Eurofighter vs Rafale

Status
Not open for further replies.

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Sure... Rafale carries 3X 2000L drop tanks, plus 6X AASM as a standard load
Su-30 isn't even the same category for terms of external payload. Her only real advantage is large internal fuel which frees up a couple heavy pylons for weapons. Her downside is the need for so many pods to carry out her mission... ECM, Laser, Kh-59 datalink or Anti-radiation. Once you put a decent bomb load on it, there are not enough medium pylons for BVRAAMs. Mix and match really isn't in the cards making it a single role plane.
If you are comparing AASM with the KAB-Ls, then I am not impressed. It looks like Rafale is carrying 6 250Kg AASMs along with drop tanks. If you remove drop tanks and fill up all the hard points with weapons for Rafale, it carries a smaller amount as the MKI.

MKI carries 3 1500Kg LGBs compared to 3 1000 Kg bombs by Rafale. Stick drop tanks in and even that capability reduces.
MKI carries 8 500Kg LGBs compared to 5 400Kg bombs by Rafale.

As for unguided bombs, MKI can carry 30 250Kg bombs as compared to 20 on Rafale.

Along with all of this the MKI can still carry 2 R-73s on the wing tips. But such configurations are very rare and may never be used. There is always space between the engine nacelles for the R-77s if we reduce the bomb load a bit, so no issues there.


MKI with 24 250Kg bombs.


An impressive load out. Flanker with 18 250Kg bombs, 4 Air to surface missiles and 2 R-77s.

Anything else you want to add on the MKI. The lets add the Brahmos too. :D
Mix and match is always available on the MKI and that's one of the biggest advantages of a 40 ton aircraft, if rightly modified.

Source from a Dassault engineer said Rafale was 10X stealthier than a Mirage-2000 which gives it an excepted RCS of 0.3m^2. Eurofighter is accepted as slightly larger around 0.5m^2. EADS never mentioned what it was but considering it uses the same technologies as Rafale and has more surface area and larger canards, that is common.
EF claims to have a RCS between 0.1m2 and 0.25m2. It is said to be between 1/2 and 1/3rd the RCS of Rafale. Not a big difference really. Give em a missile to carry and the RCS will increase by minimum 10 times over the clean RCS.

Rafale wins hands down in thermal signature...
That video is not enough to check IR signature management. It depends a lot on type of IR seeker, the wavelength used and the time of the day. Looks like Rafale's picture was taken at night when there is not enough of sunlight to bounce off the aircraft compared to some of the other aircraft.

And so what? With F-35 taking the strike role and recon role, there isn't much impetus to invest in an omnirole Eurofighter. That is why the grand Phase 2 upgrade was canceled for more intermediate additions if and when funding is made available. France has only one plane type taking over 6 different types: Rafale is replacing SEM (naval strike), Crusader (naval air superiority) Mirage F1 (recon), M2000N (nuclear), M2000D (strike) and M2000C (air superiority). All the money goes into one plane with no one to squabble with, it is a serious PLUS for Dassault.
Yeah. Rafale has a lot of advantages beyond air to ground capability. But the MKI's predecessors were also only air to air. Even with aircraft like Su-25 and Su-34, the Russians still wanted a multirole Su-35 and a multirole PAKFA as compared to single role F-22. You could say the needs of air forces have changed since the 80s. The IAF was the first air force to induct an air superiority fighter with significantly modified air to ground capabilities. Rafale was always supposed to be a multirole fighter since the beginning while the EF wasn't. Future changes to EF to keep it relevant in the market will be obvious.
 

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
120
And so what? With F-35 taking the strike role and recon role, there isn't much impetus to invest in an omnirole Eurofighter. That is why the grand Phase 2 upgrade was canceled for more intermediate additions if and when funding is made available. France has only one plane type taking over 6 different types: Rafale is replacing SEM (naval strike), Crusader (naval air superiority) Mirage F1 (recon), M2000N (nuclear), M2000D (strike) and M2000C (air superiority). All the money goes into one plane with no one to squabble with, it is a serious PLUS for Dassault.
That actually is an interesting point ,

UK's F-35 commitments(combined with austerity measures) have already forced them to downgrade their commitment to the Eurofighter Fleet. That's Already one partner in the EF consortium who will not be paying as much for new upgrades.

That leaves only Italy and Germany to bankroll the project.
Italy with its money woes and being F-35( which is budget whore for any Air force) , they are very unlikely to spend $$$

Can we really rely on the Germans to spearhead the Eurofighter on their own.
What happens when one or more partners decide to shut down production lines

India might be stuck paying a huge bill for upgrades , of course i am talking 20 years down the line.
This plane will be with us up to 2050. And we are factoring in Lifetime costs.

France is far more likely to keep funding and producing the Rafale in the long term ,
The Aircraft is already key to all their services , and they are not part of the F-35 budget whoring project.
It might actually cost us less to upgrade , if we stick with what is more likely a more reliable supplier.

Sure the pilots may like the EF better , it's an agile aircraft , but its sounding like its going to cost us more than it may be worth.
When will be flying upgraded MKI and FGFA (Aircraft we have lot more control over and will cost us a whole lot less), the costs paid to acquire and maintain and possibly even bankroll the project seem unnecessary.

Long term , Rafale seems a lot more practical.

The odds of Rafale being chosen as L1 seem increasingly likely.

P.S

An unfortunate development for EF-2000. Only India can save the program. :3
p2p do you really want India to save the EF project with Indian money. That money could be far better spent being allocated for the AMCA.
Heck it could be better used acquiring logistics aircraft , Force multipliers or even better upgrades for existing fleets , even an addition squadron of FGFA would be a more cost effective alternative.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
p2p do you really want India to save the EF project with Indian money. That money could be far better spent being allocated for the AMCA.
Heck it could be better used acquiring logistics aircraft , Force multipliers or even better upgrades for existing fleets , even an addition squadron of FGFA would be a more cost effective alternative.
Of course not. I had apprehensions about the EF's future and mentioned that in a different thread. I think I said I don't want India to spend more money on the EF and end up spending as much as we will on FGFA.

I support Rafale's induction in IAF over EF any day. I have always been a Rafale supporter since 2007.

But I am currently taking the other side only to keep the thread going. Or else we will find a lot of "yes" men which kills discussion.

On the whole the EF will definitely be better if things go right, ie, none of the EF partner nations give up on the aircraft over a few F-35s. For eg; let's consider the F-35 is indeed ready and the Russian figure out a way to lock it on their radar from 100Km away. The Irbis already claims detecting a 0.01m2 target from 90Km away. Then how many countries do you think will prefer an EF or Rafale over the fat-35 cow.

The EF is already 750+ orders strong as compared to Rafale with 280+.

Also I don't believe the EF costs much more than the Rafale. The money for AESA has already been allocated and the Tranche 3 upgrade may not cost as much as you think. The program costs for the Tranche 3 would be around $125Million per unit while the current Rafale program cost per unit is $190Million.

Fly away costs for both EF and Rafale are currently similar. I am guessing both will come at $75-85Million a pop. We may end up paying a Billion more on EF for Tranche 3 compared to Rafale. However there are firms order for 112 Tranche 3 jets and an addition of 126 to 200 boost to the orders from our kitty isn't going to make a huge impact on our pockets. So it is still fair game in the costs front.
 

rudresh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
136
Likes
90
Country flag
this is completelytrue from the cost angle the only worry with the typhoon after singing all the praise is americans have a say in typhoon aveonics and imp sub systems and if purchase some stake in EADS it is truly trouble for india and rafale is away from such things i truly think IN to go with rafale and IAF with typhoon in order to bring parity and kick out any problems
 

slenke

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
135
Likes
19
What a completely useless video comparing the IR-signatures.
 

weg

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
203
Likes
37
That actually is an interesting point ,

UK's F-35 commitments(combined with austerity measures) have already forced them to downgrade their commitment to the Eurofighter Fleet. That's Already one partner in the EF consortium who will not be paying as much for new upgrades.
The UK is not getting the f-35 until 2018 at the earliest and it purely for the carriers, the number maybe as few as 20. They are a replacement for the Tornado/Harrier. Given the problems with the F-35, the UK could even cancel it, most other F-35 countries are have panic attacks about the cost uncertainties. The vectored thrust EF would then be a an obvious choice for the carriers. Given the fact that other aircraft systems have been specifically cancelled to concentrate on the EF and Tornado, I doubt the UK will stop the upgrades, which are carried out continuously in the UK on all systems. The UK supports its defence industry by paying for upgrades to make they more attractive to potential customers as well as better weapons.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
If you are comparing AASM with the KAB-Ls, then I am not impressed. It looks like Rafale is carrying 6 250Kg AASMs along with drop tanks. If you remove drop tanks and fill up all the hard points with weapons for Rafale, it carries a smaller amount as the MKI.
You can't triple rack KAB bombs, they are too large. Can't even double rack them like 500kg AASM...



If you remove those drop tanks you can fit another 6000kg of ordinance. Rafale has more hard-points than any Flanker.

MKI carries 3 1500Kg LGBs compared to 3 1000 Kg bombs by Rafale. Stick drop tanks in and even that capability reduces.
MKI carries 8 500Kg LGBs compared to 5 400Kg bombs by Rafale.

As for unguided bombs, MKI can carry 30 250Kg bombs as compared to 20 on Rafale.
Rafale don't waste her time with unguided bombs. It is a complete waste of space and payload relegated to the annals of the 3rd generation. When it comes to PGMs, Rafale wins hands down as Russia doesn't rack her PGMs. MKI can carry 6 guided munitions while Rafale has 5 pylons for racks and 4 pylons for singles. Rafale can load up with 10X AASM-250 and 6X AASM-500. Or 3X AASM-1000 and 10X AASM-250. With the new AASM-125, we will have the ability for quad mounts.

Along with all of this the MKI can still carry 2 R-73s on the wing tips. But such configurations are very rare and may never be used. There is always space between the engine nacelles for the R-77s if we reduce the bomb load a bit, so no issues there.
MKI cannot carry 8 LGBs as there are no rack mounts for them. She can carry 7 with a max load of 6X KAB-500 and 1X KAB-1500.


MKI with 24 250Kg bombs.
Those are FAB-100s...




An impressive load out. Flanker with 18 250Kg bombs, 4 Air to surface missiles and 2 R-77s.
Nothing impressive about unguided bombs. There are NO ASMs on that loadout.

Anything else you want to add on the MKI. The lets add the Brahmos too. :D
Mix and match is always available on the MKI and that's one of the biggest advantages of a 40 ton aircraft, if rightly modified.
Brahmos takes a structural rebuild to mount it... specialised aircraft.
 

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
120
Brahmos takes a structural rebuild to mount it... specialised aircraft.
I would hardly call it a "structural rebuild" or "specialised"

Its fairly minimal modification , where the mount has to placed under the aircraft.
Any MKI can undergo the procedure. As long as one hard-point is given up basically

Nothing to do with the Aircraft's weight or thrust capabilities is changed.
It's the same MKI on paper , with different mounts.

Your point is just flawed , armand. It the same aircraft with different hardpoints
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
You can't triple rack KAB bombs, they are too large. Can't even double rack them like 500kg AASM...
Not a really big disadvantage. Considering payload on both aircraft is more or less the same.

If you remove those drop tanks you can fit another 6000kg of ordinance. Rafale has more hard-points than any Flanker.
But then you will have a range disadvantage. MKI does not have that shortcoming. Rafale has to sacrifice payload for range and vice versa. But MKI does not have to.

Also the MKI being a bigger aircraft will suffer less from drag as compared to Rafale. Hence fuel loss to compensate for payload is lesser.

Rafale's standard load out is 2 1500l drop tanks, a Damocles pod, 2 Magic IIs, 2 Mica IR and a payload of 6 250Kg bombs or 4 500Kg bombs. MKI is much higher than that in it's standard configuration with the bigger bombs.



At full MTOW the T/W is 0.61 for Rafale while it's 0.67 for MKI.
If we consider the Rafale's standard payload as above with 4 500Kg AASMs and compare that to MKIs standard payload of 4 KAB-500s with 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s with Litening, Rafale will have T/W of 0.80 while MKI is at 0.87 with similar range performance. So at same mission profile the MKI still shows a superior thrust to weight as compared to Rafale.

Rafale don't waste her time with unguided bombs. It is a complete waste of space and payload relegated to the annals of the 3rd generation.
Unguided munitions will never go out of style. They are too important especially in an attrition based war. There have been no attrition based wars for NATO since 1991. Considering aircraft are getting better and better when it comes to processing, the death dot is evolving to be as accurate as a LGB.

When it comes to PGMs, Rafale wins hands down as Russia doesn't rack her PGMs. MKI can carry 6 guided munitions while Rafale has 5 pylons for racks and 4 pylons for singles. Rafale can load up with 10X AASM-250 and 6X AASM-500. Or 3X AASM-1000 and 10X AASM-250. With the new AASM-125, we will have the ability for quad mounts.
The AASM is obviously a more modern option for LGBs while the Russian versions are over 2 decades old. However racks and multiple points are new even for the Rafale. For eg: Your 1000KG AASMs are only on paper while the 125Kg version is in tests. Only the 250Kg bombs are fully operational along with a few 500Kg sorties over Libya.

MKI cannot carry 8 LGBs as there are no rack mounts for them. She can carry 7 with a max load of 6X KAB-500 and 1X KAB-1500.
MKI can carry 4 KAB-500 under the fuselage and 4 on the points under the wings. The area between the nacelles can carry 2 KAB-500s and not 1. The third last point from the wing tip is rated to carry 600Kg. All without racks. If we add one KAB-1500 then she will carry 6 KAB-500.

Unfortunately the racks option is not available for MKI as of today. Perhaps in the future. Maybe the Chinese will have better luck with the LT-2 and 3.

Those are FAB-100s...
Agreed, but the config for 250Kg bombs are the same as I have shown in the second picture.

Nothing impressive about unguided bombs. There are NO ASMs on that loadout.
Oh! Check again. I see 2 KH-25s on the pods along with the R-77. Expect the same configuration on the other wing. What you see there is a standard load out for the MKI. You can take out the 250Kg bombs and replace them with 3 1500Kg bombs and a Litening pod and still carry 2 KH-25s and 2 R-77s with a heavy drag penalty.

Brahmos takes a structural rebuild to mount it... specialised aircraft.
Agreed and we will have over 140 aircraft capable of carrying the Brahmos. Not enough?

Also it isn't much of a structural refit. It is strengthening the hardpoints between the engine arch so it can hold 2.5 tons+ from the current 2 tons. The FGFA will be able to carry 2 Brahmos if it's weight is reduced to 2 tons from the planned 2.5 tons as has been officially suggested by Brahmos chairman Pillai. Perhaps the 2 tons Brahmos will find a way on the MKI as well to bring the total number to 3. Not impressed?

Also let's not forget the MKI is planned to carry 3 to 5 Nirbhay which is a Tomahawk class cruise missile. Now if you are still not impressed then I don't know what will.
 
Last edited:

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
French language docu-report on Dassault Rafale (new video)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Not a really big disadvantage. Considering payload on both aircraft is more or less the same.
When Rafale can double the number of PGMs, it is a huge advantage.

But then you will have a range disadvantage. MKI does not have that shortcoming. Rafale has to sacrifice payload for range and vice versa. But MKI does not have to.
On two tanks, Rafale has an 1860km combat radius. For that loadout Rafale carries 4X Mica and 3X Scalp EG for 4000kg of ordinance. On no tanks, MKI has a 1550km combat radius. For that loadout, Su-30 carries 4X R-27 and 4X R-73 for 1400kg of ordinance. Rafale being the smaller plane with better fuel efficiency outclasses any Flanker in range. It was designed to have high payload so it can carry a couple fuel tanks and still carry large loads.

Also the MKI being a bigger aircraft will suffer less from drag as compared to Rafale. Hence fuel loss to compensate for payload is lesser.
Um.. a bigger aircraft will suffer less drag? Did I hear that right? Bigger aircraft sucks more fuel, MKI also has higher wingloading than the delta wing Rafale. It is painfully obvious which is better on fuel consumption.

Rafale's standard load out is 2 1500l drop tanks, a Damocles pod, 2 Magic IIs, 2 Mica IR and a payload of 6 250Kg bombs or 4 500Kg bombs. MKI is much higher than that in it's standard configuration with the bigger bombs.
Rafale don't use 1500l drop tanks. Standard over Libya are 2X 2000l drop tanks. Matra Magics are no longer in production, MICA is standard on Rafale and it carries 4X MICA over Libya. It does carry either 4X 500kg or 6X 250kg as standard strike loads. It carries 3 Scalp EG as standard penetration loads, all demonstrated over Libya.

At full MTOW the T/W is 0.61 for Rafale while it's 0.67 for MKI.
:laugh: ... Rafale dusts MKI in T/W in all flight regimes



If we consider the Rafale's standard payload as above with 4 500Kg AASMs and compare that to MKIs standard payload of 4 KAB-500s with 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s with Litening, Rafale will have T/W of 0.80 while MKI is at 0.87 with similar range performance. So at same mission profile the MKI still shows a superior thrust to weight as compared to Rafale.
I found a nice picture of an Su-30 standard bomb-load. 4X KAB-500 and 2X R-73.



As the chart shows, Rafale has better thrust to weight in all flight configurations.

Rafale's external payload to empty weight ratio is almost 1:1. Su-30's is about 1:2. Shows you how much more efficient Rafale is in the carry role.

Unguided munitions will never go out of style. They are too important especially in an attrition based war. There have been no attrition based wars for NATO since 1991. Considering aircraft are getting better and better when it comes to processing, the death dot is evolving to be as accurate as a LGB.
They went out of style for France about 15 years ago, all jet rocket pods and dumb bombs were relegated to scrap or reconfiguration. Being the second air force only to USAF who also has done away with them, they are a joke to modern air forces.

The AASM is obviously a more modern option for LGBs while the Russian versions are over 2 decades old. However racks and multiple points are new even for the Rafale. For eg: Your 1000KG AASMs are only on paper while the 125Kg version is in tests. Only the 250Kg bombs are fully operational along with a few 500Kg sorties over Libya.
Rafale has been flying with racks since its inception. Hell, even Mirage-2000 has double racked LGBs for the last 20 years. AASM-125 is ready for export now, AASM-1000 will replace 1000kg Paveways.

MKI can carry 4 KAB-500 under the fuselage and 4 on the points under the wings. The area between the nacelles can carry 2 KAB-500s and not 1. The third last point from the wing tip is rated to carry 600Kg. All without racks. If we add one KAB-1500 then she will carry 6 KAB-500.
Actually, she can't carry 2 KAB-500s centre line. They are too long. The seeker would bump the tail of the first. She can carry 6X KAB-500 total. The two outer wing rails cannot carry bombs, only R-73s. If you are going to carry R-77 you are going to have to use some of your 6medium/heavy pylons.



If you are going to get a similar performance to a standard load Rafale with 4X AASM-500, 2X 2000L drop tanks, 4X MICA and 1X Domacles you are going to have to get creative. 4X KAB-500 as in the picture, a 1600kg centreline drop tank to equal fuel, but then you run out of room for R-77s so you just have to drop to 4X R-73. One engine pylon used for Elta jamming pod and the other for LITENING target pod. Your MKI is still deficient in BVRAAMs, all your pylons are full. Rafale still has 5 pylons left.

Oh! Check again. I see 2 KH-25s on the pods along with the R-77. Expect the same configuration on the other wing. What you see there is a standard load out for the MKI. You can take out the 250Kg bombs and replace them with 3 1500Kg bombs and a Litening pod and still carry 2 KH-25s and 2 R-77s with a heavy drag penalty.
Oh! Check again. It isn't Kh-25s. It is another R-27 with a different training (red) seeker head. Kh-25s are 500kg bombs, much thicker and fins are nowhere as large.

Standard load are dumb bombs? How embarrassing. :sorry:

Agreed and we will have over 140 aircraft capable of carrying the Brahmos. Not enough?
I thought the order was 40. Now that Russia won't do it, I will be an old man before it ever gets done.

Also it isn't much of a structural refit. It is strengthening the hardpoints between the engine arch so it can hold 2.5 tons+ from the current 2 tons. The FGFA will be able to carry 2 Brahmos if it's weight is reduced to 2 tons from the planned 2.5 tons as has been officially suggested by Brahmos chairman Pillai. Perhaps the 2 tons Brahmos will find a way on the MKI as well to bring the total number to 3. Not impressed?
GoI just told Russia to go f*** herself on the price quote for Brahmos refit. Should I be impressed? It is a 2550kg load, you will only ever be able to carry one as you need dual locks to hold it. I would much rather carry an ASMP-A that has twice the range, an extra Mach speed and a nuclear warhead.

Also let's not forget the MKI is planned to carry 3 to 5 Nirbhay which is a Tomahawk class cruise missile. Now if you are still not impressed then I don't know what will.
And pigs will fly when? I imagine the hypersonic ASMP will be around before that.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
When Rafale can double the number of PGMs, it is a huge advantage.
Only without drop tanks and that too at range limitation. We have discussed it.

On two tanks, Rafale has an 1860km combat radius. For that loadout Rafale carries 4X Mica and 3X Scalp EG for 4000kg of ordinance. On no tanks, MKI has a 1550km combat radius. For that loadout, Su-30 carries 4X R-27 and 4X R-73 for 1400kg of ordinance. Rafale being the smaller plane with better fuel efficiency outclasses any Flanker in range. It was designed to have high payload so it can carry a couple fuel tanks and still carry large loads.
Drop tanks add to payload. Once you enter enemy air space you will mostly dump your drop tanks. Libya isn't a major threat.

Um.. a bigger aircraft will suffer less drag? Did I hear that right? Bigger aircraft sucks more fuel, MKI also has higher wingloading than the delta wing Rafale. It is painfully obvious which is better on fuel consumption.
If the MKI is carrying one KAB500 and if you give the LCA one KAB500. Then the drag on LCA will be much higher than the drag on MKI because of obvious differences in size and power. It follows the same principle. If we take Rafale and MKI on clean loads the drag on MKI is higher because it is bigger. But if you want to compare the two neck and neck, the drag on the Rafale is higher when carrying payload. Give the same Rafale weapons to the MKI and the drag on MKI will be significantly lesser.

For eg: When the MKI is carrying a Brahmos in the centre line in the arch, the aircraft is not considered to have a drag penalty by a huge margin because the aircraft design handles it.

Rafale don't use 1500l drop tanks. Standard over Libya are 2X 2000l drop tanks. Matra Magics are no longer in production, MICA is standard on Rafale and it carries 4X MICA over Libya. It does carry either 4X 500kg or 6X 250kg as standard strike loads. It carries 3 Scalp EG as standard penetration loads, all demonstrated over Libya.
Hmm. No 1500lt tanks mean the T/W is slightly lower or slightly higher depending if they use the 2000lt or 1250lt. 100 Kgs here or there does not change math as much to affect T/W.

As for Scalp EG. The MKI is equipped to carry popeyes. Then we have this as a future option;
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI...30MKI+armed+with+BrahMos+MRCM+and+Kh-31P2.jpg

Brahmos and 2 KH-31s with 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s.

:laugh: ... Rafale dusts MKI in T/W in all flight regimes
Just do the math will ya. I know I did.

I found a nice picture of an Su-30 standard bomb-load. 4X KAB-500 and 2X R-73.
A Su-30 isn't an MKI. It's like comparing the Rafale F1 to Rafale F3. Only other MKI equivalent Flanker are the Algerian and Malaysian Flankers along with Su-35.

Also the MKM, MKA and Su-35 comes with standard Damocles pod that is being made in Russia under licence. We rejected the Damocles for Litening while Malaysia chose Damocles for political reasons(Muslim-Israel). Russia will standardize on Damocles for Su-35 and Su-34 until newer models meant for PAKFA come out.

As the chart shows, Rafale has better thrust to weight in all flight configurations.
Not true. MKI is not bogged down by 4000Lt worth of external fuel. Just do the math. 4000 lt = 2.7 tons of fuel. You already know the weight for the rest of the equipment.

They went out of style for France about 15 years ago, all jet rocket pods and dumb bombs were relegated to scrap or reconfiguration. Being the second air force only to USAF who also has done away with them, they are a joke to modern air forces.
Don't worry about it. They will come running back to dumb bombs when an attrition based war starts. It would be funny if LGBs become completely useless because the enemy has covered all targets in thick smoke.

Actually, she can't carry 2 KAB-500s centre line. They are too long. The seeker would bump the tail of the first. She can carry 6X KAB-500 total. The two outer wing rails cannot carry bombs, only R-73s. If you are going to carry R-77 you are going to have to use some of your 6medium/heavy pylons.
Wrong info. Brahmos is 8.5m. The MKI centreline is 9m while the KAB-500 at it's biggest config is 3m. Even 2 KAB-1500 can fit under the arch if it wasn't for the weight since they measure only 4m.

If you are going to get a similar performance to a standard load Rafale with 4X AASM-500, 2X 2000L drop tanks, 4X MICA and 1X Domacles you are going to have to get creative. 4X KAB-500 as in the picture, a 1600kg centreline drop tank to equal fuel, but then you run out of room for R-77s so you just have to drop to 4X R-73. One engine pylon used for Elta jamming pod and the other for LITENING target pod. Your MKI is still deficient in BVRAAMs, all your pylons are full. Rafale still has 5 pylons left.
MKI's load out picture isn't available. The closest to it is the Su-35 load out. Check that and satisfy yourself.

I thought the order was 40. Now that Russia won't do it, I will be an old man before it ever gets done.
GoI just told Russia to go f*** herself on the price quote for Brahmos refit. Should I be impressed? It is a 2550kg load, you will only ever be able to carry one as you need dual locks to hold it. I would much rather carry an ASMP-A that has twice the range, an extra Mach speed and a nuclear warhead.
40 existing aircraft will be modified to hold Brahmos while the remaining which are being manufactured will come with the modification.

ASMP is slower than Brahmos and comes only as a Nuclear option. Brahmos is an all purpose missile including Nuclear. ASMP A is still in development.

The report about GoI and Russia getting into a spat is wrong news. Brahmos Chairman Pillai himself said the information is wrong. The MKIs are already undergoing modifications and the contract was signed years ago.

And pigs will fly when? I imagine the hypersonic ASMP will be around before that.
Should be by 2015.
 
Last edited:

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,551
Likes
7,468
Country flag
Mr. Armand, sure Rafale is good but please lets go a bit easy with the Mki bashing. Firstly, ASSM, nice weapon but at over 120K euros a piece hardly worth it, a simple JDAM-ER can hit a target further at a much lower price, Israeli Spice munitions are very handy at a lower cost as well, SDB too can hit targets at over 60 km, its, cheaper smaller and an aircraft like a simple f-16 can carry over 16 of them, SDB can hit moving as well as hardened targets. Cheaper weapons make better sense for India due to the sheer size of its enemies. Both China/Pak have hundreds of targets and at such prices ASSM makes little sense. Plus for targets like armored columns we got the new CBU-97/105 sensor fuzed weapon that can kill 40 targets in a single bomb.

Lets be practical ASSM isn't iseful for India. Secondly, MICA doesn't have the range of r-77, which will be fired from longer ranges, MKI will soon get AESA which will further make it deadlier and its AESA will be far better than the RBE-2 AESA which as we know has a lower detection range.

Sure Rafale can deploy the ASMP, a nuke warhead, which speeds away at mach 2 to mach 3 and flies a straight path while the Brahmos flies the same 300 km range at mach 3 and can perform supersonic terminal maneuvers and can also be fitted with a nuke warhead. Not to mention it will sink a french carrier without the need for a nuke warhead. Now, we know how the French messed up the French Polynesian country side due to their nukes, we on the other hand keep our nukes as a last option and test them on our own soil instead of messing up someone else's backyard.

Mki will still see the Rafale first and shoot first, thus putting the Rafale into a defensive position, a twin r-77 will certainly kill the Rafale. GOI is indeed having discussion on price for fitting Brahmos rest assured the first test will happen soon.

Nirbhay is slated for testing soon as well. it will have a range of 1000 km and carry 24 types of warhead. Hypersonic ASMP? haha lets first get over all the strikes happening in France!

Actually an EF, Super Hornet, F-16 Super Viper, will kill the Rafale in BVR. They all carry longer range missiles not to mention Aim-120D soon to be operational on the Super Hornet. Easy brag about Rafale but how come still no buyers? Even though the French offer full-tot to Brazil and claim ITAR free only to be brought back to earth by the DTSA saying that the Rafale contains safety systems, radar components and targeting systems subject to ITAR laws.

Lets not make the Rafale upto be something more than a just good aircraft.

P2Prada sir ji, even the Malaysian/Algerian flankers dont match the MKI, our Rambha is truly unique with better computers, mission systems etc.
 
Last edited:

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,496
Likes
17,874
Actually an EF, Super Hornet, F-16 Super Viper, will kill the Rafale in BVR. They all carry longer range missiles not to mention Aim-120D soon to be operational on the Super Hornet. Easy brag about Rafale but how come still no buyers?
No Buyers we talked about that it lost many due to geo-political reason.F-18 in spite of all the hype around it is not feasible for India you can't have 2 high end planes in an airforce this is ridiculous.
The RAFALE offers flexibility,good tech and most importantly independent choice (no end user agreements). BVR missiles are available for Rafale btw the MRCA chosen will be fitted with India's Astra missile.
What many people fail to realise is that Rafale at its inception was developed by the French to replace all different types of aircraft it airforce had since this plane would be able to perform all mission required hence its a truly multirole fighter.

... Rafale dusts MKI in T/W in all flight regimes
SU-30 MKI is a much larger aircraft compared to Rafale
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,551
Likes
7,468
Country flag
I am not really saying we should buy the Super Horny, i am just saying currently, in BVR EF, F-18 and F-16 block 60 will easily out match the Rafale, new BVR on rafale will need integration. Dont know how independent the Rafale can be with Unkil supplying critical parts to it inluding radar component and targeting systems.

Sure we wont have end use agreements but Full-tot will still need US clearance and as long as US can influence a product, we're never truly free to do what we want. I do agree Rafale is a good aircraft but all political issues aside the Horny too is a truly multirole aircraft, with new engines, new cockpit, new MAWS, new stealth pods and weapons, pound for pound it offers similar capabilities for a lower operational and acquisition cost. The Horny International is indeed a very exciting offer. In an ideal world that would have been the ideal aircraft for India.

But since we're going the EU way, i say we go for the Typhoon, it has far more potential, bring in new AESA, TVC, Meteor, add weapons like Laser JDAM, Small Dia Bomb( it should be able to carry atleast , CBU-97sfw, Alarm, Slam-er, Paveways 3/4, Sudharshan, Helina-er, Griffin kits, Popeye-2, Delilah and we have ourselves a kick ass aircraft. Plus the EF can perform supersonic launches while supercrusing thus adding more speed to bomb launches and destructive power on weapon impact.
 

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
IMPACTS OF THE INDIAN FIGHTER COMPETITION
by Robbin Laird

05/16/2011

India is clearly a key player in shaping the future of Chinese power, globally and in the Pacific. At the same time, the significant 2nd and 3rd world fighter market will be dominated by exports from China, Russia, India or Brazil.

Neither the U.S. nor Europe is planning a lower cost export fighter. Indian leadership when they saw the Chinese role out of the J-20 understood its impact on global markets. This is an advanced aircraft, which will have implications for upgrades for customers of Chinese fighter aircraft.

The Bush and Obama Administrations have seen the Indian fighter contract as a cornerstone of building military relationships as part of the curtailment of China.

U.S. commentators have largely interpreted the elimination of the US aircraft as due to the inability of the U.S. to transfer advanced technology to India, the US lost. This is at best a generous interpretation.

These are 40 year old air frames; and the uncertain technology transfer process surrounding the U.S. offerings certainly raised questions in the Indian minds about the ability moving forward to upgrade its new franchise combat aircraft.


Either Eurofighter or Rafale promise a much newer airframe, with upgrade paths. And a merging of India with European combat aircraft expertise could provide a significant boost to exports into the 2nd and 3rd world.


And this puts the Europeans dead center into the question of the evolution of Chinese military capabilities. They will be part of the effort to constrain China, whether they want to or not.


The Geopolitics


The Indian leadership has made it quite clear that one has to choose between Pakistan and India. And the recent findings from the elimination of Number 1 in the most famous global terrorist organization – Osama Bin Laden – have not helped.

Indians believe that the Pakistani military and government are harboring terrorists and the long stay of Bin Laden in Pakistan certainly seems to be puzzling.

The U.S. is engaged in a campaign with no end in Afghanistan, what a colleague called a permanent IDIQ for the US Army; continues raids into Pakistan which both result in, from an Indian point of view, downplaying the significance of India. The elimination of U.S . aircraft is surely part of this process. And also raise questions about the other programs in play, the P-8 and the C-17.

One could note as well the absence of focus in Europe on what it means if Europe and India get joined at the hip on building new fighter aircraft for the indefinite future.

First, Europe or at least part of Europe, now has to back India in any fight with China.


Second, the EU commission's notion of lifting Arms Embargos against China is certainly challenged by Europe's own actions.

Thirdly, the balancing of China and India now becomes a core European priority.


Fourth, and how will European labor unions respond to the transfer of the future of European fighter combat construction to India?

And for the U.S. it is also clear that Eurofighter or Rafael will not be the last manned combat aircraft built by Europeans. The European engagement in JSF is significant and will continue.

But now there is an alternative track being generated by the prospects of a Euro-Indian combat air project. Of course, potential is not actuality. And many challenges have to be met on the path of a new combat aircraft coming from the Indian-European partnership, but certainly there is a distinct possibility.

Potential Impacts on the Global Defense Industry


But the Indian decision to downselect European combat aircraft does raises a number of core questions about the potential impacts on the global defense industry.

First, whichever European company or consortium wins will be in a key position to build a new manned fighter for Europe itself in the future. There is significant potential for India and Europe to sort through a collaborative effort, which will not just be about SELLING a fighter TO India, but rather reshaping European offerings to Europe in the future.

Second, assuming the Indian collaboration can yield a cost effective and capable product, such a product could become globally viable with significant 2nd and 3rd world sales opportunities.

Third, perhaps the Euro-Indian team could also anchor a version of the SAAB global offerings. SAAB has offered a combat aircraft and a command and control aircraft and would clearly wish to add a UAV to the mix. There is a potential to take the Euro-Indian team into such waters whereby sensors and weapons can be distributed across three platforms, unmanned, manned and C4ISR.

Fourth, the Chinese-Indian competition just ramped up in the aerospace field. Now Europe will have an interesting problem managing the competition. India would clearly like offsets from whomever will win which will embed European aerospace further into a partnership with India. How will China respond to all of this?

Fifth, and not forgetting the United States: Will its offerings in India make it through the Obama Administration's policy machinery on technology transfer issues. And let us be clear it is not about transferring technology it is about having a timely, transparent and well managed PROCESS to work with partners.

The Eurofighter Factor


What are the strategic potentials of a Eurofighter in India from an industrial point of view?

Much depends on what India is able to do and can re-organize itself to do. If properly organized, India could shape a significant aerospace future and Eurofighter could become a key stimulant to such a future.

The collaboration necessary to make Eurofighter work in India – with significant local support – requires more than simply transferring technology. It requires in effect a European and Indian concurrent engineering process. If such a process can be shaped in the period of constructing, enabling and supporting an Indian Eurofighter then several other possibilities emerge.

An Indian-European congruent engineering capability could shape the future of exports from India to the second and third world combat aircraft markets. Here European engineering excellence combined with Indian manufacturing capabilities and IT excellence could create a global gamechanger. Not exactly Tata Nanos for the aerospace market but you get the point.

The congruence could craft the next generation of manned European combat aircraft as well. Such an aircraft could be designed with the other innovations in mind with significant impact, namely 5th generation aircraft and remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs).

Then the possibility of working a sensor and processing enterprise across manned assets –combat aircraft and command and control aircraft – as well as RPAs can be envisaged. For different clients, different mixes of sensors and communication and management assets could be placed on the combat versus large aircraft versus UAV platforms. Such mix and match possibilities could drive serious innovation.


And finally, EADS as key Eurofighter company has other assets of interest to India, such as Airbus commercial and military Airbus platforms. A400Ms and A330 tankers could be in play, and notably related to the sensor enterprise discussed above. The air tanker is an especially interesting platform to include in the mix because of all the space inside the A330 tanker, which can be used for C2 and related options.

And of course, Airbus, unlike Boeing, has demonstrated a willingness to build overseas final assembly plants. The US after turning down the opportunity to build tankers in Mobile, Alabama, and freighters and future Airbus commercial products may be shocked to see such facilities some day in India.

The Rafale Factor



The French Rafale is one of the two European aircraft downselected in the Indian fighter competition. Although the plane has yet to win an export order, the flagship Dassault combat aircraft has progressed to the point that India as well as Brazil could seriously select it as their next generation combat aircraft.

A major advantage vis a vis Eurofighter is that the Indians already have in their Russian aircraft a higher altitude combat aircraft and in this way similar to Eurofighter. And when the Indians did not select the engine for their light combat aircraft from the consortium supplying the Eurofighter engine, many analysts assumed this meant that Eurofighter would not be downselected in the fighter competition. A GE engine was selected for the LCA.

GE F414 Engines Selected to Power India LCA Program | Air Force News at DefenseTalk

The Rafale is a multi-mission aircraft closer to the F-16 or F-18 class aircraft than to the F-15 or the Eurofighter. Several Indian sources have made it clear to SLD that the class of aircraft, which the F-16 represents, is in the sweet spot of their needs.

As such, the Rafale has advantages.

The French Air Force and Navy have evolved the aircraft over the past few years in actual operational settings; as such the aircraft has demonstrated its multi-mission capabilities and ability to be supported in relatively austere settings.

General Bansard on Logistics and Sustainment in France (Part Two) | SLDInfo

Alain Bonny On: Rafale Care, One Year Later | SLDInfo

The Rafale has been used effectively in combat operations, and demonstrated its ability for flexible operations.

French Ops in Libya | SLDInfo

The Future of C2 | SLDInfo

Rafale has a naval version, which is clearly of interest to the Indian Navy and its evolution of carrier aviation.

France-Etats-Unis : interopérabilité croissante | SLDInfo.com/fr

Le Charles de Gaulle : cinquième déploiement en Océan indien en moins de dix ans | SLDInfo.com/fr

There is a common concern of those countries, which have NOT selected Rafale, and that is the belief that the plane is underpowered. And this certainly is not the case with the Eurofighter. Might this mean that the SNECMA engine could be replaced in favor of a GE-Snecma variant yet to be determined? Or do the French and Indians work on a new engine? Or that simply the aircraft continues as it is in the competition and if it wins, continues the course?

A Dassault-Thales team would be at the heart of any alliance with the Indians in shaping the future of Rafale. Thales as a global company could become significantly enhanced in its ability to shape price competitive products with such an alliance, and be well positioned in the next decades both for products in the second and third world as well as working a new basis for R and D and manufacturing in their European operations.



Conclusion

The Indian downselect has the distinct possibility of reshaping the global competition in global combat aircraft, and indeed in shaping the future of air operations for years to come. So why ignore it?

There is a shift in the tectonic plates going on and the Washington crowd is missing in action. After all, inside the beltway is not the center of the universe. I think the flat earth society would love the Washington fixation with itself.


Impacts of the Indian Fighter Competition | SLDInfo
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,496
Likes
17,874
Dude, you're showing typical french arrogance at its best. Ease down and show some respect, you're not a superpower anymore.
French consider themselves as legislators of aviation too bad they should better concentrate on controlling immigrants in their country who kicking their a$$ there.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Dude, you're showing typical french arrogance at its best. Ease down and show some respect, you're not a superpower anymore.
Dude, you're showing typical loser whining. Show some respect and quit trolling.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Only without drop tanks and that too at range limitation. We have discussed it.
Actually, with drop tanks. We already discussed it.

Drop tanks add to payload. Once you enter enemy air space you will mostly dump your drop tanks. Libya isn't a major threat.
With one tank Rafale is equal to MKI internal fuel, she still has more bombs with it. Su-30 series aren't even combat tested, much less MKI.

If the MKI is carrying one KAB500 and if you give the LCA one KAB500. Then the drag on LCA will be much higher than the drag on MKI because of obvious differences in size and power. It follows the same principle. If we take Rafale and MKI on clean loads the drag on MKI is higher because it is bigger. But if you want to compare the two neck and neck, the drag on the Rafale is higher when carrying payload. Give the same Rafale weapons to the MKI and the drag on MKI will be significantly lesser.
Drag is caused by friction on the surface of the aircraft, the larger the surface the more drag. Rafale with an extra fuel tank is not even going to compare to the drag of MKI, and then there is the issue of the high drag of Russian munitions to low drag Western with folded fins. MKI uses bigger engines to move her fat ass through the air, which in turn consumes more fuel.
For eg: When the MKI is carrying a Brahmos in the centre line in the arch, the aircraft is not considered to have a drag penalty by a huge margin because the aircraft design handles it.
That would be more of an issue affecting lift. Flankers use the fuselage area for a chunk of their lift ratio and sticking ordinance under it breaks that lift flow. That is why it is a last resort for such fighters, whether MiG-29 or Flankers and don't like to put ordinance there.

Hmm. No 1500lt tanks mean the T/W is slightly lower or slightly higher depending if they use the 2000lt or 1250lt. 100 Kgs here or there does not change math as much to affect T/W.
Hmmm. No, I was correcting your false assumption.

As for Scalp EG. The MKI is equipped to carry popeyes. Then we have this as a future option;
Su-30MKI+armed+with+BrahMos+MRCM+and+Kh-31P2.jpg (image)

Brahmos and 2 KH-31s with 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s.
So why do you post a link to a Brahmos pic? MKI never carries Popeye.

Just do the math will ya. I know I did.
Apparently not well enough, aircraft never fly at MTOW. :laugh:

A Su-30 isn't an MKI. It's like comparing the Rafale F1 to Rafale F3. Only other MKI equivalent Flanker are the Algerian and Malaysian Flankers along with Su-35.
I guess it would be, there are little differences in flight regime to Rafale F1 and F3.

Also the MKM, MKA and Su-35 comes with standard Damocles pod that is being made in Russia under licence. We rejected the Damocles for Litening while Malaysia chose Damocles for political reasons(Muslim-Israel). Russia will standardize on Damocles for Su-35 and Su-34 until newer models meant for PAKFA come out.
The pod has 5 end users and growing. With the Russians adopting it as their primary bomb FLIR, it will be one of the largest produced late gen pods. It already has more orders than LITENING III.

Not true. MKI is not bogged down by 4000Lt worth of external fuel. Just do the math. 4000 lt = 2.7 tons of fuel. You already know the weight for the rest of the equipment.
Not true. Rafale will have emptied those tanks by the time it goes into combat where T/W is an issue... next

Don't worry about it. They will come running back to dumb bombs when an attrition based war starts. It would be funny if LGBs become completely useless because the enemy has covered all targets in thick smoke.
Don't worry about it. You will not understand until you realise one bomb on target is worth 100 off target.

Wrong info. Brahmos is 8.5m. The MKI centreline is 9m while the KAB-500 at it's biggest config is 3m. Even 2 KAB-1500 can fit under the arch if it wasn't for the weight since they measure only 4m.
Brahmos has nothing to do with the KAB-500. What matters is the distance between the two pylons and the protrusion length of the KAB kits. It is already laid out in the APA diagram.

MKI's load out picture isn't available. The closest to it is the Su-35 load out. Check that and satisfy yourself.
It was the Su-30MK load out which has the same hard-points as the MKI. Check that...

40 existing aircraft will be modified to hold Brahmos while the remaining which are being manufactured will come with the modification.
There has been no modification order to already contracted work. India don't even know what needs to be done.

ASMP is slower than Brahmos and comes only as a Nuclear option. Brahmos is an all purpose missile including Nuclear. ASMP A is still in development.
ASMP A has been in service since July 2010. It is a Mach faster and twice the range of the oversized Brahmos.

The report about GoI and Russia getting into a spat is wrong news. Brahmos Chairman Pillai himself said the information is wrong. The MKIs are already undergoing modifications and the contract was signed years ago.
So price negotiations are finalised? Do show me where because they had not been last month. :laugh:

Should be by 2015.
A hypersonic ASMP by 2015 is realistic given our advanced missile designs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top