F-X deal is back on. Brazil back in action

[Vivendi]

IMHO the Gripen is the wild card. Price-wise it is attractive, but not enough to face the FAV Su-30MKV to the north.

I beg to differ -- the Gripen NG will be fully capable to deal with the SU-30s.

Capability-wise the weak point of the NG will be deep strike missions. It has an impressive range with a small payload however it will not be able to carry huge payloads long distances like the other two.

I don't think SH has much chances here -- although the relationship between Obama and Lula may be fine, the Brazilians need to look at this much more long term. Previous south-american experiences with US military equipment has been mixed (key word: arms embargo) so I think Rafale will win this.

If my hypothesis that Brazil wants to avoid potential embargoes in the future is correct then I presume this will also hit Gripen which is 50% american parts?

Vivendi

 

[Vivendi]

Are you sure the date of the announcement is the 7th of September? If that's the case, there no chance in hell Lula can award the contract to SH or Gripen. That would be a real slap in the face for Sarkozy as a guest of honor.

Google Translate

Completion of the F-X2 is postponed to September
Written by Defense Brazil
07 August 2009 10:18

American and Swedish breathe relieved, as they feared a definition of the dispute on the eve of the visit of Nicolas Sarkozy.

Perhaps my hypothesis about reluctance to purchase American is wrong. If it is, then I would agree with SD and put SH and Rafale as the front runners and Gripen as the wild card (cheaper, but unfinished, and some weak points capability-wise compared to the other two).


V

 

[AndiPandi]

...
Perhaps my hypothesis about reluctance to purchase American is wrong. If it is, then I would agree with SD and put SH and Rafale as the front runners and Gripen as the wild card (cheaper, but unfinished, and some weak points capability-wise compared to the other two).

V

Rafale is clearly the best aircraft, but maybe the most expensive?
Super Hornet is probably the most overrated fighter being sold today. What many people seems to be unaware of is that SH did not by far become the improvement of the origrnal F-18 that it was meant to be. Its also lacks a state of the art tactical datalink that Rafale and Gripen is equipped with.

 

[simdude97]

Rafale has not a single export contract yet and is probably quite desperate to get the first one. The initial order is for 36 a/c however most likely they will order more. Brazil is a huge country with a steadily improving economy, and their ambition level is quite clearly indicated by the decision to build a nuclear sub.
Besides, the fly-away cost does not say much. In Norway it has for many years been popular to sell mobile phones for a few NOKs (less than a dollar) however then you need to sign up for a contract with the company selling the phone, lasting at least a year, so the 1NOK telephone is basically just a marketing trick.

SH fly-away is 55 million USD; if Brazil buys SH and "exercises all options" they will pay 7 billion USD for 36 a/c -- the fly-away is interesting, but not very significant it seems.

Vivendi

My understanding of the definition of flyway cost is that it includes the complete system minus expendable stores and pilot. That includes the engines, radar, avionics, etc. In other words add gas, the pilot and missiles. They are making a like to like comparison to the other two planes.

The 7 billion FMS notification you refer to includes the not just the 36 planes but a set of weapons, spare engines, training, support, and spare parts over the life of the contract. In other words it is pretty much the cost to stand up and operationally support 36 Super Hornets over a given period of time.

Click on "Notification of sale of F-18 to Brazil shows details of the proposed $ 7 billion" here to see what is included in the 7 billion:
http://translate.google.com/transla...para-setembro.php&sl=pt&tl=en&history_state0=
The question should be can Saab and Dasaullt offer that comprehensive a package and if so what would it cost?

On another note I too thought it interesting that they are going to announce this deal Sept 7th. Either Rafale has won the bid and Brazil has tipped their hand or someone made a mistake with the date.

 

[simdude97]

Rafale is clearly the best aircraft, but maybe the most expensive?
Super Hornet is probably the most overrated fighter being sold today. What many people seems to be unaware of is that SH did not by far become the improvement of the origrnal F-18 that it was meant to be. Its also lacks a state of the art tactical datalink that Rafale and Gripen is equipped with.

Could you please explain why you think the Super Hornet is overrated? I would think that a fully developed multi role aircraft that comes with a fully developed AESA, IRST, a towed decoy, and the ability to self target ground targets while simultaneously engaging air targets that cost $50 million would be rated pretty highly. Further what is not state of the art about Link22?

 

[Vivendi]

My understanding of the definition of flyway cost is that it includes the complete system minus expendable stores and pilot. That includes the engines, radar, avionics, etc. In other words add gas, the pilot and missiles. They are making a like to like comparison to the other two planes.

The 7 billion FMS notification you refer to includes the not just the 36 planes but a set of weapons, spare engines, training, support, and spare parts over the life of the contract. In other words it is pretty much the cost to stand up and operationally support 36 Super Hornets over a given period of time.

Exactly, and that is the point. This is why I gave the example with the "1-dollar mobile phone". Purchasing such a mobile phone is useless unless you can operate it; purchasing a/c in a fly-away condition is also completely useless since you cannot do anything with a plane in the "fly-away condition". One has to look at what the complete package cost.

It is always extremely difficult to do this however. One thing that can give you a rough idea of costs for Gripen NG is the following document:

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab_OfferGripenNG_170409.pdf

The SH offer to Brazil included some weapons; however you can get an estimate of those costs by googling around a bit. The price of those weapons seems to be pretty well known.

On another note I too thought it interesting that they are going to announce this deal Sept 7th. Either Rafale has won the bid and Brazil has tipped their hand or someone made a mistake with the date.

Look at my post above...

Vivendi.

 

[karan583]

Further what is not state of the art about Link22?

Isn't Link 22 only for NATO members?
That would disqualify Brazil...

 

[AndiPandi]

Could you please explain why you think the Super Hornet is overrated? I would think that a fully developed multi role aircraft that comes with a fully developed AESA, IRST, a towed decoy, and the ability to self target ground targets while simultaneously engaging air targets that cost $50 million would be rated pretty highly. Further what is not state of the art about Link22?

SH is too heavy and underpowered and the range is poor thanks to the 4 degree toe out of the weapons pylons (due to weapons separations problem). The "40% extra range" over the F/A-18 is just not true. And why drag around with the extra structural weight if you wont use it on a carrier anyway? And talking about weight, the SH weighs almost 4 tons more than a Rafale M and cannot carry as much payload as long, and it is not as agile and fast as the Rafale. SH has 5 heavy weapons stations, even the small Gripen has four. Many people seems to assume that a big plane automatically can carry larger payload further, but if you really look into it the SH and the Gripen NG are more similar (in that respect) than the SH and the Rafale.


About datalinks, there is a big difference between the TIDLS of the Gripen (and similar system used on the Rafale) and the american datalinks (Gripen uses both Link-16 and TIDLS for example). This has been discussed in other threads, but to put it simply the TIDLS is used for a smaller groups of fighters (typically a four-group) and allows for sharing not only a targets position but it can also be used in a close-cooperation mode to enable the four radars to work as one. A target that cant be tracked by one Gripen can be tracked by four of them together, transmitting radar data between them in realtime/near realtime. The forward most aircraft can fly with radar off and use information from his buddies and still use his weapons system.

 

[Sintra]

About datalinks, there is a big difference between the TIDLS of the Gripen (and similar system used on the Rafale) and the american datalinks (Gripen uses both Link-16 and TIDLS for example). This has been discussed in other threads, but to put it simply the TIDLS is used for a smaller groups of fighters (typically a four-group) and allows for sharing not only a targets position but it can also be used in a close-cooperation mode to enable the four radars to work as one. A target that cant be tracked by one Gripen can be tracked by four of them together, transmitting radar data between them in realtime/near realtime. The forward most aircraft can fly with radar off and use information from his buddies and still use his weapons system.

Andi

Just a few points.

1º - The Dassault uses the exact same Link 16 that is present in the American Teen fighter series and every modern NATO fighter (the likes of the Typhoon or the Tornado FMK3). It goes to the point of using THE EXACT same terminal that is present on the Super Hornet (or on the Typhoon, or on late batches of Vipers) the MIDS LVT.

2º - The only proprietary French data link that the Adla/MN was looking to integrate in the RAFALE was the Scarabee, plan dumped, they have gone for ROVER.

3º - So, no, the Dassault Rafale in terms of datalink doesnt have any diference from a Super Hornet. Actually, the American fighter through the Growler project/program has the possibility to receive a mil satcom terminal has an upgrade, an option that the French fighter doesnt have (for now).

4º - The capability that you have described has a TILDS exception is present in the Link 16 comunity for quite some time.
The ability of one aircraft to shoot at an adversary that is locked by a partner and update the BVR AAM throught information relayed through Link 16 caming from the partner while having its own radar turned off.
Something like this: 20090104_AMRAAM Firing

5º There are diferences between TILDS and Link16, they were designed with diferent goals in mind, that by itself doesnt mean that one is better than the other.
On a VERY, very broad (and highly simplistic) description we could say that one uses a bigger bandwith in every contact (TILDS), while the other can maintain a lot more "point to point" connections. If you were the USAF, or NATO and had to deal with strike packages of dozens (hundreds) of aircrafts in confined space what would you prefer?

6º I dont think that any Gripen in sqn service is already using Link-16.
That i am aware BAE didnt (yet) completed the integration work (or did they?).

7º It´s useless to compare the Networking capability of the three candidates to the FX2 contest. The "Força Aérea Brasileira" wants to use its own proprietary data link...

Cheers

 

[AndiPandi]

1º - The Dassault uses the exact same Link 16 that is present in the American Teen fighter series and every modern NATO fighter (the likes of the Typhoon or the Tornado FMK3). It goes to the point of using THE EXACT same terminal that is present on the Super Hornet (or on the Typhoon, or on late batches of Vipers) the MIDS LVT.

OK, I admit I am not really up to date when it comes to Rafale data links.

5º There are diferences between TILDS and Link16, they were designed with diferent goals in mind, that by itself doesnt mean that one is better than the other.
On a VERY, very broad (and highly simplistic) description we could say that one uses a bigger bandwith in every contact (TILDS), while the other can maintain a lot more "point to point" connections. If you were the USAF, or NATO and had to deal with strike packages of dozens (hundreds) of aircrafts in confined space what would you prefer?

Exactly, they are different systems and thats why I stressed that Gripen uses both the tactical datalink (TIDLS) and another system for C2 (will be NATO-link in a near future on the C/D jets, A/B jets uses the old swedish system). Personally I would prefer to use both kind of system, like Gripen does.

6º I dont think that any Gripen in sqn service is already using Link-16.
That i am aware BAE didnt (yet) completed the integration work (or did they?).

No, you are correct there. The plan was to use a new swedish system, but then they wanted Link-16, but then everything was delayed for various reasons. So now the C/D jets doesnt have a C2 system at all actually.

7º It´s useless to compare the Networking capability of the three candidates to the FX2 contest. The "Força Aérea Brasileira" wants to use its own proprietary data link...

Well, the TIDLS can be shipped anyway, its not completely useless and can be used together with their own proprietary data link, but if it is included in SAABs offer for Brazil I dont know.

 

[Aussie Digger]

SH is too heavy and underpowered and the range is poor thanks to the 4 degree toe out of the weapons pylons (due to weapons separations problem). The "40% extra range" over the F/A-18 is just not true. And why drag around with the extra structural weight if you wont use it on a carrier anyway? And talking about weight, the SH weighs almost 4 tons more than a Rafale M and cannot carry as much payload as long, and it is not as agile and fast as the Rafale. SH has 5 heavy weapons stations, even the small Gripen has four. Many people seems to assume that a big plane automatically can carry larger payload further, but if you really look into it the SH and the Gripen NG are more similar (in that respect) than the SH and the Rafale.

I'm not going to turn this into a "versus" threads. But consider which aircraft has a 1200+ T/R module AESA radar and which aircraft has a 650+ T/R module PESA radar.

Which aircraft has helmet mounted sights, an active towed decoy, an integrated targeting pod and a full suite of combat proven weapons and which aircraft does not and you can decide about capability yourself...

About datalinks, there is a big difference between the TIDLS of the Gripen (and similar system used on the Rafale) and the american datalinks (Gripen uses both Link-16 and TIDLS for example). This has been discussed in other threads, but to put it simply the TIDLS is used for a smaller groups of fighters (typically a four-group) and allows for sharing not only a targets position but it can also be used in a close-cooperation mode to enable the four radars to work as one. A target that cant be tracked by one Gripen can be tracked by four of them together, transmitting radar data between them in realtime/near realtime. The forward most aircraft can fly with radar off and use information from his buddies and still use his weapons system.

Try researching what you are talking about. The French are using MIDS-LVT. That is the modern data-transmission system (aka - data-link) that uses the Link 16 waveform and is the EXACT same system employed on the Super Hornet.

As to your so-called advantages of TIDLS, with regards to firing from fighters without them using radar, Link 16 achieves EXACTLY the same thing.

Here is a Defencetalk article from only April this year, demonstrating that even Typhoon has this capability, using, you guessed it - MIDS-LVT... SH and other US fighters have had this capability for YEARS...

Eurofighter amraam radar off - Unique AMRAAM Firing with Eurofighter Typhoon | Air Force News at DefenceTalk

Sorry. Bag the Super Hornet all you like, but try and do some research first, so you don't embarrass yourself, too greatly...

 

[swerve]

I'm not going to turn this into a "versus" threads. But consider which aircraft has a 1200 + module AESA and which aircraft has a 650+ T/R module PESA radar.....

No aircraft has a "650+ T/R module PESA radar". Current Rafales have a PESA - with no T/R modules, because it's a PESA - and future Rafales will have an AESA (what is being offered to Brazil, what is flying on development aircraft, & is entering production).

AFAIK the exact number of T/R modules has not been officially stated for either the APG-79 or the RBE2 AA, but IIRC, semi-official statements suggest the APG-79 has ca 1100, & attempts to count those on photos of RBE2 AA prototypes (not possible with APG-79 AFAIK, because published pictures are edited) suggest something in excess of 750.

 

[swerve]

The sales prices for Super and Rafale are surprising. The Super price is about what the Navy is paying for them and Rafale seems low from all that I have read at 50M Euros.

I am surprised Rafale has the edge in technology. I believe it is the Super that is flying with a fully developed in production AESA while the Rafale's RBE2 is a PESA. Further I understand that Rafale cannot self designate ground targets. On the other hand I am not surprised that Gripen NG is seen as a prototype project since much of what Saab has been promising has yet to be delivered.

50mn euros is about what France has been paying for each Rafale (not including VAT, which is not levied on exports), so is perfectly credible.

Current production Rafales have the PESA RBE2, but the Rafale offered to Brazil has the AESA RBE2-AA, which is on order for France. Tested, ordered into production, but production models won't be delivered for a while.

Gripen NG is less developed than either. The challenge for SAAB is to convince potential customers that it can deliver, in time, & on cost. The AESA radar technology is tried & tested, but in production (bought by the USA ) only in a smaller model, & not in the swashplate-mounted configuration of the Gripen NGs radar.

I wonder Dassault can cut the price of Rafale by close to 30 million dollars. That seems like a lot of money considering the fact that Brazil wants ToT and there is a production run of only 36 aircraft. ...

Why do you think it's such a big price cut? It's close to what the only current customer is paying. And the production run of Rafale is not only 36 aircraft. If France buys all the AdlA & MN expect, it'll be 330 even without additional foreign orders, & Brazil does not intend to stop at 36.

The 7 billion FMS notification you refer to includes the not just the 36 planes but a set of weapons, spare engines, training, support, and spare parts over the life of the contract. In other words it is pretty much the cost to stand up and operationally support 36 Super Hornets over a given period of time....

It's about the same as the estimated total cost of ownership per unit of Australias F-18Fs over 10 years, which is surprising, since the Ozzie estimate includes all the in-country costs (operating costs, infrastructure, etc) and a lot more weapons than are listed in the Brazilian offer. Surprisingly expensive, in other words.

The question should be can Saab and Dasaullt offer that comprehensive a package and if so what would it cost?

Of course they can, & I'm sure their offers are comparable in what they include. I expect Dassault is offering an all-French package plus integration of local weapons, & SAAB is dragging along some tame South Africans to remind the Brazilians of what an excellent industrial partner it is, & how easy it is to integrate Brazil's - or Brazil's South African friends' - weapons on Gripen.

 

[Aussie Digger]

No aircraft has a "650+ T/R module PESA radar". Current Rafales have a PESA - with no T/R modules, because it's a PESA - and future Rafales will have an AESA (what is being offered to Brazil, what is flying on development aircraft, & is entering production).

AFAIK the exact number of T/R modules has not been officially stated for either the APG-79 or the RBE2 AA, but IIRC, semi-official statements suggest the APG-79 has ca 1100, & attempts to count those on photos of RBE2 AA prototypes (not possible with APG-79 AFAIK, because published pictures are edited) suggest something in excess of 750.

Did I say PESA? I meant AESA...

There can be little doubt however, that APG-79 is a significantly larger radar than anything the Rafale will ever be able to accomodate, which was my point...

 

[Vivendi]

I'm not going to turn this into a "versus" threads. But consider which aircraft has a 1200 + module AESA and which aircraft has a 650+ T/R module PESA radar.

Which aircraft has helmet mounted sights, an active towed decoy, an integrated targeting pod and a full suite of combat proven weapons and which aircraft does not and you can decide about capability yourself...

All three a/c will be very capable by the expected time of delivery -- according to some news releases all three also meet the requirements of the FAB.

The main weakness of Rafale today is the lack of things like towed decoy, HMS. However the fact that this is not available today should not be too much of concern to the FAB. They should (and will) consider what can be delivered 4-5 years from now.

As for 650 T/R PESA, I suggest you follow your own advice and do some research.

Look at page 12: http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/Fox_Three_nr_8.pdf

Thanks to the RBE2’s scalable architecture, the upgrade to the active antenna simply involves replacing the tube transmitter and passive electronic scanning antenna with around 1,000 active modules.

The RBE2 AESA increases the range by more than 50% compared to the current PESA:

Radar fighter - AESA Radar Successfully Tested on Rafale Fighter Aircraft | Air Force News at DefenceTalk

I doubt the difference between a 1100 T/R and 1000 T/R module antenna will be that huge from an operational point of view. The software is probably more important, and here the Americans has an advantage -- the question is if Brazil will benefit from it or not. They may get a "dumbed-down" version (the latest sidewinders and AMRAAMS seems not to be on offer either...)

V

 

[Bonza]

Rafale is clearly the best aircraft, but maybe the most expensive?
Super Hornet is probably the most overrated fighter being sold today. What many people seems to be unaware of is that SH did not by far become the improvement of the origrnal F-18 that it was meant to be. Its also lacks a state of the art tactical datalink that Rafale and Gripen is equipped with.

*sigh*

Please, PLEASE look at the facts around what you're planning to say before you say it. Your comment about the Super Hornet's datalink is just plain wrong.

It's very popular to bash the Super Hornet these days but even its detractors have had little criticism to do with its datalink...

Presenting uninformed opinion as fact adds NOTHING to the discussion. I'm not saying this to be rude, so I'm sorry if it comes off that way. But in discussions like this, objectivity will get you a whole lot further understanding-wise than personal opinion will.

 

[simdude97]

50mn euros is about what France has been paying for each Rafale (not including VAT, which is not levied on exports), so is perfectly credible.

I am not so sure about that. The French 2009 budget bill calls for an order for 60 units. According to the document -

The total cost of the program for the State was 39.6 billion euros (financial conditions as at 1 January 2008) which brings the unit cost per aircraft (excluding development) between 64 and 70 million euros depending versions, however this value to increase because of ongoing negotiations with the company resulting from the reduction of the original target.

Projet de loi de finances pour 2009 : Défense - Equipement des forces

 

[Aussie Digger]

All three a/c will be very capable by the expected time of delivery -- according to some news releases all three also meet the requirements of the FAB.

The main weakness of Rafale today is the lack of things like towed decoy, HMS. However the fact that this is not available today should not be too much of concern to the FAB. They should (and will) consider what can be delivered 4-5 years from now.

As for 650 T/R PESA, I suggest you follow your own advice and do some research.

Look at page 12: http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fi...teur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/Fox_Three_nr_8.pdf

I'd suggest you look a bit more closely at your own source. It makes very basic errors in what Rafale "has" including the HMS.

That document seems to be from around 2005 and does a lot of "projecting". It is a shame that in 2009, Rafale still does not have many of the capabilities that article talks about so cheerfully...

The RBE2 AESA increases the range by more than 50% compared to the current PESA:

That is not surprising. The RBE2 is rated as probably the worst radar system on a current fighter.

I doubt the difference between a 1100 T/R and 1000 T/R module antenna will be that huge from an operational point of view. The software is probably more important, and here the Americans has an advantage -- the question is if Brazil will benefit from it or not. They may get a "dumbed-down" version (the latest sidewinders and AMRAAMS seems not to be on offer either...)

V

That article says "about 1000" not "1000" and with a significantly smaller nose I can't see how Rafale will manage a radar almost the same size as the Super Hornet, but it doesn't really matter I guess.

The AESA will provide a good enhancement to an under-performing radar system and that is what will count.

As to the US missiles, AIM-120C-7 is THE current highest standard of AMRAAM available for purchase. AIM-120D is still undergoing testing. No doubt AIM-120D will be released for sale in a few years, but it isn't ready yet.

AIM-9M is included in this package and yes, it is not as capable as AIM-9X. I wonder about that though, whether that is because Brazil intends to integrate it's own weapon, A-Darter etc having been mentioned around the traps and these weapons are merely to "tie them over" in the meantime?

 

[AndiPandi]

*sigh*

Please, PLEASE look at the facts around what you're planning to say before you say it. Your comment about the Super Hornet's datalink is just plain wrong.

It's very popular to bash the Super Hornet these days but even its detractors have had little criticism to do with its datalink...

Presenting uninformed opinion as fact adds NOTHING to the discussion. I'm not saying this to be rude, so I'm sorry if it comes off that way. But in discussions like this, objectivity will get you a whole lot further understanding-wise than personal opinion will.

Fact is the The Link-16/Link-22 does not have all the capabilities of the TIDLS.

Fact is the SH did not become the improvement of the F/A-18 it was meant to be, the toe out of the weapon pylons is real and that did affect the performance of the aircraft.

Fact is the SH is heavier than for example the Rafale (4 tons is a lot) but the payload is not as impressive as the payload of the Rafale.

 

[OPSSG]

As a fellow forum member, I ask that you do not persist in trolling. Some of what you state as facts are either wrong or misleading when seen in another context.

Do yourself a favour and treat others as you want to be treated. If you treat other forum members as uninformed, don't be surprised if others come back to show why your posts are uninformed or wrong. You can get along better with others, if you would just preface your posts with:

"I'm not sure about 'x fact' and based on my understanding about 'x fact', I have the following opinion..."​

And given that you also like to arbitrarily declare your opinions as facts, you might want to include a few links to back up your points/opinions.

Fact is the The Link-16/Link-22 does not have all the capabilities of the TIDLS.

There is nothing factual about the above point you are trying to make. Please show me links to enable us to make an informed comparison between the capabilities of Link-22 and TIDLS.

Fact is ...the toe out of the weapon pylons is real and that did affect the performance of the aircraft.

Yes, true within a certain context. But you also neglect to mention that the USN accepted the design compromises in relation to the weapon pylons and that despite the compromise, the pylons still work.

Fact is the SH is heavier than for example the Rafale (4 tons is a lot) but the payload is not as impressive as the payload of the Rafale.

You are now measuring the suitability of fighters on the basis of weight or the basis of the weight they carry? What about taking into consideration other criteria for air to ground missions? What about the capabilities of the targeting pods? Or the range of munitions available?

Kindly consider a different mode of engagement with your fellow forum members - it's perfectly OK to disagree and express an opinion but try to provide a reasoned basis for your disagreement, where possible.