Alternatives to Dassault Rafale

[SPIEZ]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Why would India buy the Rafale combat aircraft rejected by every other interested country—Brazil, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, and even the cash-rich but not particularly discriminating Saudi Arabia and Morocco?

The French foreign minister Laurent Fabius's one-point agenda when he visited New Delhi was to seal the deal for Rafale, a warplane apparently fitting IAF's idea of a Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) in the service's unique typology, which includes "light" and "heavy" fighter planes as well, used by no other air force in the world. Alas, the first whiff of corruption led the previous defence minister, A K Antony, to seize up and shut shop, stranding the deal at the price negotiation committee stage. It is this stoppage Fabius sought to unclog.

France's desperation is understandable. Absent the India deal, the Rafale production line will close down, the future of its aerospace sector will dim, and the entire edifice of French industrial R&D sector based on small and medium-sized firms—a version of the enormously successful German "Mittelstand" model—engaged in producing cutting-edge technologies could unravel, and grease France's slide to second-rate technology power-status.

More immediately, it will lead to a marked increase in the unit cost of the aircraft—reportedly of as much as $5-$10 million dollars to the French Air Force, compelling it to limit the number it inducts. With no international customers and France itself unable to afford the pricey Rafale, the French military aviation industry will be at a crossroads. So, for Paris a lot is at stake and in India the French have found an easy mark, a country willing to pay excessively for an aircraft the IAF can well do without.

Consider the monies at stake. Let's take the example of Brazil, our BRICS partner. For 36 Rafales the acquisition cost, according to Brazilian media, was $8.2 billion plus an additional $4 billion for short-period maintenance contracts, amounting to nearly $340 million per aircraft in this package and roughly $209 million as the price tag for a single Rafale without maintenance support. Brazil insisted on transfer of technology (ToT) and was told it had to pay a whole lot extra for it, as also for the weapons for its Rafales. But the Brazilian air force had doubts about the quality of the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar enabling the aircraft to switch quickly from air-to-air to air-to-ground mode in flight, and about the helmet-mounted heads-up-display. Too high a price and too many problems convinced the government of president Dilma Rousseff that the Rafale was not worth the trouble or the money and junked the deal, opting for the Swedish Gripen NG instead.

During the Congress party's rule the Indian government did not blink at the prospective bill for the Rafale, which more than doubled from $10 billion in 2009 to some $22 billion today, and which figure realistically will exceed $30 billion, or $238 million per aircraft, at a minimum. But India, unbeknownst to most of us, is apparently a terribly rich country, with money to burn! Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, an apparently poorer state or at least one more careful with its money, is blanching at the $190 million price tag for each of the 60 Lockheed F-35Bs (vertical take-off, technologically more complex, variant of the air force model)—a full generation ahead of the Rafale—ordered for the first of the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers.

The prohibitive cost of the French aircraft supposedly made finance-cum-defence minister Arun Jaitley apprehensive. He did the right thing, as is rumoured, of revising the order downwards from 126 aircraft to 80 or so Rafales. The IAF headquarters pre-emptively acquiesced in the decision to save the deal. However, if this change was affected in the hope of proportionately reducing the cost, it will be belied. Because in contracts involving high-value combat aircraft, the size of the order does not much affect the unit price, the cost of spares and service support, and of ToT! This is evident from the rough estimates of the per aircraft cost to Brazil of $209 million for 36 Rafales compared with the $238 million for 126 of the same aircraft to India!

Because New Delhi has been inclined to make India a military "great power" on the basis of imported armaments—a policy that's a boon to supplier states as it generates employment and new technologies in these countries, and sustains their defence industries, a confident French official told me with respect to another deal that "India will pay the price". Considering the various negatives of the proposed deal and the long-term national interest Jaitley would do well to nix the Rafale transaction altogether.

The bureaucratic interest of the IAF prompts it to exaggerate wrong threats and talk of declining fighter assets. But it will not tell the defence minister about the logistics hell routinely faced by frontline squadrons in operations owing to the mindboggling diversity of combat aircraft in its inventory, a problem only the Rafale acquisition will exacerbate and, hence, about the urgent need to rationalise the force structure, ideally to Su-30s, the indigenous Tejas Mk-1 for short-range air defence, Tejas Mk-II as MMRCA, and the Su-50 PAK FA as fifth-generation fighter. Nor will the department of defence production officials disclose to Jaitley that the ToT provisions in arms contracts are a fraudulent farce because, while the foreign suppliers pocket billions of dollars, no core technologies, such as source codes (millions of lines of software) and flight control laws, are ever transferred. And that the local defence industry monopolised by defence public sector units (DPSUs) is incapable of absorbing and innovating even such technology as is, in fact, relayed to it because it only assembles aircraft from imported kits.

Terminating the Rafale deal will be disruptive but sending the message to the military, the DPSUs, the defence ministry bureaucracy, and foreign companies salivating for rich, one-sided, contracts that the Narendra Modi government is determined to make a new start and conduct defence business differently, is more important.


Why Rafale is a Big Mistake - The New Indian Express

Realistically, there is nothing in this article that suggests that Rafael is a poor aircraft. I understand it is expensive, but with great neighbors it is understandable that India should invest in high upgrading the ever so important air force. Also understandable is the fact that since the Brazilians couldn't afford it, they could have possibly come up with negative reviews.In fact they have gone for the Gripen, (source: Brazil to award fighter jet deal to Saab -report | Reuters).

I am yet to see any reports that point out that Rafael is incapable.

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Because J-20 & J-31 will soon be with china & it is certain pakistan will get J-31 as well , can rafale hold its ground against those 5th gen duo??

Typhoon, Rafale or even Gripen are perfectly capable of defending Indian airspace from any air attack in the region for the next decade and beyond. These aircraft with Storm Shadow cruise missiles (500+km), Brimstone "Fire and Forget" precision missiles, HOPE/HOSBO bombs, Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), Joint Strike Missile (JSM), Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), Meteor "Beyond Visual Range" missiles and the future Perseus stealth supersonic missiles will be absolutely fantastic and dominate China/Russia/Others in air-to-air combats. And as i said before, tactics, strategy, the communication systems, internal data sharing networks, military satellites, support units (AWACS, refuelling tankers), flying hours, the training, skills, experience, commitment and professionalism of pilots will make the difference and give the result.

 

[Sea Eagle]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Rafale deal must be canceled. Instead an Indian solution like LCA II be found. All those Marshals who have been supporting Rafale deal should be given retirement papers.

We cannot be dependent on others for our military supplies. Money saved should go back into Army, Air Force and Navy to upgrade better.

Tejas Mk 2 isn't coming before 2020 That's for sure.
Even the two squadrons for Tejas Mk 1 will come only by 2018 end or 2019 starting, if there are no further delays in the FOC.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

So don't go on the published range by Saab. In that configuration, Tejas too can fly close to 3000km on internal fuel.
No it can't. I have official info on LCA's range and it is significantly less than 3000 Km.

Clue: LCA Mk1 carries fuel internally and manages to travel 1700 Km. You already know this. LCA carries the same amount of fuel in tanks as it does internally, but range from these tanks are just half what it gets with internal fuel. This is because of the extra weight and drag of the tanks. So, 1700+(1700/2). The answer is Mk1's ferry range with full drop tanks.

Gripen on the other hand carries ~3.5 tonnes of fuel internally and gets the same range as Rafale on internal fuel. Rafale has greater range because it carries more fuel externally. The addition of CFTs will further extend the range

it is gripen Ng which carries 3.5 ton fuel. Gripen C (which is the equivalent of tejas mk-1 actually caries close to 300 Kg lesser internal fuel than tejas mk-1). The fuselage dia increase to house the bigger dia GE 414 engine will increase the fuel capacity of each and every fuel tank in tejas mk-2, besides the new fuel tank that is to come up in the place of 0.5 meter fuselage length increase.

So tejas mk-2 can carry the same amount of internal fuel as gripen E. Besides the new fairings into which the gripen NG wheels fold into will only increase the gripen drag and reduce the range. Bt tejas's fuselage increase wont have such negative effects as nothing protrudes into the path of the airflow.

Also the close to 200 kg lead plates dead weight in tejas mk-1 will be removed in tejas mk-2 , so weight increase wont be that much for the length increase of just 0.5 meter.

Also composites percentage is slated to increase substantially in tejas mk-2 which will lead to further weight reduction.

It is unrealistic to say IAF expected tejas in 2006. After asking ADA to change the avionics architechture, wing design to cater to higher launch stress of R-73 in place of the older R-60(which led the wing to be redesigned entirely) in the form of FSED phase-2 in 2004,and close to 250 changes in the form of requests for actions , it is not fair to expect ADA to deliver them all in two years.

According to Air marshal Philip Rajkumar(Author of The Tejas Story an authority on tejas unlike many planted and motivated campaigners posing as tejas expert, ), IAF put together a project management team in ADA for tejas mk-1 only in 2006. Til then they were mere spectators, And this contributed to the overall delay.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Tejas Mk 2 isn't coming before 2020 That's for sure.
Even the two squadrons for Tejas Mk 1 will come only by 2018 end or 2019 starting, if there are no further delays in the FOC.

Investments in to tejas mk-1 program and production line or a pittance compared to what we throw at foreign equipment suppliers. Investments are announced with much fanfare, when we look at the time interval between the announcement and actual arrival of funding we will know the real story.

Very, very badly needed. As of last decade. So, delays shouldn't happen.

The fact is any engine failure in the Himalayas means the pilot is also dead. He won't survive in those conditions, so it becomes imperative to operate only twin engine jets in the region. Apart from that the adversary is so powerful that a lot of single engine fighters won't really survive the threat in the region. We are not longer looking at a defensive posture when it comes to China, we want to be able to send an invasion force into Tibet. So, the equation has changed, we can also be the aggressors. And an aggressive force is going to need a more capable aircraft.

So fighters like F-35 wont operate over icy mountain ranges in Europe and any other theatre perhaps.

Did F-16 which was produced in thousands ever banned from flying over mountains?

So all the nations that are buying Gripen are not going to use them over icy mountain ranges.

There are as of now no authoritative sources to back such claims.

The twin engine fighters emit twice the IR signature , in future this will be a significant mode of passive detection which will diminish the survival factor of twin engine fighters in combat as well, not to speak of twice the RCS in L band ASEA radars.
It will take more than 30 years for us to build any infra that is fit enough for us to push troops into Tibet. By that time raflae too will be truly obsolete as PLAF will field J-20s

 

[power_monger]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

one more point - the total number of Rafales produced till now is 130.Which aggregates to 6 per year.So much talk about mass production capabilities on rafale needs to be validated.

 

[power_monger]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Has Gripen NG reached FOC? I think it was still in prototype changes like tejas mk2? Am i correct?

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

The Dassault Rafale is a relatively small fighter . Its wing loading ratio (the ratio of its weight compared to its wingspace) is just 306 kg/sq m, the second lowest ratio on the market after the JAS-39 Gripen. Its combat radius is also impressive – 1,852 kilometers, again, the second-best in the market trailing only the F-15C/D. The Rafale also has an excellent rate of climb – 304 m/s, i.e. 60,000 ft/min. This means the plane can climb to its service ceiling (55,000 ft) in a minute.

Tejas has an even lower wing loading than gripen.

rafale has a top speed of Mach 1.8, compared to Mach 2 or more for most other fighters. However, its principal competitor, the F-35, is worse at just Mach 1.61 and 43,000 ft. Moreover, it is not a mechanical flaw, but rather the product of a deliberate design aimed to optimise the Rafale for the by far predominant type of aerial combat – namely, close, within visual range combat.

In that regime of A2A warfare, neither speed nor ceiling would be a significant issue; the predominant factors are agility, pilot visibility, sensors, gun calibre, and the quality and quantity of WVR, infrared-guided missiles.

And by these factors, the Rafale is the best, with a superlative wingloading ratio, excellent pilot visibility in all direction, superlative radar and IR sensors, a 30 mm gun (the biggest fighter gun caliber in the market), and a load of up to 14 (but usually 10-12) MICA infrared- and electromagnetically-guided missiles with a range of up to 80 kms.

But there are a few people here who deliberately repeat the lie hundreds of times that since tejas has a lesser top speed than Mig-21 it is inferior to Mig-21,

What do the same guys say to the statement above? tejas is also designed with view of modern air combat in mind. Not with any fanatic fixation over ceiling or top speed with low wing loading and 4 channel all digital fly by wire software operated relaxed static stability platform with agility in quick turns as the primary motive.

It is not as if people at ADA dont know that by reducing wing area and drag they can let tejas fly faster by reducing drag. They chose not to is the answer.

 

[Ripples]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

I don't know who are we trying to fool here but given the procrastination on MMRCA it is more likely than not to have a similar induction time horizon vis a vis Chinese stealth fighters. Jets such as rafale would most likely have a life span of about 40+ years. So both rafale and J 20 will get inducted and assimilated by their respected users side by side. Now it is quiet obvious that J 20 will have some significant advantages against Rafale and this gap will only increase by leaps and bounces with every passing decade. Now it is possible that may be the procurement of Rafale was never intended to counter Chinese stealth jets and was planned to keep away all the 4/4+ gen fighters that China has been churning out like toys. Even from this angle of thought the MMRCA does not look very prudent and smart. Given to the weak state of HAL it will take at least 15 years before the ToT of Rafale is fully absorbed ( assuming that the same will be given to India without any tiny little gymnastics from French ). By the time HAL masters the tech and reaches a level where it can modify the future Rafale (certainly it will irk the French and I am not sure if India will ever have enough balls for this ) to a more modern platform China would be mass producing a jet that India will be busy drawing on the table cloth. So I don't see exactly what good these Rafales are from Indian point of view.
Now if we are ready to shift our views from rafale for a while then there are indeed some smart and cost effective solution to this. Let us consider the Su 30mki. A large and very capable fighter but with usual Russian drawbacks such as low availability rates , engine issues etc etc. But we have already absorbed more or less 70% of the technology that came under ToT. After having bought about 300 pieces it is unlikely that Russians will have any serious objection to Indians tinkering with the design of the jet and coming up with something in the line of super hornet with internal bays. With an investment of about billion 10$ India can have massive upgrades to the existing facilities at HAL and also set up some missing components of our industry such as a titanium plant. Su 30mki being a massive jet is pregnant with possibilities of future customization.It can carry or can be customized to carry every single weapon system that exists at this moment in time. A smaller version single engine fighter is also a possibility. I think we got ourselves a very good opportunity and must capitalise on this. If money is judiciously spent on Su 30mki IAF will reach the level indigenisation that presently enjoyed by Indian navy in coming 10 years and attain at least some kind of parity with Chinese counter parts in terms of technological and production capability in 4/4+ fighter segment. @ p2prada

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

This is from Brazil

Do note that Gripen NG has one full tonne more internal fuel than LCA.

This is from Saab.
Gripen for Brazil - The Fighter


So, yeah, it has 40% more range than LCA Mk1.

And this is what the Swiss think.

Do you see the Gripen beaten by the Rafale in every category? Or should I explain how the graph works?

Next,

Do note the points given to Rafale for endurance compared to Gripen NG, when NG is said to carry ~3.5 tonnes of fuel internally in comparison to LCA's 2.4 tonnes.

Rafale shatters Gripen in every parameters there is. And also make note that Gripen is superior to LCA. Why Gripen is superior, we can come to that much later.

Go through this link Rafale News: Switzerland, Evaluation report quick analysis it explains why Rafale shouldn't be compared to even a low end medium combat aircraft like Gripen NG, let alone the LCA.



And what makes you say this? [sarcasm]I am sure your extensive experience in IAF has helped you to come to this conclusion.[/sarcasm]

Deep Penetration Strike is a very important requirement for any "serious" air force. It's not going to change ever. Google Prompt Global Strike program and figure out why the USAF wants a global capability to launch a precision strike.

And modern aircraft are expected to comply with requirements that take care of all present and future threats.



Oh, we can already conclude? So easy to type the words. Now, where is the experimental data to conclude this assessment? Oh, wait, LCA Mk2 is still in the design stage. Forget about concluding anything, the aircraft isn't even flying to conclude whether the program itself will succeed.

Let's begin by concluding when it will fly first before we can conclude it will achieve Rafale parameters that were achieved in 2006.



Oh, and what if the enemy already has two AK-47s, let alone 200? Everything above LCA's weight category is better than LCA.

No, just adding an AESA radar doesn't make the aircraft any more deadly if it doesn't have the same type of weapons systems to bear, even after we remove performance from the picture which is sadly not in LCA's favor.



Oh, great. Bring in preconceived notions into something you understand little about, that when Tejas is yet to demonstrate a speed above mach 1.4 with afterburners.

Anyway here's a source.

Expecting LCA to be anywhere near Gripen is an uninformed opinion.



Oh, yes. Your extensive experience in the aerospace industry has also helped you conclude that ToT is a lie. Never mind the fact that we are making Su-30s in India with said ToT.

Do you even know or understand why we need ToT?

ToT is an extremely important aspect of producing aircraft in the country. Without ToT there would have been no aerospace industry to begin with. After Saturn designed the AL-31 engine for the MKI, they transferred technology to HAL for its manufacture. After NAL designed the composites required for LCA, they were the ones who transferred technology for its manufacture to HAL. Without the transfer of either technologies, HAL wouldn't be able to manufacture any of these.

Aircraft are expected to be in use for at least 4 decades, so this ToT comes in use when you want to maintain the aircraft over such a long period. If during a ground strike mission, the LCA lands back with bullet holes in its body, it is this ToT that helps in fixing the holes and send the aircraft back in the air. Without ToT, the aircraft will have to be sent back to the OEM (NAL in this case), just to fix it.

If LCA's engine has holes in it tomorrow, the engine will have to be flown back to the US for repairs. Expect that engine to come back only after half a year. OTOH, the M88-4E can be fixed on the field very quickly because of the ToT from Snecma.



How long have you been following the LCA program? For me it's been 15 years. When LCA started flying, we all expected the aircraft to be inducted within half a decade. We have been waiting for so long that the people I was watching it with have retired and some have died. Some of their grandkids are now working in the ADA. And through all this time, LCA is yet to be inducted.

So what give you the confidence that Mk2 will "easily" achieve FOC? Heck, the program directors who started with LCA are now retired or dead.

And wow, 9 squadrons of Mk2? You sure live in a very carefree world. Let's have IAF and IN order their first Mk2 squadron to begin with, before we fantasize about the actual number of orders. If MoD increases squadron strength, then why not, we can order squadrons in the double digits and production can go on until 2050. We can even dream of selling thousands to other countries like in the case of the Mig-21 and F-16.



This is one point I agree with, albeit partly. LCA will be cheap, but as cheap as it is, it is also going to be equally less capable compared to Rafale.

But $10 Billion is too expensive for 10 squadrons of LCA, or are you suggesting Rafale will cost $40 Billion for 10 squadrons? Sure, you can live in your fantasy, but at least keep it consistent.

And just throwing money at AMCA is not going to result in anything. ADA has asked for $2-2.5 Billion for AMCA and GTRE has asked for $2 Billion for a new engine. So, money will be disbursed once ADA has progressed well sufficiently in the LCA program. I don't know what's the benchmark for AMCA to start, but it looks like since Mk2 has only finished half of its design stage, funds will be allocated once ADA has chosen an engine for AMCA and the preliminary design stage begins. Without an engine, it is pointless to start AMCA.

Max endurance 2.15 hours, Ferry range-4000 Kms?

SO Gripen NG flies 2000 Km in 2 hours 15 minutes?Only F-22 can fly at mach 1.4 throughout its flight profile. has gripen joined the list?

means speeds must be about 1750 Km per hour to satisfy both the condition,

That means Gripen NG has to fly at mach 1.5 all the time(for the entire 2 hour 15 minutes flight) to satisfy both the conditions,

Do you stand by that?

A combat radius of 1300 Km means total distance covered is 2600 Km with combat loads. It's max endurance must be less than 2 hours for combat sortie , (since weapons add to drag and add to fuel consumption)at the most. So it means through out its combat sortie gripen NG flew at supersonic speeds around 1300 Km per hour.

Till date the only fighter that can fly supersonic throughout its combat sortie is supposed to be F-22 that too at mach 1.4. Has gripen also joined the list?

Do you stand by that?

.

I don't know how they quickly counting Numbers oh money.

all the above news is BS

if above true France has supa dupa GDP

Then what about this calculation mentioned in BR for tejas range? It was
@SajeevJino
who asked the question to Indranilroy in BR and got the answer

This is not so difficult to answer. There are many ways to answer this question. You know that the ferry range is 1700 kms with 1200 ltr drop tanks. So it must at least have a 2 hour endurance under cruise condition.

Another way is to calculate it is from the SFC. But you would need to know the thrust required for the flight at the aforementioned range. I don't know that. But let us continue. For example, let us find the endurance at maximum speed without afterburner. We know that:
1. SFC for military thrust = approx. 84 (kg/kN-hr) .
2. Maximum military thrust = approx. 54 kN.
3. Therefore, the rate of fuel consumption at this speed = approx. 54 kN * 84 kg/(KN-hr) = approx. 4536 kg/hr.
4. Total fuel: 2 X 1200 ltr tanks and about 2600 kg of internal fuel = approx. 4600 kg
5. Therefore, endurance in this regime is nearly 1 hour, and you would have flown around 800-900 kms.

You can do the same thing with afterburners. It will be about half an hour (but you will most probably cook the engine before that).

I want to know why you find endurance important? You can fly slower, hang in there longer and travel lesser. What would be the point?

SO for a combat sortie with 1300 Km combat radius stretching over two hours fifteen minutes Gripen NG would need more than 9 tons of fuel (that too only in case it was flown below super sonic speeds(not possible considering its max endurance)) .

GE-414 is a bit better at SFC. But looking at it any way things don't tally here!!!!!!!!

The su-24 is advertised as

Operational radius of action at sea level in mixed mode (Vcr in the 200-km area, V=900 km/h in other areas) with PTB external fuel tanks and 6x FAB -500M-62 bombs, 615 km.

Whose specs are
Crew: Two (pilot and weapons system operator)
Length: 22.53 m (73 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 17.64 m extended, 10.37 m maximum sweep (57 ft 10 in / 34 ft 0 in)
Height: 6.19 m (20 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 55.2 m² (594 ft²)
Empty weight: 22,300 kg (49,165 lb)
Loaded weight: 38,040 kg (83,865 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 43,755 kg (96,505 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Saturn/Lyulka AL-21F-3A turbojets
Dry thrust: 75 kN (16,860 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 109.8 kN (24,675 lbf) each
Fuel capacity: 11,100 kg (24,470 lb)
Performance

Maximum speed: 1,315 km/h (710 kn, 815 mph, Mach 1.08) at sea level; Mach 1.35 (1,654 km/h) at high altitude
Combat radius: 615 km in a low-flying (lo-lo-lo) attack mission with 3,000 kg (6,615 lb) ordnance and external tanks ()
Ferry range: 2,775 km (1,500 nm, 1,725 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,090 ft)
Rate of climb: 150 m/s (29,530 ft/min)
Wing loading: 651 kg/m² (133 lb/ft²)

 

[shiphone]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

some smart ass is always funny and never learn indeed..........LOL...what a shame for DFI....

the endurance is always conditioned....although in French , we also could guess what they are in this case...

1. 150 NM(about 280Km) away from the Airbase
2. At 25000 feet altitude (around 7600m)
3. with drop tanks(F18, Rafale with 3, and Griphen with 2)
4. 4 BVR missile + 2 WVR missile

so ,for such CAP mission profile , Griphen could stay at this Patrol station for 2.15 hours , F18 for 3 hours and Rafale for 3.15 hours...

the total flying hours would be more if we have the Round trip(around 600 KMs) time included here...it would take around 40-50 minutes to cover such distance normally. and airplane would land with some fuel reserve around 400-600kg.so it could fly a little longer although it is meaningless...

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Bharat Rakshak • View topic - LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013
Additionally, I should mention that a similar first order analysis for the LCA yields a range (one-way) of ~1550 km (give or take) assuming only internal fuel of (2500 kg) at 10,000 feet at Mach 0.6 (measured at sea level). This Mach 0.6 requirement in cruise stems from the need to carry only internal fuel and empty weight of the aircraft, i.e. no external fuel tanks.

So for the above flight profile setup, the combat radius comes out to ~700 km.

But this carries no payload and or fuel tanks. Fuel tanks will increase range. Payload and external tanks will increase drag and reduce range. I will try and put up some numbers for that later when I get some time to model the tanks underneath the wings (been wanting to do that for some time but this argument about the LCA range has finally sent me over the deep end 8) ).

Edit: So the addition of two external drop tanks provides an increment of about 33% in drag at the benefit of additional ~1900 kg of fuel. This amounts to about ~2000 km ferry range. Assuming that there is significant burnoff of fuel during climb and recovery, the 1700 km ferry range quoted by the document listed above makes sense.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Bharat Rakshak • View topic - LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013
Additionally, I should mention that a similar first order analysis for the LCA yields a range (one-way) of ~1550 km (give or take) assuming only internal fuel of (2500 kg) at 10,000 feet at Mach 0.6 (measured at sea level). This Mach 0.6 requirement in cruise stems from the need to carry only internal fuel and empty weight of the aircraft, i.e. no external fuel tanks.

So for the above flight profile setup, the combat radius comes out to ~700 km.

But this carries no payload and or fuel tanks. Fuel tanks will increase range. Payload and external tanks will increase drag and reduce range. I will try and put up some numbers for that later when I get some time to model the tanks underneath the wings (been wanting to do that for some time but this argument about the LCA range has finally sent me over the deep end 8) ).

Edit: So the addition of two external drop tanks provides an increment of about 33% in drag at the benefit of additional ~1900 kg of fuel. This amounts to about ~2000 km ferry range. Assuming that there is significant burnoff of fuel during climb and recovery, the 1700 km ferry range quoted by the document listed above makes sense.

Bottom line is that you determine what the flight characteristics needs to be to lift X kg of mass of the aircraft at a certain altitude and corresponding atmospheric conditions. If you know the CL-AOA behavior of the wing, the minimum required Mach number in cruise is determined. For the present case, at 10,000 feet AGL, the required Mach number for cruise without payload or tanks comes out to Mach 0.6. This is then used to evaluate the net drag on the fuselage. Again, modeling the induced-drag profile of the mean-camber wing plus a Reynolds number based skin-friction drag model gives you representative CDi and CDo values. The sum of these parameters (plus correction factors for additional drag from fuselage and empennages) gives you a net cruise drag coefficient. Multiply this by the dynamic pressure using the Mach 0.6 conditions and you will get the net required thrust to maintain this constant speed.

For the present case, the required thrust came out to ~0.29 Kg/sec for the LCA, which is below what you get assuming full thrust from engine (~1.232 Kg/sec). The reason for this is that the entire engine thrust is not needed for balancing drag at higher altitudes and moderate speeds. Same reason why all aircraft perform better the higher they climb for the cruise part of their flight.

Knowing the fuel consumption and the cruise Mach number (measured relative to Sea-Level atmospheric conditions) provides you with the ability to calculate how far the aircraft can go if it went in a straight line.

For the LCA, this came out to be ~1550 km as stated previously.

Note that this is all a first order analysis, of course, and only meant to be a sanity check on performance. I used to teach such relatively simple (back of the envelope) methods to students as a way to bypass the complexity of full-up computational methods when quick analysis is required.

Add about 30% on drag increment for the external payload on this one (~8% each for one large bomb plus pylon effects). The range is then reduced to around ~1190 km. Combat radius is reduced to around ~500 km or less.

The Beta Coefficient...: Search results for lca

Some interesting statements on combat range of tejas in different profiles, presented by Vivek Ahuja

Low altitude air space penetration flight profile (4x 250 kg bombs, fuel max internal and all available external)combat radius of 700 Km,

high altitude PGM attack profile (2 LGBs , all available external and internal fuel)- a combat radius of 1200 Km,

HAL gives a radius of action up to 500 Km for tejas, but does not specifies the fuel or weapon combo along with flight altitude,

Mirage-2000 has a fuel fraction of around 30 percent similar to tejas,

So I think there won't be any significant difference combat range between the two fighters if similar altitude and roles are assigned with optimum load capacity for each fighter,

we need to know what is the combat range of jags in indian hot arid climatic conditions. that is the key. Simply wiki figures are not enough.

needs some clarification as well,

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

some smart ass is always funny and never learn indeed..........LOL...what a shame for DFI....

the endurance is always conditioned....although in French , we also could guess what they are in this case...

1. 150 NM(about 280Km) away from the Airbase
2. At 25000 feet altitude (around 7600m)
3. with drop tanks(F18, Rafale with 3, and Griphen with 2)
4. 4 BVR missile + 2 WVR missile

so ,for such CAP mission profile , Griphen could stay at this Patrol station for 2.15 hours , F18 for 3 hours and Rafale for 3.15 hours...

the total flying hours would be more if we have the Round trip(around 600 KMs) time included here...it would take around 40-50 minutes normally. and airplane would land with some fuel reserve around 400-600kg.so it could fly a little longer although it is meaningless...

it seems another smart ass has arrived, Welcome mate, I am not dragging JF-17 here any time soon. SO please rest easy,

I can very well understand what you are strutting here.But that has no relation to the points made in the post .

but for what i was asking for when in a lightly loaded CAP mission a fighter could only endure 2.15 hours , how the hell it is going to last 1300 Km comabt radius(2x1300 Km is 2600 Km ) in a combat sorties and with what endurance , what speed and what fuel burn rate and with how much fuel requirements?

if you have any relevant calculations please post, thanks,

What is the amount of fuel needed for this combat mission , whether it was in lo-lo mode or hi-lo-hi mode and with what weapon config.

But no body is asking for educated guess around here, what I meant was how long would gripen take to complete its ferry range of 4000 Km. that is the essence of my post.

First understand in which context a questionis raised before name calling, I was not name calling any one in my post, got it?

SO ANSWER HOW MUCH TIME WILL IT TAKE FOR GRIPEN NG TO COMPLETE ITS 4000 Km ferry range(If max endurance in lightly loaded combat air patrol is just 2hours fifteen minutes)

And what is the particular reason that makes you hot under collar whenever I make a comparison of gripen range with tejas? I was not pronouncing any judgements here, just asking guys to reconcile the calculations in the two links they themselves gave. thats all.

The reason I wanted to raise it was it was publicly mentioned that that Rafale took 10 hours for 1000 Km reunion island sortie with just two external fuel tanks and five inflight refuellings.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nce-in.org/Strategic-force-projection-Rafales

In an impressive demonstration of its strategic reach, two Rafales – supported by a C-135 FR air refueller – flew on a very long-distance practice exercise to the French island, Reunion, in the southern Indian Ocean. The Rafales' non-stop flight, which took 10 hours and 35 minutes and involved five inflight refuellings, was directed by the French Strategic Air Forces (FAS) Command.

The Strategic Air Forces Command has ensured uninterrupted operational alert of the French nuclear deterrent's airborne component since 1964, i.e. for the last 50 years. It allows the President of the French Republic to guarantee in all circumstances France's freedom of assessment, of decision and of action with regard to its international responsibilities.


In the recent projection exercise to Reunion Island – as in last year's conflict in Mali – the Rafale has proven its ability to project force and to project power at strategic distance in one single flight. It has also demonstrated the capability of

France's armed forces to provide security to its most remote territories and people within hours. The Indian Ocean Region , where over one million French nationals reside, mostly in the two overseas districts of Reunion and Mayotte, is of strategic interest for France as stated in the 2013 White Paper on Defence and National Security.

France also has a permanent military presence in the Indian Ocean Region, which hinges upon three joint-service bases located in Djibouti, Abu Dhabi and Reunion.


The two Rafale Bs of the formation are from Fighter Squadron EC 1/91 "Gascogne", based at BA 113 Saint-Dizier air station in northeast France; while the C-135 FR tanker aircraft is from air refuelling group GRV 2/91 "Bretagne" stationed at BA 125 Istres air station in southeast France near Marseilles.

The mission also involved a forty-strong detachment from these two FAS units and their aeronautical and specialised technical support squadrons. The aircraft were to fly back to metropolitan France on the night of Thursday 24 to Friday 25 April.

SO if you take a 6 total fuellings , (we can safely assume that rafales took off with full fuel) it comes to around 1 hour 50 minutes approx for each unrefuelled segment.

 

[Jagdish58]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Typhoon, Rafale or even Gripen are perfectly capable of defending Indian airspace from any air attack in the region for the next decade and beyond. These aircraft with Storm Shadow cruise missiles (500+km), Brimstone "Fire and Forget" precision missiles, HOPE/HOSBO bombs, Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), Joint Strike Missile (JSM), Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), Meteor "Beyond Visual Range" missiles and the future Perseus stealth supersonic missiles will be absolutely fantastic and dominate China/Russia/Others in air-to-air combats. And as i said before, tactics, strategy, the communication systems, internal data sharing networks, military satellites, support units (AWACS, refuelling tankers), flying hours, the training, skills, experience, commitment and professionalism of pilots will make the difference and give the result.

Thanks :thumb:

But can they spot and take down an 5th generation stealth fighter like J-20 or J-31??? is the radar of Rafale or eurofighter or Gripen that strong to pick up an stealth fighter in BVR combat and take down

i agree with end of the day strategy and tactics matters

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

there were 2 Two Seater Rafale carrying two Fuel tanks looks like 1200liters Tank enroute to reunion islands

a two seater rafale along with two 1200 liter tank can fly more than 2 hours can go 900km up/down ..So it's well we can see Rafale in SEAD config can engage target upto 400KM inside enemy territory with out Drop tanks ..

two drop tanks with a Full combat load it can go around 500 KM inside hostile Territory can Destroy enemy Infrastructure

with decent A2A load along with two or three Drop tanks can stay in the air for more than 2 hours can act as a Good CAP platform.




agreed ...

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/31082-dassault-rafale-wins-mmrca-227.html

So It can fly 2+ hours with a single refuel ..and It takes nearly 11 hours to reach Reunion Island. distance from French mainland to
Reunion Island is about 5,717 miles or 9200 KM ..so nearly 900 KM per Hour or 560 mile Per Hour ..interesting

there were 2 Two Seater Rafale carrying two Fuel tanks looks like 1200liters Tank enroute to reunion islands

a two seater rafale along with two 1200 liter tank can fly more than 2 hours can go 900km up/down ..So it's well we can see Rafale in SEAD config can engage target upto 400KM inside enemy territory with out Drop tanks ..

two drop tanks with a Full combat load it can go around 500 KM inside hostile Territory can Destroy enemy Infrastructure

with decent A2A load along with two or three Drop tanks can stay in the air for more than 2 hours can act as a Good CAP platform.

Can we assume that its practical non refuelled radius of action with normal combat weapon load is about 900 Km?

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

some smart ass is always funny and never learn indeed..........LOL...what a shame for DFI....

the endurance is always conditioned....although in French , we also could guess what they are in this case...

1. 150 NM(about 280Km) away from the Airbase
2. At 25000 feet altitude (around 7600m)
3. with drop tanks(F18, Rafale with 3, and Griphen with 2)
4. 4 BVR missile + 2 WVR missile

so ,for such CAP mission profile , Griphen could stay at this Patrol station for 2.15 hours , F18 for 3 hours and Rafale for 3.15 hours...

the total flying hours would be more if we have the Round trip(around 600 KMs) time included here...it would take around 40-50 minutes to cover such distance normally. and airplane would land with some fuel reserve around 400-600kg.so it could fly a little longer although it is meaningless...

If we go by Ersakthivel's logic, LCA pilots perform emergency landings every time they finish CAP missions.

 

[SajeevJino]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

.

@p2prada and @shiphone

I don't know what @ersakthivel thinks about LCA ..if we compare Raptor and LCA .he always tells Tejas out perform F 22 in all aspects

what I think is Tejas gives a brief study to ADA to develop future fighters of IAF ..

waiting for Mk 2

 

[Sea Eagle]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Investments in to tejas mk-1 program and production line or a pittance compared to what we throw at foreign equipment suppliers. Investments are announced with much fanfare, when we look at the time interval between the announcement and actual arrival of funding we will know the real story.

So fighters like F-35 wont operate over icy mountain ranges in Europe and any other theatre perhaps.

Did F-16 which was produced in thousands ever banned from flying over mountains?

So all the nations that are buying Gripen are not going to use them over icy mountain ranges.

There are as of now no authoritative sources to back such claims.

The twin engine fighters emit twice the IR signature , in future this will be a significant mode of passive detection which will diminish the survival factor of twin engine fighters in combat as well, not to speak of twice the RCS in L band ASEA radars.
It will take more than 30 years for us to build any infra that is fit enough for us to push troops into Tibet. By that time raflae too will be truly obsolete as PLAF will field J-20s

What ?
How is it even related to the production capacity ?
Even you know Mk 2 isn't coming before 2020. So those 40 odd LCA can't replace Mig 27 and Mig-21 simultaneously. We need Rafale to fill the gap.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

What ?
How is it even related to the production capacity ?
Even you know Mk 2 isn't coming before 2020. So those 40 odd LCA can't replace Mig 27 and Mig-21 simultaneously. We need Rafale to fill the gap.

When will be the deal for rafale inked?

Not in the next seven months, certainly, there is no budgetary provision for paying tens of thousands of crore as advance to Dassault?

When is the first HAL produced rafale expected to join IAF?

Atleast we know that design to production works is going on in tejas mk-2. In rafale there is no guarantee whether the deal will be inked or not ,

And if inked within a year or two?

That too for 80 or 120 planes, We dont know.

So how do you propose to replace the 14 mig squadrons mentioned as fit to be replaced by Tejas by Defence minister on the floor of the parliament with not to be inked , looking for billions of dollars Rafale?