Alternatives to Dassault Rafale

[Scarface]

Oh I see ...So US is mad enough to buy those fighters ...and some other countries too which include Israel too

[sarcasm]Yup,totally.Stupid U.S,U.K,Israel,Japan,South Korea,Australia,Netherlands [/sarcasm]

The only alternatives worth considering to the Rafale are 5th Gen fighters. No point in spending money on inferior fighters,in my humble opinion of course.

 

[SajeevJino]

[sarcasm]Yup,totally.Stupid U.S,U.K,Israel,Japan,South Korea,Australia,Netherlands [/sarcasm]

The only alternatives worth considering to the Rafale are 5th Gen fighters. No point in spending money on inferior fighters,in my humble opinion of course.

I won't argue with you ..Since you're more intelligent than those above mentioned countries experts

 

[Scarface]

I won't argue with you ..Since you're more intelligent than those above mentioned countries experts

I think you missed the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] in my post.

 

[sob]

yes he definitely missed it.

 

[rockey 71]

Ghum fer'kar IAF will get F-35 as ordained by yankees.

 

[kstriya]

Like it or not only alternative for Rafael is LCA Tejas, later we can have PAK FA T50. If we get the Rafael it would be restricted to 36 as a stop gap for dwindling IAF squadron.

 

[Scarface]

Like it or not only alternative for Rafael is LCA Tejas, later we can have PAK FA T50. If we get the Rafael it would be restricted to 36 as a stop gap for dwindling IAF squadron.

I doubt that the Tejas can replace the Rafale, Rafale is a medium-heavy fighter and Tejas is light, and I doubt HAL production lines can make more Tejas any faster even than current rate if it were a valid alternative.

Does anyone know how many Tejas HAL can make in a year ? Maybe if we get private contractors in we can speed it up.


FGFA is something that could have been a better and cheaper alternative but apparently GoI/IAFs jury is still out on whether we should get it or not and it's not ready for export yet either.

Confusing situation IAF is in

 

[kstriya]

I doubt that the Tejas can replace the Rafale, Rafale is a medium-heavy fighter and Tejas is light, and I doubt HAL production lines can make more Tejas any faster even than current rate if it were a valid alternative.

Does anyone know how many Tejas HAL can make in a year ? Maybe if we get private contractors in we can speed it up.


FGFA is something that could have been a better and cheaper alternative but apparently GoI/IAFs jury is still out on whether we should get it or not and it's not ready for export yet either.

Confusing situation IAF is in

8 SP's per year which HAL plans to increase to 16. With a parallel production line from private sector we can get the production to 24 or 32 a year.

Tejas is cheaper than Rafael and can accommodate a bigger AESA. Its range can be made comparable with conformal tanks like the Israeli's did with their F16's, which will make a twin engine redundant. With newer variants and use of technology developed for AMCA, Tejas can be made equal to the SU 35 or near 5th gen air craft.

I am hoping we do develop a Mk 3 variant which will be a 5th generation fighter with maximum composite materials used and a desi engine.

 

[jaci_zenfone2]

The Serbs had Intel supporting them, they knew the F-117As flight path and time.

And the fact is since 1983-2016,there has been only 1 Stealth aircraft that has been shot down ever.In the same time period there have been more than 50 losses of non - Stealth aircraft better known as 4th Gen aircraft

That's the kind of combat record Stealth can achieve, something 4th Gen has failed to do.


Be reasonable. That's all I wish to say

Than anyone who will have Intel about f35 flight path and time they can shoot them too. [emoji12]

The fact is since 1983 not many stealth aircraft were operational.And between the operational ones not many have gone to a war.The ones that have gone to war did not have a capable opponent. [emoji13]

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

 

[Scarface]

8 SP's per year which HAL plans to increase to 16. With a parallel production line from private sector we can get the production to 24 or 32 a year.

Tejas is cheaper than Rafael and can accommodate a bigger AESA. Its range can be made comparable with conformal tanks like the Israeli's did with their F16's, which will make a twin engine redundant. With newer variants and use of technology developed for AMCA, Tejas can be made equal to the SU 35 or near 5th gen air craft.

I am hoping we do develop a Mk 3 variant which will be a 5th generation fighter with maximum composite materials used and a desi engine.

Conformal tanks have their own drawbacks .Tejas which is already a light fighter cannot afford to reduce it's payload

Than anyone who will have Intel about f35 flight path and time they can shoot them too. [emoji12]

The fact is since 1983 not many stealth aircraft were operational.And between the operational ones not many have gone to a war.The ones that have gone to war did not have a capable opponent. [emoji13]

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

You can shoot down anything if you know it's flight path and timing, assuming your SAM hasn't been reduced to rubble by Stand off missiles like JASSM or HARM or the Kh-31.

Since 1983 F-117 alone has flown thousands of sorties , especially in gulf war over Iraq who also had S-125s and even more advanced SA-8 compatible systems than Serb SAMs.In those thousands of sorties only 1 aircraft was shot down and people parade it around like it's an achievement.

 

[tejas warrior]

Possible Alternatives to Dassault Rafale is 400+ Tejas mk1/2 backed by Su30Mki/Super Sukhoi + 1000+ Brahmos.

Now dare to attack India.

 

[jaci_zenfone2]

Conformal tanks have their own drawbacks .Tejas which is already a light fighter cannot afford to reduce it's payload

You can shoot down anything if you know it's flight path and timing, assuming your SAM hasn't been reduced to rubble by Stand off missiles like JASSM or HARM or the Kh-31.

Since 1983 F-117 alone has flown thousands of sorties , especially in gulf war over Iraq who also had S-125s and even more advanced SA-8 compatible systems than Serb SAMs.In those thousands of sorties only 1 aircraft was shot down and people parade it around like it's an achievement.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

 

[kstriya]

Conformal tanks have their own drawbacks .Tejas which is already a light fighter cannot afford to reduce it's payload
.

Conformal tanks will free the hard points used for external fuel tanks and will let the jet carry more stores. Its a great innovative idea of the Israelis and i suggest the same for our war bird.We can get their assistance fir the same. This is for long range missions where the contact with enemy will be after the tanks are offloaded.

 

[Scarface]

Conformal tanks will free the hard points used for external fuel tanks and will let the jet carry more stores. Its a great innovative idea of the Israelis and i suggest the same for our war bird.We can get their assistance fir the same. This is for long range missions where the contact with enemy will be after the tanks are offloaded.

Conformal Tanks will increase Tejas' wing load and overall weight and also cause drag to hamper the maneuverability.

Sure it won't take up extra hard points but the wing load will increase nonetheless

 

[kstriya]

Conformal Tanks will increase Tejas' wing load and overall weight and also cause drag to hamper the maneuverability.

Sure it won't take up extra hard points but the wing load will increase nonetheless

Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) are additional fuel tanks fitted closely to the profile of an aircraft that extend either the range or "time on station" of the aircraft, with a reduced aerodynamic penalty compared to external drop tanks.

Conformal fuel tanks have the disadvantage that, unlike drop tanks, they cannot be discarded in flight, because they are plumbed into the aircraft and so can only be removed on the ground. As a result, they may impose a drag-penalty on the aircraft, even when the tanks are empty, without any benefit. They can also impose g-load limits and they add a slight, though negligible, weight gain to the aircraft, even when empty. While the weight gain and drag penalty are always present, g-load limitation is not always an absolute issue. The CFTs on the F-15E actually allow the same maneuverability without g-limitations.

Other advantages CFTs provide is that they can free up hardpoints that would normally be used to carry weapons or fuel tanks and that they do not significantly increase an aircraft's radar cross-section.

 

[Scarface]

Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) are additional fuel tanks fitted closely to the profile of an aircraft that extend either the range or "time on station" of the aircraft, with a reduced aerodynamic penalty compared to external drop tanks.

Conformal fuel tanks have the disadvantage that, unlike drop tanks, they cannot be discarded in flight, because they are plumbed into the aircraft and so can only be removed on the ground. As a result, they may impose a drag-penalty on the aircraft, even when the tanks are empty, without any benefit. They can also impose g-load limits and they add a slight, though negligible, weight gain to the aircraft, even when empty. While the weight gain and drag penalty are always present, g-load limitation is not always an absolute issue. The CFTs on the F-15E actually allow the same maneuverability without g-limitations.

Other advantages CFTs provide is that they can free up hardpoints that would normally be used to carry weapons or fuel tanks and that they do not significantly increase an aircraft's radar cross-section.

So ,as I said,increased weight and added drag.What was the point in posting this ?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) are additional fuel tanks fitted closely to the profile of an aircraft that extend either the range or "time on station" of the aircraft, with a reduced aerodynamic penalty compared to external drop tanks.

Conformal fuel tanks have the disadvantage that, unlike drop tanks, they cannot be discarded in flight, because they are plumbed into the aircraft and so can only be removed on the ground. As a result, they may impose a drag-penalty on the aircraft, even when the tanks are empty, without any benefit. They can also impose g-load limits and they add a slight, though negligible, weight gain to the aircraft, even when empty. While the weight gain and drag penalty are always present, g-load limitation is not always an absolute issue. The CFTs on the F-15E actually allow the same maneuverability without g-limitations.

Other advantages CFTs provide is that they can free up hardpoints that would normally be used to carry weapons or fuel tanks and that they do not significantly increase an aircraft's radar cross-section.

CFT can be considered on later stages, may be on mk3 or mk4 when there is more powerful engine, better g limits ( right now its 8g i guess) etc is there. Trying to cft at this point will further delay the programme and delivery, these things need extensive reserch, design, and flight testing.

 

[kstriya]

CFT can be considered on later stages, may be on mk3 or mk4 when there is more powerful engine, better g limits ( right now its 8g i guess) etc is there. Trying to cft at this point will further delay the programme and delivery, these things need extensive reserch, design, and flight testing.

At least we can debate it, I believe Rafael is waste of money and we should have multiple teams developing MK 2 and 3 the later being stealth and near 5th gen.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

At least we can debate it, I believe Rafael is waste of money and we should have multiple teams developing MK 2 and 3 the later being stealth and near 5th gen.

stealth varient of lca is as much work as making a new design from scratch, and a new desing will work better for stealth rather than a modified lca stelth varient. We already have a stealth desing in the called AMCA so there is no point in going for stelth lca. Cft can be considered if it's a viable option with negligible drawbacks.

 

[guru-dutt]

stealth varient of lca is as much work as making a new design from scratch, and a new desing will work better for stealth rather than a modified lca stelth varient. We already have a stealth desing in the called AMCA so there is no point in going for stelth lca. Cft can be considered if it's a viable option with negligible drawbacks.

here is the latest from insiders in IAF and HAL thing is new PMO & DM want at least couple of squads of LCA MK1A and LCA MK1 flying till 2019 , 36 rafales and 18 more might come fully built from france talks are on for making 126 more rafales in india under make in india hence all this hokus phokus , now with russia playing games chances are rafale just might get a boost and as for yamkrican maal well 36 F-35C &18 NLCA MK2 and 2 V-22 tilt rotar based E2D/E will be seen on IAC2 with yamrican EMALS & AAG+ there will be one more vicrant type aircraft carrier which just might also have 36 NLCA MK2