He is saying Lift size kept small deliberately because of Russian insistence.
This bit is more or less fine for the SH as well. The USN will be operating Growlers for quite sometime.
Rafale-M's customisation costs will be cheaper than SH's, as long as the IN also insist on customising the SH. It might be too early to tell. Can't forget the cost to modify the jet/carrier for the Rafale though.
The most important advantage for the SH. In a war with China, it will be practically impossible to tell if a SH flying around is Indian or American.
It may not be of such a big concern for the navy. Drones will be more important. And you can bet the US will develop drone tech faster than the French to make up for any gaps over the next 10 years.
When it comes to military infrastructure, both are on the same footing. IAF's investment into Rafale's infrastructure won't help the IN to the extent that it will play a significant part in the decision. And it's not difficult for Boeing to move a significant amount of spares production to India for even USN jets, even RAAF and Kuwaiti jets. The MRO facility could also serve foreign jets. The industrial benefits could be impossible for Dassault to match for just 26 jets.
The most important point to remember is even if the SH is inferior, it still met IN requirements. So the only way for the Rafale to win is if the IN ignores costs.
So the IN has moved from 57 aircraft to just 26.
In five years, it'll be revised down to 8. One for each of the aircraft carriers that China will station in the Indian Ocean.
In five years, it'll be revised down to 8. One for each of the aircraft carriers that China will station in the Indian Ocean.
So just like French military aviation over the years ?
We started with 80, dropped down to 72, then 57, then 36, now 26. Otoh, TEDBF will be our main carrier fighter.
@Picdelamirand-oil
There's a new problem for Rafale. It appears the IN wants twin-seat jets as well. So those 26 will have to be divided between 18 Rafale-M and 8 Rafale-B, which implies only 18 Rafales will be carrier capable versus 26 SHs E/F.
There is only two version of Rafale, the Rafale B and the Rafale M. The Rafale C is a combination of the front section of a Rafale M with the rear section of a Rafale B, and by mounting the front landing gear of the Rafale B on the front section of the Rafale M.
To make a Rafale N that would be two-seater it is enough to keep the rear section of the Rafale M to mount the front section of the Rafale B with the front gear of the Rafale M. This is much easier than making a Typhoon or a navalized Gripen, because it was thought out at the start of the program.
And the French don't need Rafale N to be trained.
The Rafale N was cancelled because the needs of the navy for the aircraft were too small to make it cost-effective, so I don't see how the Indian Navy wanting eight two-seaters would change that calculus.
Also the design would be more involved than this since as I recall the plan for the Rafale N were to remove the gun, perhaps so as to reduce the empty weight of the aircraft. This is indeed an area where the SHornet has an advantage.
Also the design would be more involved than this since as I recall the plan for the Rafale N were to remove the gun, perhaps so as to reduce the empty weight of the aircraft. This is indeed an area where the SHornet has an advantage.
The Peace Dividends were a terrible mistake, but we are now slowly, excruciatingly slowly, getting out of that hole. On the upside, we're not getting casualties to Chinese attacks in the Alps just yet, so we still have some time to rebuild.So just like French military aviation over the years ?
Our naval aviation doubled in few decades and it can only go up. Also, we do not have a culture of backing down so peace is never an option
.Because the competition offers it with better prices.
I guess operating drones requires a back-seat pilot, so it's not a requirement that can be brushed off at this time, like it was in the 90s.
The sooner the better. The less pressure taken off the US in protecting Europe, the more they can concentrate elsewhere.
It's not about protecting Europe, it's about protecting overseas territories which are the only ones that are realistically at risk.
Okay, then effectively a second navy. I don't see anything at that scale happening this decade though.
The development cost is comparable to the cost of three Rafale, but the French navy may be interested in buying 8 Rafale N (that would give them Rafale F4.2) which would allow them to share the cost.
It looks like the additional costs keep on rising. Modification for carrier/jet, creating two-seat Rafale, generally higher cost, euro-dollar difference etc.
France is lucky the IN is gonna go for a GTG instead of a tender. So there is less chance for cost to play a part in it.
I think it depends on the level of automation the jets will eventually have.
We are buying a 4th gen for immediate effect, whereas any major upgrade that will allow full automation will come in only 20-25 years later during MLUs. Whereas an aircraft like the F-35 is still in development and its roadmap will give it more automation allowing work to be carried out with just 1 pilot 10-15 years earlier.
Future jets with FBL and electric motors should be more friendly for computers than current gen's FBW with actuators making automation more efficient, like it's the case with the new Su-57. Although the Russians also want a two-seat for controlling drones. It could also be an easy and cheap way to just increase the number of controllers in the air.
