggy, with all of the garbage that extrudes from it, even in the air to air "clean" missiles only condition.""

The Rafale is ... "draggy" ? Huh ??? Have you been drinking ?

The Rafale is forced to fly in its worst regimes during missions ? Huh ??? Yep , you 've been drinking .

Let me tell you something Hamilcar , since the Rafale F2 and the link-16 and Snecma M80-Eco , the Rafale hasn 't been shot ONCE in excercise . Not even when using a AtoG load ...

The time where Rafale F1s were technologically outsmarted by Super Hornets is gone , as well as the time were Harriers did get 2 kills on the Raffies in dogfight . This time is gone , that was 7 years ago .

And btw , what is "the garbage that extrudes from it" ? Are you talking about the RAM coated refueling probe ?

Cheers .

Quote Reply

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 NEXT