Know Your 'Rafale'

[Sancho]

India has for 18 more aircrafts.

No we don't, as Parrikar confirmed:

Excl Parrikar interview: Ready for any eventuality with Pak; Rafale an export bonanza
MoneyControl • Oct 03, 2016

...Q: But there is no optional clause as part of the Rafael agreement.

A: In this there is no optional clause.

Q: So, if we want more then we cannot get them at the same price?

A: No, this problem is we have not decided but the question you have asked me if you want more, no one stops us from going for more, but this decision is Prime Minister's decision in lieu of urgency of the requirement to equip Air Force with two squadrons that is 36, it ends there. Our quest for two engine additionality to the Air Force will be decided based on the merit of various issues in which Rafael may also figure.

Q: But you would not have liked to put in an optional clause that you could have gotten the same agreement pretty much if you chose to exercise the possibilities of bringing in more?

A: When you sign with government to government in later stage if something has to be decided you can always extent the agreements, there are no big problems in that. But since we have not taken any decision on this and this decision was restricted to 36, we have completed the negotiation and purchase for 36 now...

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/tr...alitypak-rafaleexport-bonanza-959919.html/amp

 

[Sancho]

Double post, mods please delete

 

[Sancho]

It's just to give the price of the fighter, dry.

As all the fixed costs are nearly already paid (air bases, indigenization), the next Indian Rafale batch will cost far less than the first one.
ie : 90 to 95€ million each + offset (offset is an Indian choice) + some spares ....

It costs less than the first order, but still remains expensive, because the base costs for the fighter are high. When the flyaway costs itself are close to 100 million USD a piece, there is simply no way that deal gets cheap. Only the MMRCA tender made Rafale financially worth it for India, because of the industrial returns, ToT and job creation opportunity, but Dassault messed it up.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

You are confusing design limit and real flight performance !

and 13.5G is 150% of the design limit => design limit is 13.5G / 1.5 = 9G.

So 9G is the design limit. Real perf is less than 9G, because you can't surpass the design limit.

So you admit F 35 has 9 G now. Got you dimwit!

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

It costs less than the first order, but still remains expensive, because the base costs for the fighter are high. When the flyaway costs itself are close to 100 million USD a piece, there is simply no way that deal gets cheap. Only the MMRCA tender made Rafale financially worth it for India, because of the industrial returns, ToT and job creation opportunity, but Dassault messed it up.

No country will give ToT unless you buy production line. EF or Rafale, both will cost you a fortune down the road. Rafale was best choice due to single OEM, some ToT (Kaveri), passive survivability vs S 300/400 and AESA radar being used by OEM. We need cash for Su 57 in the future too. Rafale would tie up acquisition for air force till late 2020s.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

None of them can supercruise loaded.
That's all proofless rumours.

But!

Rafale (even B one) can supercruise empty unlike F-35 that cannot supercruise at all due to enormous middel cross-section and single-mode (subsonic) optimised non-controllable air intakes.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

F 35 reaches M 1.2 for 150 kms. Thats supercruise going by EU definition not US M 1.5 one. 'Nuff said.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

Here is the thrust to weight ratio comparison between Rafale and the F-35:

Rafale
Weights
Empty: 21,000
Fuel: 5,180 lbs (50%)

Weapons: 2,265lbs
4 x Meteor A-A missiles 1628 lbs
2 x Magic A-A missiles 387lbs
125 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 250 lbs [2lbs per round])

combat Weight:28,445

Thrust:
Dry: 22,500
AB: 34,000

T/W ratio:
Dry: 0.79
AB: 1.20

Wing Loading: 57.81/sq ft
_______________________________

F-35A

Weights
Empty: 29,300
Fuel: 5,540 (30%)

Weapons: 1,932 lbs
4 x Aim 120C missiles: 1,340 lbs
2 x Aim 9X missiles: 376 lbs
180 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 216 lbs [1.2lbs per round])

Combat weight: 36,772

Thrust
Dry: 28,000
AB: 43,000

TW Ratio
Dry:0.76
AB: 1.16
Wing Loading:79.9 lbs/ sq ft.

It's very clear that Rafale has no significant T/W ratio advantage over the F-35. However the figure above does not count in the drag induced by storing weapons and external tanks externally, which would be significant for Rafale.

But as discussed above with video proof the F-35 has a significant advantage over Rafale in maneuvering most notably high AOA capabilities and insane TVC-like turns.

You mean slow speed maneuvering not high agility one. By your metric even EF is disadvantaged

 

[BON PLAN]

Only the MMRCA tender made Rafale financially worth it for India, because of the industrial returns, ToT and job creation opportunity, but Dassault messed it up.

once again, DA non decided all !
HAL was a poor but forced partner. A Rafale made by HAL costs more than made in Merignac !

If really DA was so bad and economically unsuitable, why India decided to finally purchase Rafale ? There was some alternatives. The first one was L2 : EF.

This argument fall short.

 

[BON PLAN]

So you admit F 35 has 9 G now. Got you dimwit!

NO.
It's the design limit.

When you are designing an alevator, you take the usual load it has to move and add a confortable margin.

9G is the practical structural limit by design. Reality in flight is different. This plane is too lazy and fat to reach a sustained 9G.

 

[BON PLAN]

F 35 reaches M 1.2 for 150 kms. Thats supercruise going by EU definition not US M 1.5 one. 'Nuff said.

M1.2 on a slight descent (it's why it's only possible for 150km, after it hits the ground).

LM supercruise definition : more than Mach 1.5 without reheat. It's what LM said... not me.

a EU supercruiser definition? and why not a mach 1 EU definition ?

 

[BON PLAN]

You mean slow speed maneuvering not high agility one. By your metric even EF is disadvantaged

The two are linked .

 

[gadeshi]

F 35 reaches M 1.2 for 150 kms. Thats supercruise going by EU definition not US M 1.5 one. 'Nuff said.

Proofs?

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

once again, DA non decided all !
HAL was a poor but forced partner. A Rafale made by HAL costs more than made in Merignac !

If really DA was so bad and economically unsuitable, why India decided to finally purchase Rafale ? There was some alternatives. The first one was L2 : EF.

This argument fall short.

You can keep denying things as much as you want, but that doesn't change the facts that numerous official Indian sources stated, the deadlock was created by Dassault!

And you even explain it on your own what was important for India, to get Rafale the fighter and not to negotiate further with Dassault.

 

[Armand2REP]

No we don't, as Parrikar confirmed:

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/tr...alitypak-rafaleexport-bonanza-959919.html/amp

We already debunked that report aka Rafael is not Rafale. Every sale of French aircraft comes with an option to buy 50% over the original order at locked prices. There is no reason to reject it as there is no one forcing you to exercise it and it does not cost to have it. Egypt and Qatar bought 24 and their option is 12, both of which are exercising it. India bought 36 and her option is 18.

"India also has an option for 18 more aircraft which can be exercised in the future."

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/110217/aero-india-2017-all-eyes-on-rafale.html

 

[Sancho]

We already debunked that report aka Rafael is not Rafale.

Lol in your fantasy maybe, but that's it! You can't deny a direct interview and quotes of the DM that negotiated the Rafale deal, just because you don't like it.

 

[BON PLAN]

You can keep denying things as much as you want, but that doesn't change the facts that numerous official Indian sources stated, the deadlock was created by Dassault!

And you even explain it on your own what was important for India, to get Rafale the fighter and not to negotiate further with Dassault.

Between L1 and L2, technically there was very few difference.

If really DA made such deadlock, India's top brass were fool to choose it after all. But we all know that's it's not the case.

Once again, at those time DA was ready to make so many effort sto gain its first export deal ! The sole hurdel was HAL. Not the first time....

 

[BON PLAN]

Lol in your fantasy maybe, but that's it! You can't deny a direct interview and quotes of the DM that negotiated the Rafale deal, just because you don't like it.

This DM was forced to negotiate positively because the PM decide to.
He dedided nothing, just press the price (with success).
Because he was forced to ink this deal, he said the minimum and negate the option because it was not his own choice.

 

[BON PLAN]

versus

Just open one eye.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

Proofs?

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20559

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

NO.
It's the design limit.

When you are designing an alevator, you take the usual load it has to move and add a confortable margin.

9G is the practical structural limit by design. Reality in flight is different. This plane is too lazy and fat to reach a sustained 9G.

There are multiple videos showing F 35 as a highly maneuverable and agile fighter posted in the past few pages. 9G is great for it unless the pilot plans to wear a space suit.