Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[hellofriends]

no sir I bet RAFAL will win mmrca.........

Rafel already failed in technical evaluation and every one know EF is best operation aircraft in the world. so my bet is eurofighter.

 

[INDIAN007]

And what About Gripen......looks good too

But personally i fell Eurofighter typhoon should Win MMRCA

 

[FSLN]

No .... it is Euro Fighter

Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but EF its not looking to good now...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/77778-india-expels-german-bribary-engines.html

 

[kingdurgaking]

Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but EF its not looking to good now...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/77778-india-expels-german-bribary-engines.html

A new bubble is created ... see the trailing news ...

 

[kingdurgaking]

Of all the contenders ....
US technologically strong
France technically good and trust worthy
Russia Technically good and do we need to say more about there trust with us
Grippen technically good and no worthy
EU Technically good and less trust worthy but willing to make as partner and Jobs...

I guess France, EU and Russia should be the order of choice for every one in MMRCA... but EU has gone to level 1 more and are willing to give development job in India which No one including Russia ... Though Russia gives 100% ToT including the Raw materials and let us do license manufacturing here .. i guess the high time now is Jobs and improvement in Aviation sector .. we had enough of Production ToT.. Even Dassault wont contribute here.. I am pretty much sure IAF will make best use of what ever being selected in the MMRCA competition.. so I am hoping to see EF because of this..

But US comes at the end and strikes the goal.... sad it happens always with EU at least... because US have the technology and they have the power to bend others... Ultimately we will be sailing on the same boat with same ToT... no improvement in our fate

 

[1000VA]

Cost of Selected US Military Aircraft

PARIS --- After nearly two years of suspension, the Pentagon on April 1 resumed public release of its “Selected Acquisition Reports,” a document which tracks the cost of major US weapon programs on a quarterly basis. This latest SAR covers weapon costs as of December 2009.

This allows us, in turn, to update our previous evaluation of the true cost of major US military aircraft, the last of which was published in April 2007. Subsequent SARs did not document sufficient cost escalation to warrant updating our estimate.

Computing the Real Cost of US Military Aircraft

The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Report estimates the total cost of each major program by computing actual costs to date, when available, or by estimating future anticipated costs, when not. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances.

The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) figures are computed by dividing the total cost of each program by the number of units to be produced.

PAUC includes research and development costs, and some support costs. It is thus not an indication of actual acquisition prices. It is, however, the simplest, clearest and most accessible measure of real weapon costs that is publicly available.

It also offers two major advantages: it is practically immune to manipulation, and is a credible basis for direct comparisons between programs.

Latest SAR Details JSF Cost Blow-out

Unsurprisingly, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program continues to experience the greatest cost escalation of all US weapon programs. As well documented in our news coverage and elsewhere, this year’s SAR led the program to critically breach the Nunn-McCurdy price ceiling, which requires Congressional notification and re-certification by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics no later than June 1, 2010.

According to the latest SAR, the JSF’s Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) increased 57.2% and the Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) increased 57.2% compared to the original Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) to reflect the average unit price for the restructured JSF program, as estimated by the OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)-led independent Joint Estimate Team (JET).

Specifically, in 2001, the average procurement unit cost for the JSF was estimated at $50 million base year 2002 dollars or $59 million in base year 2010 dollars. This is now estimated to fall within a range of $79 million to $95 million in base year 2002 dollars or $93 million to $112 million in base year 2010 dollars. This is a 57% to 89% increase from the original baseline.

The reasons for the Unit Cost Growth included larger-than-planned development costs driven by Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant weight growth and a longer forecasted development schedule; increase in labor and overhead rates; degradation of airframe commonality; lower production quantities; increases in commodity prices (particularly titanium); major subcontractor cost growth; and the impact of revised inflation indices.

In addition, factors that were driven by substantially higher contractor change traffic (i.e., changes in design not resulting from changes in requirements or capability), which led to increased engineering and software staffing; extended manufacturing span times; and delayed delivery of aircraft to flight test, led to a further slip of the development and flight test program.

Further, substantial cost increases are anticipated when the program’s costs are re-computed by the Pentagon in June.

US Military Aircraft: Total and Unit Costs by Program

(Source: US DoD for data; defense-aerospace.com for calculations; based on Selected Acquisition Reports to December 31, 2009) (in $ millions)

(NOTES: (1) Numbers for previous production runs (“was”) refer to previous SAR, and not necessarily to the Dec. 2006 SAR used in our previous analysis. (2) significant unit cost increases in red.)


The above table compares the current program and unit costs for major US military aircraft programs to those in our previous report, based on the December 2006 SAR.

The main conclusion is that, contrary to general perception, the cost of US military aircraft remains remarkably stable when measured on a per-unit basis, and all the more so considering that the comparison period spans three years in an industry often prone to higher-than-normal inflation.

The table also shows that, with the sole exception of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Nunn/McCurdy cost breaches (marked in bold) are mostly due to increases in the number of aircraft being procured. This obviously boosts total program costs without necessarily increasing, and in fact often lowering, unit costs because of the longer production run.

Finally, it should be noted that Nunn/McCurdy breaches are computed relative to original program baseline costs, whereas our comparison only documents such changes that have occurred since the most recent relevant SAR.

 

[dbc]

That's your opinion, but you can't proof that his report is wrong, also that wasn't the only source I provided, where Rafale that talks about the advantages of the Rafale in these fields, just like I provided a sources that even named the US pilot that confirmed the Rafale to be better in dog fights, but even then you keep denying it right?

I have not a problem that you have a different opinion than me, but as I said I backed up my statements, you instead didn't showed a single source that would back your claims up. Please provide a source that says F18SH is more maneuverable than Rafale, because of less drag as you said, or that it is less detectable as you said.



You asked for a source, I gave you one and don't for get they can track with both channels, the IRST and the TV.



And how exactly do you know that, or is just your opinion? If you have more details about SPECTRA capabilties please share them with us.

I repeat your 'sources' are unreliable, the Brazilian journalist you quoted did not provide a source for his claims. Don't expect me or anyone else to waste time debunking random thrash you pick up from the internet.

It is clear you do not understand 'detection/tracking' is not the same as acquisition of data such as range, velocity, heading and altitude. You clearly do not understand the importance of acquiring this data and estimating LAR before launching a guided missile. Mia culpa! for expecting you to be rational in the face of criticism of your beloved Rafale.

Further, recall you claimed the Rafale has superior thrust to weight ratio and therefore is superior to the F/A-18 E/F. I disputed your claim and pointed out engine thrust is measured on a test rack at sea level.
How much of that engine performance can be extracted in the air depends on the aircraft's design. I established that thrust is required to overcome drag, so your T/W ratio evidence is inadequate to establish the Rafale's superiority.

The Mirage 2000 has a T/W ratio of 0.91 and yet it has set high speed records as a mater of fact it has a higher top speed of MACH 2.2 much faster than the Rafale which tops at MACH 1.8.


It is a well known that the speed of sound increases as the temperature increases. Simplified this means that sound travels much faster at low altitude due to this breaching the sound barrier at low altitudes is much more difficult.

The Starfighter F-104 still holds the low altitude world speed record but it has a abysmal thrust to weight ratio of 0.54.

Keep in mind that the low-altitude record for flight speed was set in the Seventies with a slightly modified Starfighter. Which was owned by a civilian group, Darryl Greenameyer's Red Baron racing team. They went to the high desert and set the record at 988 mph, averaged from four passes, each at a height above ground level of less than a hundred meters.

The Mirage 2000,F-14 Tomcat,F-15 and the Starfighter are among the few military fighters that have achieved this feat. A few years ago, I personally witnessed the Blue Angles demo team break the sound barrier no more than 10 meters above the ocean surface in Monaco in a F/A-18. This was done in confined air space allocated to demo team by the event organizers. It wasn't from a high speed dive or long sprint to transonic flight.

Here is a video, notice the shock collar produced by the F/A-18 in transonic flight and the sonic boom as it breaches the sound barrier at low altitude.

This should be sufficient 'proof' but are you man enough to admit you were wrong? I don't think you are...

I fully expect you to do a little Bolllywood song and dance routine to deflect attention away from your dubious claims. But since I am doing this for the benefit of interested readers - please dance away

 

[razgriz19]

 

[praveen007]

What the hell. let any of the euro-birds win mmrca. excepet gripo- and - teens. i m ok with it.

 

[soaringphnx]

Rafel already failed in technical evaluation

No aircraft has failed the technical evaluation. It was just a rumor and it IAF later confirmed it to be false.

every one know EF is best operation aircraft in the world.

oh really? Please care to elaborate

 

[Sri]

Cost of Selected US Military Aircraft

PARIS --- After nearly two years of suspension, the Pentagon on April 1 resumed public release of its “Selected Acquisition Reports,” a document which tracks the cost of major US weapon programs on a quarterly basis. This latest SAR covers weapon costs as of December 2009.

This allows us, in turn, to update our previous evaluation of the true cost of major US military aircraft, the last of which was published in April 2007. Subsequent SARs did not document sufficient cost escalation to warrant updating our estimate.

Computing the Real Cost of US Military Aircraft

The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Report estimates the total cost of each major program by computing actual costs to date, when available, or by estimating future anticipated costs, when not. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances.

The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) figures are computed by dividing the total cost of each program by the number of units to be produced.

PAUC includes research and development costs, and some support costs. It is thus not an indication of actual acquisition prices. It is, however, the simplest, clearest and most accessible measure of real weapon costs that is publicly available.

It also offers two major advantages: it is practically immune to manipulation, and is a credible basis for direct comparisons between programs.

Latest SAR Details JSF Cost Blow-out

Unsurprisingly, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program continues to experience the greatest cost escalation of all US weapon programs. As well documented in our news coverage and elsewhere, this year’s SAR led the program to critically breach the Nunn-McCurdy price ceiling, which requires Congressional notification and re-certification by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics no later than June 1, 2010.

According to the latest SAR, the JSF’s Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) increased 57.2% and the Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) increased 57.2% compared to the original Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) to reflect the average unit price for the restructured JSF program, as estimated by the OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)-led independent Joint Estimate Team (JET).

Specifically, in 2001, the average procurement unit cost for the JSF was estimated at $50 million base year 2002 dollars or $59 million in base year 2010 dollars. This is now estimated to fall within a range of $79 million to $95 million in base year 2002 dollars or $93 million to $112 million in base year 2010 dollars. This is a 57% to 89% increase from the original baseline.

The reasons for the Unit Cost Growth included larger-than-planned development costs driven by Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant weight growth and a longer forecasted development schedule; increase in labor and overhead rates; degradation of airframe commonality; lower production quantities; increases in commodity prices (particularly titanium); major subcontractor cost growth; and the impact of revised inflation indices.

In addition, factors that were driven by substantially higher contractor change traffic (i.e., changes in design not resulting from changes in requirements or capability), which led to increased engineering and software staffing; extended manufacturing span times; and delayed delivery of aircraft to flight test, led to a further slip of the development and flight test program.

Further, substantial cost increases are anticipated when the program’s costs are re-computed by the Pentagon in June.

US Military Aircraft: Total and Unit Costs by Program

(Source: US DoD for data; defense-aerospace.com for calculations; based on Selected Acquisition Reports to December 31, 2009) (in $ millions)

(NOTES: (1) Numbers for previous production runs (“was”) refer to previous SAR, and not necessarily to the Dec. 2006 SAR used in our previous analysis. (2) significant unit cost increases in red.)


The above table compares the current program and unit costs for major US military aircraft programs to those in our previous report, based on the December 2006 SAR.

The main conclusion is that, contrary to general perception, the cost of US military aircraft remains remarkably stable when measured on a per-unit basis, and all the more so considering that the comparison period spans three years in an industry often prone to higher-than-normal inflation.

The table also shows that, with the sole exception of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Nunn/McCurdy cost breaches (marked in bold) are mostly due to increases in the number of aircraft being procured. This obviously boosts total program costs without necessarily increasing, and in fact often lowering, unit costs because of the longer production run.

Finally, it should be noted that Nunn/McCurdy breaches are computed relative to original program baseline costs, whereas our comparison only documents such changes that have occurred since the most recent relevant SAR.

The Per unit cost of Super hornet looks very interesting at 94 Million, also Raptor at 355 m$. I always thought SH was relatively cheaper but that doesnt seems to be the case

 

[sancho]

The Per unit cost of Super hornet looks very interesting at 94 Million, also Raptor at 355 m$. I always thought SH was relatively cheaper but that doesnt seems to be the case

should be the system cost, including spares..., the cost of P8I is pretty much what we have paid. However, if we keep in mind how many F18SH the USN bought it is indeed pretty much.

Hi Sancho,
How do you think PAF f16 will be superior than SH? Apart from various upgraded sensors, the missiles, we will be using will be a generation ahead what they will be using.

As I explained before, mainly in WVR, because it has the same tech/weapon combo, but is more manouverable as a fighter. Only the Europeans offer a missile that is a generation ahead and that is the METEOR. PAF will have the same AIM 120 and AIM 9, with the only difference that we might get a bit more range and possibly the 9X version, but that are only minor upgrades and not a completelly new missle.

I don't know why u did mentioned Jaguar here.I mentioned IAF will be using MMRCA more for strike role. IAF will be using mki and pakfa for full air superiority role. But I also mentioned SH with its near RCS footprint and much advance radar will be superior in A to A BVR fight.
Wat I told that only in WVR fight, Rafale will be superior to SH and you started comparing SH with jaguar!!!

Because, you said we should leave WVR combats to MKI/Pak Fa and ground attacks to SH, but that's not the way it should be, because we are searching for fighters that will be useful in all roles (although not equally good for all roles), that is the difference between a multi role fighter and a dedicated A2A or A2G fighter like the jags!
MMRCAs should have a focus on strikes true, but air defense as well and it will be our 2nd frontline fighter besides the MKI for a long time. With our close proximity to Pakistan and China, you simply can't rule out WVR combats, that's why we need a fighter that will offer an advantage in this field too and is not dependent on MKI to cover it. That's why I said, if we just wanted a ground attack fighter, without multi role capabilities we could simply build more Jags.

2)What do u think whats the difference between SH and Rafale rcs figure? As I have read both r almost equal.

As I said, I don't want to speculate!

3)Full TOT is obviously better.But did IAF itself asked for full TOT?I think they also satisfy with limited tot for critical parts.And what do think IAF will be using source code things.For SH we don't need limited source code,which Rafale gives.Because all the arms u will source from US itself.

First of all, IAF don't ask for ToT, secondly the US never said they will offer critical ToT, all that might be on offer is ToT of non critical parts than can be produced in India, while the critical parts will be supplied by the US . They don't share their techs, not even with allied countries, same goes for source codes, which are not at all on offer from the US. Not even UAE, which fundend parts of the development and integration of AESA radar into F16 B60 got the source codes!

4)Your cost structure is not correct.The whole range of tools will be created for Rafale also.The few parts commonality also presents in SH engine area.

True I forget about the engine, but that's the only point where we have commonality and can be reduce costs, on all other parts of it we will remain completelly dependent on supply from the US and we have to pay more for upgrades and building new logistics...

5) You avoided the most important fact.All the manufacturing in India should start from 2015 and finish by 2020.Unlike US vendors, France vendors don't have the experience to handle big numbers orders.They are so rigid and usually comes with excuses after unable to respect the deal.The way US companies can execute the whole process smoothly, u can't expect that from France.More over we have already experienced irritating huge time and cost overrun with france companies.

Again, I showed it in the comparison itself that Dassault has even an advantage in availability and production over Boeing and your point here is only based on your opinion, but not on facts!
We got 51 Mirage fighters and I never heared that they were delayed, or that we had other problems with them. The licence production of Jaguars went so good, that we produced the last batch only a few years ago and they were developed partly from Bréguet, which now is Dassault Aviation. IAF is even praising the French for their good fighters, quality and maintenance, Thales supplies parts for half of the fleet and has JV with Samtel and so on. So based on our experience, we never had problems with them other than costs possibly!
What you also seem to forget is the fact that only 1 squad of MMRCA should be delivered from the wining country and the rest will be produced in India anyway, so the production capacity in the vendor countries are not important, compared to how fast and smooth we can start licence production. Now tell me, what will be easier, start it with the US where we have simply no experience, or common base, or with France, where we have several licence productions, parterships and JV running for years now, not to forget the available supply routes?
I agree with you that they are more expensive, but it's simply wrong to say that the French can't handle it when the facts are stating exactly the opposite:

1) Long time GOOD experience with French arms, as well with supplies, licence production, co-developments and JV
2) Rafale will be available with full techs way earlier than SH, so delivery and licence production can start in time, or even earlier
3) Dassault has offered early delivery of 40 fighters if we want
4) With more ToT and integration of Indian techs, we can build more of Rafale in India itself and are not dependend on supplies, the same advantage that we now have with the MKI production

 

[sancho]

Further, recall you claimed the Rafale has superior thrust to weight ratio and therefore is superior to the F/A-18 E/F. I disputed your claim and pointed out engine thrust is measured on a test rack at sea level...

As usual, instead of clear facts and moreover proofs for your claims, your are only distracting with other things and I'm not the only one that realised that this is your tactic:

However, I fail to understand why you are deviating the discussion to lift. So your point is the F-18SH can go up like a rocket and the Rafale can't??

Once again for you, I never said that Rafale is superior because of the better T/W ratio only, I provided several specs that shows it is superior in several points of the fligh performance, including the T/W ratio (another one is wing load for example...) and sources that confirms it is more maneuverable (even of an US F18SH pilot admit that), all you did was denying and claiming things.

How much of that engine performance can be extracted in the air depends on the aircraft's design. I established that thrust is required to overcome drag, so your T/W ratio evidence is inadequate to establish the Rafale's superiority.

Again one of your claims busted ! ! !

 

[dbc]

YouTube - Rafale à Mach0.95


Again one of your claims busted ! ! !

All it proves is your ignorance, did you hear a sonic boom?
PG singularity occurs at transonic speeds MACH 0.8–1.2,the aircraft in your video did NOT break the sound barrier - no sonic boom.

Keep dancing...

Prandtl?Glauert singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kingdurgaking]

As I explained before, mainly in WVR, because it has the same tech/weapon combo, but is more manouverable as a fighter. Only the Europeans offer a missile that is a generation ahead and that is the METEOR. PAF will have the same AIM 120 and AIM 9, with the only difference that we might get a bit more range and possibly the 9X version, but that are only minor upgrades and not a completelly new missle.

I have a doubt here.. in Visual Range these days pilots fire short range missile or still the old ways of cannon?... Nowerdays Short range missiles are more maneuverable than the fighter right? or i am wrong?
As per my calculations if the above facts are true.. single engine fighters will be toast in WVR.... correct me if i am wrong