Btw, was at synchrotron "Soleil" yesterday, had a tchat with a power engineer who told me GaN was now contested by some type of CMOS (or LMOS didn't get for sure) in S band. To him, main adavantage for radars of GaN would be more on bandwith than pure power emission.
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
He's talking about moving fabrication from the earlier III-V fabs to CMOS fabs and also mentions the substrate material to be used.
Earlier, we needed gold to make the metallization contacts for GaN on Si, but now we can use cheaper interconnect metals like nickel. Since we no longer have to use gold, we can now use CMOS fabs to make GaN on Si. CMOS uses much larger 6" wafers. Bigger wafer = cheaper fab process. And the CMOS fab technique is the best we have today. AFAIK, III-V is only good enough up to 2" wafers, but I'm not 100% sure.
And he wasn't talking about S band, but Silicon or Si. Si is the best substrate for GaN compared to sapphire, diamond, GaN or SiC.
GaN on Si is already the best you can get, and using CMOS fab instead of III-V will give you very high quality RFICs. Best of both worlds.
We have credible quotations for the flyaway cost and don't need indications, or interpretations, from unrelated deals.
We know that India paid around 91 million USD per Rafale F3R and we know that the US pays 70 to 77 million USD per F18 Block 3 in the next 3 years.
The Base production cost of Rafale is higher, there is simply no way around that fact, just as the cost per hour is higher compared to Gripen E and F18, as proven in Brazil.
You can even add the lower weapon costs of US arms, vs European once, that will further reduce the operational costs, or the commonality of engines with LCA MK2. The Rafale is only "cost-effective" compared to the EF.
So when the aim is maximising numbers, from an already restricted budget, cost per unit and per hour will play a crucial factor.
Last edited:
We have credible quotations for the flyaway cost and don't need indications, or interpretations, from unrelated deals.
We know that India paid around 91 million USD per Rafale F3R and we know that the US pays 70 to 77 million USD per F18 Block 3 in the next 3 years.
The Base production cost of Rafale is higher, there is simply no way around that fact, just as the cost per hour is higher compared to Gripen E and F18, as proven in Brazil.
You can even add the lower weapon costs of US arms, vs European once, that will further reduce the operational costs, or the commonality of engines with LCA MK2. The Rafale is only "cost-effective" compared to the EF.
So when the aim is maximising numbers, from an already restricted budget, cost per unit and per hour will play a crucial factor.
We paid 104M USD for the Rafale F3R. Bring the Block 3 up to Rafale F3R specs, and other than the fact that the Americans can't do it, even if they did, it will cost more than the Rafale.
We have credible quotations for the flyaway cost and don't need indications, or interpretations, from unrelated deals.
We know that India paid around 91 million USD per Rafale F3R and we know that the US pays 70 to 77 million USD per F18 Block 3 in the next 3 years.
The Base production cost of Rafale is higher, there is simply no way around that fact, just as the cost per hour is higher compared to Gripen E and F18, as proven in Brazil.
You can even add the lower weapon costs of US arms, vs European once, that will further reduce the operational costs, or the commonality of engines with LCA MK2. The Rafale is only "cost-effective" compared to the EF.
So when the aim is maximising numbers, from an already restricted budget, cost per unit and per hour will play a crucial factor.
Yes the base production cost of Rafale is higher than the F-18 one, but not as high as you believe, because you are comparing a fly away cost for the F-18 with a weapon system price for the Rafale, we also have SENAT report saying that the fly away cost of the Rafale is € 68 million for a Rafale C
Extract of projet de loi de finances 2015:
Projet de loi de finances pour 2015 : Défense : équipement des forces
The difference with the F-18 is not enormous and much less than the advantages that the Rafale has due to the ongoing contract of 36 aircraft that India was kind enough to order from us.
I find the navy's MRCBF to be unrealistic. Whereas the air force will get more Rafales.
☺ I should have added "believe", to the words we don't need too. The flyaway cost for Indian Rafales were confirmed by the government with 670 crore INR per unit, which at the time the contract was fixed, were 91.68 million USD.
Cost is simply not an advantage for Rafale, capability was during MMRCA, but even that is a big question mark since then.
P.S. Translated from your link:
So that's not the flyaway unit cost from Dassault, but the one France has paid for their orders till then.
Last edited:
We will see
Well we already have seen it in Brazil too, where the cost difference between Rafale and F18 was significant too. And you surely remember the reports from Switzerland, where Dassault reportedly proposed a deal with less fighters than Switzerland required, just to stay within the budget.
So we already "know" and you even admitted it.
We will see
OT, but first reports of a decision in Belgium coming in. Not too surprising, but very disappointing for the EU (if true).
No I never admitted it. I could admit that a Gripen is cheaper than a Rafale but what is really interesting is the cost of the operations we plan to carry out, and to do so we must determine the number of aircraft we will need and the profile of the missions we will have to carry out.Well we already have seen it in Brazil too, where the cost difference between Rafale and F18 was significant too. And you surely remember the reports from Switzerland, where Dassault reportedly proposed a deal with less fighters than Switzerland required, just to stay within the budget.
So we already "know" and you even admitted it.
However, Rafale has a better range and carries more load than Gripen, so it will use fewer tankers and fewer aircraft to complete missions. Of course for a particular mission the use of Gripen may be less expensive than the use of Rafale but in most cases it will be the opposite and statistically it will be advantageous to use Rafale.
As for the F-18, its purchase cost is similar to that of the Rafale and its LCC cost is much higher.
☺ =>
Since the Gripen E is the competitor and not the C/D, we both know that this is not true. The only real load advantage Rafale has, is the deep strike config with cruise missiles. We might have to wait for Gripen weapon trials to know if an improvement is possible, but I think Rafale will remain with the clear advantage.
Other than that, the weaponstation layout change and increased fuel capacity, dramatically improved it's load capability.
Simple example heavy strikes with 2000lb bombs
Mirage 2000
2 x fuel tanks
1 x 2000lb bomb
5 to 6 x AAMs
Gripen E
2 x fuel tanks
2 x 2000lb bomb
2 x AAMs
Rafale
2 x fuel tanks
3 x 2000lb bomb
4 x AAMs (6 if external MICA stations are opened)
So Gripen E can already carry 100% more bombs than the Mirage and just 50% less than Rafale in theoretical maximum load config.
The difference turns even into disadvantage for Rafale, when you compare it to fighters that doesn't have to carry wing fuel tanks, thanks to CFTs. They could carry even up to 4 x 2000lb bombs, while the standard for all fighters remains only 1 or 2.
So within the medium class, you certainly don't need more fighters for the standard missions, that would only apply to comparisons against light class fighters.
- Gripen configuration is very poor in AAMs so you will need escort
- The most commonly used bombs are not 2000 lb bombs but 1000 lb bombs so the statistical weight of the configuration you describe is low.
SH18 is near a heavy fighter. It can't have low prices and costs. Maybe less than Rafale or EF ones, but not "low".
Last edited:
Rafale doesn't use any 1000lb bomb, so that's a strange statement. Not to mention that lowering the bomb weight, even plays in favor of the Gripen, because 1000lb bombs can be carried at the he wingstations, which increases AAM load to 5.
Mirage 2000
2 x fuel tanks
1 x 1000lb bombs
5 to 6 x AAMs
Rafale
2 x fuel tanks
3 x 1000lb bombs
4 x AAMs
Gripen E
2 x fuel tanks
2 x 1000lb bombs
5 x AAMs
Still only 50% less than Rafales max bomb config, but equal to French forces standard configs.
Last edited: