Know Your 'Rafale'

[ace009]

Nice Pics Kunal!

I have a question for Armand - does the MMRCA deal help Sarcozy's re-election bid?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

I hope they really hurry up with the Kaveri engine because this current M-88 is not powerful for the new generation standards.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

ITP vectoring?? I thought EFs TVC is still in R&D, so much hog washing comeing up these days.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Lightweight materials used on the Rafale include aluminum-lithium, titanium, and carbon composites. Over 50% of the airframe
by structural weight is made of these materials, with less than 20% carbonfiber.

TYPHOON:
The airframe surface area is made of 70% Carbon Fibre Composites (CFCs), 15% lightweight alloys and titanium, 12% Glass Reinforced Plastics (GRP) and 3% other materials. In other words, metals make up only 15% of the materials used in building a Eurofighter Typhoon.
In tandem with the aerodynamically unstable design, these strong but lightweight materials mean that the weight and size of the airframe and engine are 10 - 20% smaller and 30% lighter, than they would otherwise have been. This not only means that the aircraft has a reduced radar signature but is also stealthy.

The radome is comprised of a complex layered Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) structure manufactured using very high tolerance automated processes.BASE, British Aerospace Systems and Equipment who supply the radome structure have developed various Frequency Sselective Surface (FSS) materials which have been subsequently put to use in the Typhoon's radome. FSS materials are composed of a precisely defined array of metallic elements contained within a conducting frame. The use of these materials (when laid up in the correct fashion) results in a reduction in the transmission of all out of band frequencies. Therefore the radome can be designed to be transparent only to those frequencies and polarisation's used by the aircraft's own radar. This of course should lead to a reduction in the aircraft's radar cross section, from all frontal aspects at least.

sO TYPHOON definitely has a edge on rafale through stealthy radome made up of (GFRP) structure & (FSS) materials.But rest all
material compostion is almost same

 

[Armand2REP]

Why does Rafale need TVC when it has a thrust vectoring IR BVRAAM that can pull 50gs? MICA can pull a full 180 and hit a target behind you.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

^What?

Most modern AoA missiles can do that.

 

[Armand2REP]

What?

None of them are BVRAAMs, only MICA which means powered flight throughout. I don't think any pull as many Gs either.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The AIM-9x has TVC to but i dont see the point your trying to make, how does that substitute to having TVC in aircraft? Two aircrafts with TVC missile vs one aircraft with no TVC at all, the argument is a cul-de-sac.

 

[Armand2REP]

The point is it doesn't need TVC when you can launch the missile from any position and hit the target.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The point is it doesn't need TVC when you can launch the missile from any position and hit the target.

Thats why i said its a dead end, we are not discussing haveing TVC is a necessity or not. The fact that EF has it makes it a plus point or one more arrow in it quiver. Dog fighting may become more essential in the future when radars can no longer spot aircrafts then we will be back to visual range dog fighting. In that time when you cant get a lock on your enemy how can you use your missile?

 

[Armand2REP]

That's why it has a common datalink to be used in targeting. If your wingman gets shot down you still have an uplink to the AWACs or ship/land sensors. The redundancy of available sensors makes lack of coverage unlikely. TVC won't fix that, the only way is 360 hemispherical sensor coverage of the aircraft which is performance prohibitive. TVC is supposed to make your aircraft turn faster, but a Rafale can out turn an MKI.

 

[ace009]

That's why it has a common datalink to be used in targeting. If your wingman gets shot down you still have an uplink to the AWACs or ship/land sensors. The redundancy of available sensors makes lack of coverage unlikely. TVC won't fix that, the only way is 360 hemispherical sensor coverage of the aircraft which is performance prohibitive. TVC is supposed to make your aircraft turn faster, but a Rafale can out turn an MKI.

Again Armand you are comparing a Current MKI with the a future Rafale (spec-ed for IAF). The future MKIs will be AESA armed, with more modern sensors than the 2005-2006 generation ones and a higher powered engine (the Su-35 BM engine). What happens if you compare the Super -30MKIs with the IAF Rafales?

 

[Armand2REP]

Again Armand you are comparing a Current MKI with the a future Rafale (spec-ed for IAF). The future MKIs will be AESA armed, with more modern sensors than the 2005-2006 generation ones and a higher powered engine (the Su-35 BM engine). What happens if you compare the Super -30MKIs with the IAF Rafales?

I am comparing the current products. The F3+ is in serial production, Super 30 hasn't even decided its roadmap specifications, much less getting off paper. Where is it going to get its AESA? Zhuk AE failed trails, NIIP AESA has yet to sign a demonstrator contract, ie no state funding. It is likely going to be a Su-35BM Mod. RBE2 AESA can acquire it at Meteors max range and end the engagement before it even starts.

 

[p2prada]

Again Armand you are comparing a Current MKI with the a future Rafale (spec-ed for IAF). The future MKIs will be AESA armed, with more modern sensors than the 2005-2006 generation ones and a higher powered engine (the Su-35 BM engine). What happens if you compare the Super -30MKIs with the IAF Rafales?

The Rafale is the better dog fighter.

 

[ace009]

The Rafale is the better dog fighter.

So now you are compensating for your Pro-Russian stance by going for the Rafale?

If you are right (which I am not so sure right now, not knowing what the Super MKI will be like), then Rafale will be our air-superiority fighter and the MKIs will be taking up the strike roles much like the F-15 Strike Eagles.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

India needs greenfield defence investments

India needs to leverage its current and future defence aerospace acquisitions to create an indigenous high-technology aerospace industrial base that will underpin its national security and economic strength

As defence aviation experts (and losing competitors) debate India's selection of the Dassault Rafale, our decision makers should utilize the final phase of medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) negotiations to bolster India's aerospace manufacturing and services infrastructure. This will entail fresh thinking and policy reform.

To begin with, there must be a reality check. The accumulated strengths of various public sector entities engaged in India's military aerospace programmes are clearly insufficient for the challenges ahead; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) is an overburdened monopoly. Our long-term needs, which include multiple fighter programmes such as light combat aircraft, SU-30MKI, MMRCA, advanced medium combat aircraft and the fifth-generation fighter aircraft, plus helicopter programmes, far exceed HAL's capacity to deliver. India's defence preparedness has already taken a significant beating from production delays and cost overruns. Moreover, despite decades of effort and several specialized design and development organizations, gas turbine research establishment and aeronautical development establishment, we still do not have the capacity to research and design, prototype, produce, service and upgrade aircraft without depending on imports of components, major sub-assemblies and significant number of complete aircraft.

There is, thus, an urgent need to create greenfield capacity to broaden the base of India's aerospace industry and achieve higher efficiencies, cost reduction and accelerated outputs. Public sector capacity requires to be supplemented by new private sector (both domestic and foreign) participation, involving joint ventures and co-production, to ensure higher levels of technology transfer and to substantially improve the level and cost of after-sales support. This will not only take India's technological prowess to an even higher plane, but will also have a positive spin-off on our civil aerospace needs.

Progressing reform of India's defence industrial sector will be a good way to start. Our long-standing preoccupation with equity caps has yielded only a trickle in foreign direct investment flows since 2002. If we can purchase complete equipment manufactured by an entirely foreign-owned company based in another country, why cannot we accept the same from that company's wholly owned Indian subsidiary? Permitting majority foreign ownership in high-technology areas will also partially reduce complex issues related to intellectual property rights and export-control regimes.


Next, we should create a level playing field for a dynamic national defence sector, whether public or private. Several private sector companies are already playing a meaningful role in India's defence production and await an opportunity to contribute more, on their own or through partnership with foreign entities. Precisely for reasons of national security, we cannot afford to fall behind because of ideological constraints or vested interests that support the status quo of our overdependence on defence public sector units (PSUs).

As currently framed, India's defence offset policy is suboptimal to say the least, designed mostly as countertrade to increase exports of PSU products related to defence and civilian aerospace and internal security. This policy lacks the strategic focus to link acquisitions to collaborative models involving joint production, technology transfer and manufacturing capacity that builds self-reliance. Countertrade is widely regarded as the least meaningful element of defence offsets; transfer of technology is by far the most beneficial. While it is questionable whether such large (50%) offsets can even be fulfilled—not least because of the lack of product capacity of our PSUs or the existing aviation industry—it is more than likely that this requirement will inevitably increase costs. Surely that outcome cannot be justified.


A more pragmatic approach would be to renew India's present offset policy to enable the induction of high-technology aerospace manufacturing and services through a multi-tiered vendor base. This can be incentivized by offering flexible share-holding options for the establishment of local manufacturing units by foreign companies linked to proposed acquisitions under the umbrella of the primary supplier. Offsets should provide for the progressive localization of sub-assembly manufacturing by vendors under a phased manufacturing programme. This would imply transparently designating high-tech vendors as long-term suppliers without obliging them to tender for every subsequent order. That is the only way to ensure that the risks and costs of rapid technological development are shared. A comprehensive new offset policy that decreases costs and at the same time strengthens defence capability merits consideration.

To conclude, India needs to leverage its current and future defence aerospace acquisitions to create an indigenous high-technology aerospace industrial base that will underpin its national security and economic strength. For this to happen, the need for structural and regulatory reforms of this sector cannot be overstated.

Hemant Krishan Singh and Vijay K. Mathur are, respectively, chair professor of ICRIER-Wadhwani Programme of Research Studies on India-US Relations and Policy Issues and CMD of Inapex Pvt. Ltd.

India needs greenfield defence investments - Views - livemint.com

 

[p2prada]

So now you are compensating for your Pro-Russian stance by going for the Rafale?

If you are right (which I am not so sure right now, not knowing what the Super MKI will be like), then Rafale will be our air-superiority fighter and the MKIs will be taking up the strike roles much like the F-15 Strike Eagles.

Are you a fool? I mean what I say. I have always said the Rafale is the better dog fighter since a long time.

You are simply a sore loser. The Rafale flies better in the subsonic regime, I have said this a countless times. The MKI and EF fly in the transonic regime and have faster corner speeds. Read up before posting juvenile nonsense.

 

[ace009]

Are you a fool? I mean what I say. I have always said the Rafale is the better dog fighter since a long time.

You are simply a sore loser. The Rafale flies better in the subsonic regime, I have said this a countless times. The MKI and EF fly in the transonic regime and have faster corner speeds. Read up before posting juvenile nonsense.

Hmmm - since you started on personal attacks, I assume you have already lost the argument.
The Rafale is the better dogfighter? Where did you get that gem? Do you knwo that Dogfight is another name for WVR fighting with SRAAMs or cannons? MKI with 3D TVC and better maneuverability should be the better "dogfighter". I can imagine the Rafale being the better BVR fighter because of it's lower RCS, better avionics and better missiles (maybe).

Anyway, a strike fighter does not need better control at a subsonic or a transonic regime - all it needs is good AoA, accurate ground mapping and missile control avionics, all of which are present in both Rafale and MKI. Rafale has the advantage of lower RCS and MKI has the advantage of higher speed to reach the objective/ run away.

Let's see in time how IAF uses both the aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

Hmmm - since you started on personal attacks, I assume you have already lost the argument.

Hmm... And you actually think you are a saint? You win and lose arguments by debating. Not by accusing people first and then sitting on the moral high horse the next minute.

The Rafale is the better dogfighter? Where did you get that gem? Do you knwo that Dogfight is another name for WVR fighting with SRAAMs or cannons? MKI with 3D TVC and better maneuverability should be the better "dogfighter". I can imagine the Rafale being the better BVR fighter because of it's lower RCS, better avionics and better missiles (maybe).

Let's see in time how IAF uses both the aircraft.

The Rafale has the better HMS, better missile and has excellent controls at subsonic regime. Better than the MKI in the same regime. The MKI is really a fly fast shoot straight fighter. The TVC does not actually help as much in turns as you think. Only in instantaneous turns does it really work and also in stalling. The MKI cannot go vertical as fast as the Rafale as well. Only Gripen should be able to out turn the Rafale. Even the EF should be able to out turn the MKI and is faster than the MKI in every flight regime. All these aircraft should be able to out turn the F-16.

MKIs advantage is the big azz radar, high range and proven capability. It can stay in the battle for far longer times that other aircraft cannot easily hope to achieve without considerable drag penalties. Staying in the air for longer times is a great advantage to have. Now give it an even better radar and an even better range and it will once again fall into another class of it's own.

Anyway, a strike fighter does not need better control at a subsonic or a transonic regime - all it needs is good AoA, accurate ground mapping and missile control avionics, all of which are present in both Rafale and MKI. Rafale has the advantage of lower RCS and MKI has the advantage of higher speed to reach the objective/ run away.

And you wonder why I called you a fool? A strike fighter needs to have excellent flight capability in the subsonic and transonic regime. Why do you think the F-35 is better than the F-22 in that respect? Learn aerodynamics instead of spouting falsehoods. Falsely accusing me of being some Russian stooge without actually knowing what I am saying is another thing. You don't even know I have criticized every single weapons system as much as I have praised them. The MKI included.

A strike fighter needs a good AoA. Where did you get that from? Do you think Jaguar has good AoA or even F-16 for that fact? SH has it for other reasons.

Speed is overrated. Mach 1.8 is good enough. Rafale's RCS advantage is also overrated. According to French pilots, the MKI saw the Rafale first.

 

[methos]

The Rafale has the better HMS, better missile and has excellent controls at subsonic regime. Better than the MKI in the same regime. The MKI is really a fly fast shoot straight fighter. The TVC does not actually help as much in turns as you think. Only in instantaneous turns does it really work and also in stalling. The MKI cannot go vertical as fast as the Rafale as well. Only Gripen should be able to out turn the Rafale. Even the EF should be able to out turn the MKI and is faster than the MKI in every flight regime. All these aircraft should be able to out turn the F-16.

Well, if you believe the claims of the manufacturer then the EF also can outturn the Rafale.