Know Your 'Rafale'

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
[how many time the trial ? 2 weeks? 4 weeks? (in the SH18 case. For Gripen see on top)
Lol, so now you need months or years to evaluate the operational cost per hour of a fighter? It always is fun to see your denial of even basics, but no matter how hard you deny it, a twin engine fighter can't be as cheap as a single engine fighter and that's also one reason why French Air force used the Mirage so much in Syria.
So when it comes to operations, or even procurement costs, the number of engines will have an impact =>

Air Chief Dhanoa
IAF has to go in for single engine jets, as the cheaper. A single engine power pack is 10 percent of an aircraft’s cost, while the twin engine power pack is 30 percent of the cost.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/1...e-engine-combat-aircraft-within-october-2017/
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
Rafale going for HX
ON JULY 18, 2018 BY CORPORAL FRISKIN AIR, FINLAND


In a world where the transatlantic link is looking surprisingly shaky, the French charm offensive is continuing. And as some of the competition are fighting delays, cost overruns, and uncertainties, the Rafale is steaming on ahead seamingly without any major hiccups. In the short term, that means rolling out the F3R standard which will sport AGCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System), introduction of the MBDA Meteor long-range missile, and a host of other less noticeable upgrades to the aircraft. The F3R is an intermediate step, building on the current F3 model. The big step will then be the F4, which is expected in the 2023 to 2025 timespan, coinciding with the deliveries of the first HX-fighters in initial operational capability, which is set to happen in 2025.

If Rafale would win HX, it is the F4 standard which would be delivered to the Finnish Air Force. Dassault is expecting that the French baseline will suit Finland just fine, though they leave the door open for the Finnish aircrafts to have unique weapons and external sensors if so required. Dassault is keen to point out the benefits of this model, making sure the Rafale is sporting mature but modern technologies through incremental upgrades according to the roadmap laid forward by the DGA, the French Directorate General of Armaments.
Everyone can improve technology, but you can’t change the concept […] France can’t operate dedicated aircraft
The benefit from a Finnish viewpoint is that besides the Swedish Air Force JAS 39E Gripen, the French offer will be the only one which will be operated by the host country’s single-aircraft air force (though both the JAS 39C/D and Mirage 2000 will linger on for a few years more). The lack of dedicated fast jets for different roles ensures full support for the multirole capability from the host, something which certainly would make the Finnish Logistics Command sleep easier at night.

One point which Dassault brings up when I meet them at this year’s air show which wasn’t discussed last year is the capability per aircraft. While the ‘how much bang can you create for 10 billions?’-approach of the HX-tender might hand an edge to some contenders, the politically motivated decision to acquire exactly 64 aircraft will on the other hand favour more capable aircraft. This is where Dassault see their strengths. The Rafale is largely assumed to be second only to the F-35 when it comes to signature reduction amongst the HX contenders. At the same time the Rafale is from the outset designed to be able to operate with limited support and low maintenance hours, a feature stemming both from the requirement to be able to operate from the relatively small French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle as well as from replacing the sturdy Jaguar and Mirage F1 in operations in austere conditions, often in Africa and in the Middle East. The latter is in marked contrast to some other contenders, and Dassault likes to point out that this is not just a design concept, but something the aircraft does every day.

When it comes to combat, the keyword is ‘agile’. Rafale is able to adapt to different scenarios and conflict levels, thanks to the multitude of sensors and weapons available to the pilot (and WSO in the case of the Rafale B). These capabilities goes all the way to peacetime, where the Rafale has provided assistance to emergency authorities by documenting natural disasters and floods with their dedicated reconnaissance pods. But while peacetime assistance is a nice bonus, HX will be bought for its combat potential.

And here the Rafale is able to provide serious hours of combat potential, both on a daily basis as well as for prolonged periods of time. The Rafale can do 10 hour CAP-missions, and is able to surge over 150 monthly flight hours per aircraft. The latter has been demonstrated repeatedly during combat operations such as Operation Chammal, the French strikes in Syria and Iraq. The single most high-profile mission in the area is without doubt the strike on Syrian regime chemical warfare installations earlier this year. Here, the Rafale demonstrated the “seamless plug and play” capability of the Rafale to integrate with other NATO-assets to carry out a complex long-range mission. Five Rafales, including two-seaters, flew out of bases in France to strike two facilities at Him Shinshar, one of which was targeted together with US Navy, Royal Air Force, and the French Navy, while the other was struck solely by the Rafales. As was noted in the immediate aftermath of the strikes, they took out all intended targets without interference from neither the Russian nor the Syrian air defences.

Another benefit the Rafale brings to the table is the second engine. While the benefit of twin engines for normal flight safety redundancy is limited these days, in combat the ability to lose an engine and still limp home is an asset. “It’s more comfortable,” as a former Mirage 2000-pilot puts it.

Last time around the Mirage 2000 was the only fighter other than the F/A-18C Hornet to meet the requirements of the Finnish Air Force, but suffered from what the evaluation thought of as a “maintenance system which would be difficult for us”. This is not something Dassault expects will be repeated, as the maintenance requirements for the Rafale is one of the areas which have seen vast improvement. The Rafale feature a fully digital mock-up which has provided the basis for the maintenance studies. These theoretical calculations have then been validated by comparison to an airframe which has been tortured in Dassault’s laboratory. The final outcome is a maintenance program centered around on-condition maintenance rather than the traditional by flight hour system, and a scheduled airframe maintenance which is halved compared to that of the current F/A-18C/D Hornets. While the Rafale is not unique amongst the HX-contenders in taking maintenance to the next level, it is hard to see the aircraft being dropped on what was a weak point for the Mirage 2000.

In the end, talk about the Rafale always comes back to the ‘here and now’. This is an aircraft that is immediately available, ‘fly before you buy’ as Dassault puts it, and keeps balancing nicely on the edge between maturity and cutting edge. The key role it plays in French defence also means that it will continue to be kept updated throughout the lifespan of HX. Like Eurofighter, Dassault is keen to point out that Rafale will also play a part in the Franco-German Future Combat Air System (FCAS), which true to it name is a system and not just a new fighter. The Rafale stands out in many ways from the competition, offering a number of unique solutions and concepts. Time will tell if these will catch the interest of the Finnish Air Force, or if a more conservative solution will be sought.

https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/07/18/rafale-going-for-hx/
 
Last edited:

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
Lol, so now you need months or years to evaluate the operational cost per hour of a fighter? It always is fun to see your denial of even basics, but no matter how hard you deny it, a twin engine fighter can't be as cheap as a single engine fighter and that's also one reason why French Air force used the Mirage so much in Syria.
So when it comes to operations, or even procurement costs, the number of engines will have an impact =>

Air Chief Dhanoa

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/1...e-engine-combat-aircraft-within-october-2017/
If, for exemple, SAAB say "you only need 2 hours for 4 men to remove the engine" and in reality (ie during FIELD TEST) you need 8 hours for 8 men, it's not the same.

If Boeing say "my SH18 only need X tons of fuel to do this kind of mission" and in reality it needs 150% of X, it's not the same.

The last real and complete field test was the indian MMRCA one. It takes weekSSSS .

Yes a single engine 8tons plane is cheaper to purchase and to operate than a twin 10 tons one ! But the two don't make the same job.
You must compare comparable things. Gripen E is comparable to a Mirage 2000-5mk2, a rafale is comparable to a Mig 35, SH18, EF ...

France only use M2000 in Syria because we have it ! Why to keep in shelter our older planes? To use it in 15 years when they will be really ant definitively obsolete?
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Yes a single engine 8tons plane is cheaper to purchase and to operate than a twin 10 tons one !
Finally, took you long enough to admit the obvious. :)

But the two don't make the same job.
You must compare comparable things. Gripen E is comparable to a Mirage 2000-5mk2, a rafale is comparable to a Mig 35, SH18, EF ...
Lol, even the M2K5 could do heavy or cruise missile deep strikes, that the Mig 35 or EF can't do. It's hilarious that you are willing to make the M2K to a bad example now, just to make up a point for Rafale. :pound:

The M2K-5 can do at least 80% of the roles that the Rafale can do too, just as the Gripen E can do anything except for cruise missile deep strikes so far. Not to mention that the F16 B60 is the top of the class, when it comes to multi role capable single engine fighters.

The number of engines doesn't relate to capability, or the lack of it!
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
Finally, took you long enough to admit the obvious. :)
It's just that you can't compare the two.
One is a chevrolet Cruv, The other a Suburban. The two have 4 wheels and a steering wheel, but the latest can do much more job.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
Lol, even the M2K5 could do heavy or cruise missile deep strikes, that the Mig 35 or EF can't do. It's hilarious that you are willing to make the M2K to a bad example now, just to make up a point for Rafale.
LOL.
M2000 in every model can only carry one SCALP when a Rafale has 2 (and tomorrow, for UAE ?, 3).
And do you want to deal about range ?
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
The M2K-5 can do at least 80% of the roles that the Rafale can do too, just as the Gripen E can do anything except for cruise missile deep strikes so far. Not to mention that the F16 B60 is the top of the class, when it comes to multi role capable single engine fighters.
NO.
M2000 carry 5.5 tons max, when a Rafale reach 9.5 tons.
M2000 is only superior in max speed and ceilling. Less important with the modern AAM (and specially with Meteor).

Gripen E is a modern M2000.

F16 bk 60 : only one customer.... strange no?
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
The number of engines doesn't relate to capability, or the lack of it!
Once again no.
Maybe for peacefull country like Switzerland.
It would be interesting to see the loss rate of Gripen during futur long mission over Amazonia...
But when you want to make long range strike, it's all but useless to rely on two engines.
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
LOL.
M2000 in every model can only carry one SCALP when a Rafale has 2
Exactly and that's why both can do the same job of cruise missile deep strikes, as we have seen in Libya for example, so you have proven yourself to be wrong. :biggrin2:

Also the reason that Rafale can carry up to 3 x Scalp, or why M2K5 can carry 1 on the centerline, while EF and Mig 35 can't, has nothing to do with the number of engines, but with size and load limitations of the hardpoints!

The single most important point about any fighter and no matter how many engines it has, is the number of hardpoints and the size and load limitations it has.
 

abingdonboy

New Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,084
Likes
33,803
Country flag
Anyone tracking CAATSA/S400 drama?

US Democrats now pushing too end any possible hope for CAATSA wavier for India and they will be getting back control of the Congress in November.

This is the end for F-16/18/35 hopes in India and likely Gripen also (F414 engine and other parts).

Big win for the REAL (not what BS SAAB says) independent choice.....Rafale.
 

AmoghaVarsha

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
1,376
Likes
2,096
Country flag
Anyone tracking CAATSA/S400 drama?

US Democrats now pushing too end any possible hope for CAATSA wavier for India and they will be getting back control of the Congress in November.

This is the end for F-16/18/35 hopes in India and likely Gripen also (F414 engine and other parts).

Big win for the REAL (not what BS SAAB says) independent choice.....Rafale.
Its good that this US drama is over. Before we get into that deeply.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

abingdonboy

New Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,084
Likes
33,803
Country flag
Its good that this US drama is over. Before we get into that deeply.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Agreed. Glad India didn’t get on the F-16/18/35/Guardian/THAAD train.

Biggest casualty could be LCA but in long term it will be better off because Kaveri will be given priority.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
Agreed. Glad India didn’t get on the F-16/18/35/Guardian/THAAD train.

Biggest casualty could be LCA but in long term it will be better off because Kaveri will be given priority.
India would never go for USA planes as they refused ToT completely. Only thing here is F414 but india already got few samples delivered. So, that will be used for prototype. The Kaveri is getting readied and will fly next year. So, India won't need F414 at all.

Guardian drones are actually in consideration. But that is not critical technology.
 

AmoghaVarsha

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
1,376
Likes
2,096
Country flag
Agreed. Glad India didn’t get on the F-16/18/35/Guardian/THAAD train.

Biggest casualty could be LCA but in long term it will be better off because Kaveri will be given priority.
Is there no other jet engine except 414 thst we can use?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Big win for the REAL (not what BS SAAB says) independent choice.....Rafale.
Hehe, man you need to get over your bias:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/...-depends-on-us-permission-dassault-head-says/

Not to mention that the biggest problem would be C130, C17 and P8Is. India can't afford to go back from the Indo - US relations anymore, since it would weaken IAF and IN big time in their capability. The key remains to have a balance and not be over dependent. Also don't forget that the US arms lobby has invested in the relations to India, they won't let this big money maker go away that easily.
Btw, any engine that is an option for LCA MK2, would be an option for Gripen E as well, especially since they first considered the EJ200 as well.
 
Last edited:

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
Hehe, man you need to get over your bias:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/...-depends-on-us-permission-dassault-head-says/

Not to mention that the biggest problem would be C130, C17 and P8Is. India can't afford to go back from the Indo - US relations anymore, since it would weaken IAF and IN big time in their capability. The key remains to have a balance and not be over dependent. Also don't forget that the US arms lobby has invested in the relations to India, they won't let this big money maker go away that easily.
Btw, any engine that is an option for LCA MK2, would be an option for Gripen E as well, especially since they first considered the EJ200 as well.
C130, C17 are just transport planes, not state of teh art planes. P8I is a boeing 737. Gripen E is already rejected due to it not being ready yet. It is a speculative plane jut like Tejas MK2. Even the soecification has changed with empty weight increasing to 8tons from 7tons originally!

The engine for LCA MK2 will be Kaveri and the same will be on AMCA. But the LCA MK1 will need a lower thrust engine which will be difficult to get
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
Exactly and that's why both can do the same job of cruise missile deep strikes, as we have seen in Libya for example, so you have proven yourself to be wrong. :biggrin2:
So a plane carrying 2 or 3 SCALP does the same job than one with a sole cruise ?

It's time to see your Doctor my poor.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
The single most important point about any fighter and no matter how many engines it has, is the number of hardpoints and the size and load limitations it has.
Partially YES.

But ask to the Jordanian F16 pilot who was burnt by ISIS because it's SOLE ENGINE F16 suffered from a failure if a second engine is non interesting.
 

Articles

Top