Rafale shocker
-
Shouldn't be a shocker. Rafale has always been known to be cheaper than the Typhoon.
Also, many pluses on the technical side.
(a) It has an AESA radar in service. Still none for Typhoon.
(b) It has a workable carrier variant. Something that will appeal to the Indians.
(c) It can fire all munitions eg meteor that the Typhoon has plus the AASM. Typhoon tranche 1s don't have A2G capability.
(d) The French are desperate enough to offer higher tech transfer.
(e) The Indians has been spending billions getting munitions for its Mirages which can now be used by the Rafale as well.
Other than (b) & (e), same reasons why Rafale went down to the finals vis the F-15 in the RSAF comp.
Its a good choice for the IAF. Funnily enough, they could probably get many more F-16s for the same price but with the PAF using F-16s, it was always an underdog. The Chinese will build 2-3 J-10s for every Rafale. The stealthy J-20 might even enter service at the same time as the Rafale (at lower cost somemore). That would be a game-changer.
-
I was expecting India to move further in the US direction as the Rafale is a less cutting edge fighter and several countries (including Mirage 2000 operators) have chosen F-16s and 18s over the Rafale. In India's case, the F-16s and F-18s offered both have AESA. I presumed India wanted something to compete with the Su-30 which China also has.
The Rafale is certainly a low risk option for India but not the most capable aircraft.
-
The original requirement was for 126 low cost single engined fighters at 42,000 crore (which was why the F-16 was first selected). They now got 126 dual engined one for as much as 75,000 crore.
Having said that, India is getting rich so they can afford it. It was Bush who pushed for the F-18 despite India clearly indicating that it wasn't what they wanted.
The Rafale is a good aircraft. Hopefully, it won't turn into flying coffins when the Indian pilots get to it. Its a bit expensive to start losing those due to pilot errors/attrition.
What I didn't like was the IAF deliberately competing the Rafale against the CFT-equipped F-16s. Now most enthusiast know the CFTs will cause performance loss and CFTs can be removed. It wasn't really fair technically but having said that, it was a transparent process.
-
Bye Bye Captor-E?
The India selection of the Rafale begs the question whether Typhoon will ever get an AESA radar? The latest tranche 3A will be equipped with the captor-M which is still the mechanically scanned variant by Selex.
Without the India order, can't see a market for an AESA typhoon. With countries like UK planning to retire tranche 1 planes, there won't be a retrofit market either.
-
Weasel, I wanted to ask you but didn't want to start a new thread just for this.
Would you be able to ID this aircraft?
http://wallpapers.free-review.net/wallpapers/84/Rammstein_-_Adios.jpg
-
The link is not working. Can you publish an image using the image function instead?
-
Okay la. If they were to purchase typhoon, their maintainance cost would increase a lot.
Actually I not shock at this news at all. India do not need the typhoons. Rafale is enough to meet the basic objectives.
-
-
Sorry, still can't view the pic. However, found the below.
http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/Rammstein_-_Adios.jpg
If that's the same, then it'd be C-130As. 3 blade propellers before it went to the 4 blade hamiltons in the -B variant.
-
Thanks. I explored that possibility, but the engines are quite different from the Allison T56s on any variant of C-130. I also think the nose bulge is rather small and high for a C-130.
-
You're right. Re-checked planes in that era due to propeller and found the C-133 cargomaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_C-133A_Cargomaster_USAF.jpg
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
You're right. Re-checked planes in that era due to propeller and found the C-133 cargomaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_C-133A_Cargomaster_USAF.jpg
Thanks, great info. This aircraft surpasses the A-400M (why is "M" there) in more than a few ways.
-
The USAF retired the last one in 2008 which is not surprising given the age of the aircraft.
I'm guessing M for militaire. The A400M is intended to fulfil a niche size requirement between the C-130 and C-17. Its a smart strategy for a new entrant to burrow its way into a monopoly market.
Also, it can be used as a tanker with 35 ton capacity at 500nm which is pretty decent.
http://www.c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/a400m-tanker-data-sheet.pdf
Malaysia I think got the tanker equipment from Cobham which will explain why its still sticking to the A400M.
http://www.cobham.com/about-cobham/mission-systems/media/news/177.aspx
I'm sure the RSAF would have evaluated the A400M as a KC-130B replacement.
-
It wasn't 2008 but long before. Also it can't be or we would have heard more about it.
-
1971 retirement from active duty in USAF. Still flying up to 2008 in reserves.
-
I'm pretty sure the article meant the retirement of the last airworthy C-133B, just like there are airworthy F-4s and P-51s. It was being retired to the museum at Travis, which is where it served until 1971.
It said "the last Cargomaster a C-133B departed Travis on July 30, 1971 for Davis-Monthan AFB (boneyard) in Arizona." and didn't mention any "Reserve" or "last unit" that was retiring the aircraft in 2008. I couldn't find any either.
Wikipedia: By 1971, shortly before the introduction of the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, the Cargomaster was obsolete as well as being worn out, and all were withdrawn from service in 1971. The C-133 was originally a 10,000-hour airframe that had been life-extended to 19,000 hours. Severe vibration had caused critical stress corrosion of the airframes to the point that the aircraft was beyond economical operation any longer. The Air Force managed to keep as many of the C-133 fleet in service as possible until the C-5 finally entered squadron service.
-
A few were used by the Foundation of Airborne Relief, at least 1 C-133A was used by the Government of Alaska (which may be the a/c in the caption of the travis link). As to retirement, I'm just quoting the caption.
Below is quite a good link on what happened to some of the C-133s.
http://www.air-and-space.com/Douglas%20C-133%20Cargomaster.htm
-
Looks like a B-36 in a way.
Anyway have you wondered if any other country will ever get on board the flying boom refuelling concept?
I hardly think it's a proprietary system that only American aircraft can use.
-
Most new build tankers comes with flying boom liao. That includes Australia & other A-330 MRTT. There was an incident where the boom broke on their test a/c.
Click ARBS in link for A-330.
http://a330mrtt.com/MRTTSolution/Tanker.aspx
IAI also has a flying boom option for their converted KC-767s. No need to ask for Boeing as they were the original inventors.
-
But fighters like Rafale and Typhoon are not equipped with the flying boom receptacle even though their user air forces operate or will soon operate equipped tankers, right?
-
I'm sure they'll make it compatible if they get a boom. Having said that, RAF (old and new) ones are equipped with 2 or 3 hose whilst all 14 French C-135FRs are boom-equipped. If they can't refuel the rafales, they'd already be in trouble.
This is a good article to read: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf
-
Originally posted by weasel1962: I'm sure they'll make it compatible if they get a boom. Having said that, RAF (old and new) ones are equipped with 2 or 3 hose whilst all 14 French C-135FRs are boom-equipped. If they can't refuel the rafales, they'd already be in trouble.
This is a good article to read: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf
I hope so. Rafale lacks it partly because there is a naval variant and they did not want to fit both. I suspect Mirage 2000 lacks it because many export customers don't have boom tankers (Mirage 2000 was very export oriented).
I'm not sure if the USN has even caught on. F-35B has a probe, I'm not sure if it will have a receptacle. F-18Es don't have one either.
-
All rafales come with a refuelling probe.
Pic below.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_2.pdf
What tankers do is to attach a drogue to the boom to allow probe refuel. Its also stated here.
-
weasel!!!are u teaching crap stuff thats inaccurate here as well????
