Know Your 'Rafale'

[Drsomnath999]

HAL and Dassault Aviation confident in partnership

Paris, June 18th 2013 - On the occasion of the Paris Air Show, HAL Chairman, Dr RK Tyagi and Dassault Aviation chairman, Eric Trappier and their respective Senior Executives met to review the progress in ongoing projects.

Both Chairmen expressed satisfaction on the work already achieved by the integrated teams and renewed their commitment towards successful completion of the various projects.

HAL and Dassault Aviation confident in partnership | Dassault Aviation

 

[Armand2REP]

Trust me there was also a video on it
i had also that link & saved it my pc but i cant upload it for some reasons

This video is not that same video which is uploaded in rafalenews blogspot.com

I remember when the rumours of Rafale scoring this kill came out, then an F-22 pilot interview came out on flightglobal blogs saying that they handled everyone with ease. How can they lie like that and why did we wait so long to release this footage? It should have been part of the marketing campaign the week after it happened.

 

[halloweene]

Very precise article about MMRCA evolution.

le portail des passionnés de l'aviation

Rafale contract in India: An update on the negotiations.
Although Mr. Trappier during the press conference prior to the opening of the exhibition, have declined to comment in more detail on the negotiations during the MMRCA contract in India, we were able to get more information. This information will try to make you understand that negotiations are progressing, but they are extremely complex, which partly explains the delay in signing the final contract, which hides a multitude of different sub-contracts.
Most important to understand, if there was one, is that there is no point locking present or with the Indian authorities, with HAL. Only, it was widely reported by the media, some partners wanted Dassault is fully responsible for the finished product. It is obvious that no company in the world would accept such a responsibility, which is by no means present in the RFP (Request for proposal) initial. RFP on which Dassault Aviation is based to issue its proposal. Any new request from the client (is king) is the subject of a new proposal, or a modification of the original proposal. This is part of what is now the play.

Before addressing this question further, it is important to remember is that, in France, the construction of the Rafale. Dassault Aviation is the prime contractor, but it is not responsible for the provision of all its components. Furthermore Safran engines and Thales Avionics, a multitude of SMEs provide the Rafale, more than 500. These subcontracting SMEs have their own expertise and their own patents.

Rafale M (credit: Fox3shot)


With the transfer of a large part of the production of the Rafale in India, that's all it takes industrial meccano reproduce in India with HAL as the prime contractor. But Dassault is only an intermediary. It is among the Indian companies proposed by HAL, select those that will be able to assimilate technology and sensitive industrial processes. Once selected, each Indian subcontractor must sign a contract for technology transfer and licensed production. with its French counterpart. This represents hundreds or thousands of page contract. Multiply this by 500 estimates .... And you will get a sense of the magnitude of the task. Every Indian subcontractor, which to date have all been identified, must be audited by Dassault Aviation to know precisely its ability to absorb advanced technologies in a timely manner, and to start production. At the end of the audit, the Rafale will provide human and technical assistance tailored to each local business.

It takes between two and three years to fully produce a Rafale, machining of the first parts to final assembly. This means that the contract is signed, but the first 18 aircraft will be levied on French channels, the Indian sub-contractors have to be very reactive when progressive indigenization of production of the Rafale in India.

To guard against a time from one of the many suppliers, which could result from binding any mechanical delay and, ultimately, the production of the first Rafale, Dassault Aviation uses a second set of companies of their choice (always Indian of course), to ensure a second supply chain that could deal with any failure of the first, or to support a faster ramp-up of production aircraft.
Posted by Bruno Etchenic a

 

[SajeevJino]

HAL, Dassault Aviation discuss Rafale aircraft deal​

Carrying out discussions in the multi-billion dollar deal for 126 Rafale combat aircraft, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and French Dassault Aviation today reviewed the progress of their ongoing projects at the Paris air show

"At the Paris Airshow, HAL top brass met with top executives of Dassault Aviation to review the progress in ongoing projects," an HAL release said here.

"The two teams expressed satisfaction on the work already achieved by the integrated teams and renewed their commitment towards successful completion of the various projects," it said.

If the deal is signed, 18 of the 126 aircraft would be produced at Dassault Aviation facilities in France while the remaining would be done at the HAL facilities in Bangalore.

Earlier in the project, Dassault Aviation had sought clarification from the Defence Ministry over the role of HAL in integration of the aircraft.

The ministry had rejected any demands for changing the role of HAL in the project saying that it would remain the lead integrator in the programme as per the Request for Proposal issued for the project.


HAL, Dassault Aviation discuss Rafale aircraft deal - The Economic Times

 

[halloweene]

Hal's role as main integrator was in RFP;but not the fact that the winner contender would be responsible of products. Dassault can certify HAL and the subcontenders but not what they build after.
About the Meccano, and ramping up indigenous production. During the production of the production of a rafale, you need a componenent A lets say six month after starting building it. Will the indian subcontrator have ingested full ToT at this time to participate to that rafale? Or the next one? Some partners will easily infer ToT, others will need longer time (and therefore wont be able to deliver components for first rafales), and all that need to be integrated in the supply chain.

Infos give on that french blog are official, coming from Dassault Head PR vice President Stephane Fort. I collected them myself (although i didnt write the article)

Will go see HAL today at PASfor other half of the story.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Once shot, One have to evade regardless what kind it is..

R-77 are deadly and consider same as AIM-120 by USAF..

USAF think realistic ..

Fact.Typical sales-pitch coupled with jingoistic rant. Reality is: You never know (enough).
@ersakthivel & @Kunal Biswas could elaborate on this.

 

[sob]

In the past one year Euro has appreciated by almost 12% against the Rs.

We are adding nearly a Billion Euro to the deal just on the basis of the currency fluctuation, plus we have to factor in the price variation clause over a period of time. shudder to think what would be the final price that we have to pay for the aircraft.

 

[Armand2REP]

In the past one year Euro has appreciated by almost 12% against the Rs.

We are adding nearly a Billion Euro to the deal just on the basis of the currency fluctuation, plus we have to factor in the price variation clause over a period of time. shudder to think what would be the final price that we have to pay for the aircraft.

It doesn't work like that. When a long lead contract is signed, you pay over the term of the contract... not all at once. The annual installments would be $400 million so currency costs in one year would be marginal.

 

[ladder]

It doesn't work like that. When a long lead contract is signed, you pay over the term of the contract... not all at once. The annual installments would be $400 million so currency costs in one year would be marginal.

How did you arrive at the figure $400 million? would be interesting to know the details.

 

[Armand2REP]

How did you arrive at the figure $400 million? would be interesting to know the details.

$13 billion into the life of the contract = 30 years.

 

[ladder]

$13 billion into the life of the contract = 30 years.

Though you are correct that the contract value will be paid in batches, but I think it would not be flat or on yearly basis.
The amount would be different for different years. Higher initially and decreasing gradually when tech. has been absorbed.

 

[Armand2REP]

Though you are correct that the contract value will be paid in batches, but I think it would not be flat or on yearly basis.
The amount would be different for different years. Higher initially and decreasing gradually when tech. has been absorbed.

It won't be flat, that is the average and the fluctuations in currency also average out over time.

 

[p2prada]

Ok, @p2prada, which fighters today have best demonstrated climb-rates ?

F-15, F-16, Su-27, Rafale, EF. F-22s climb rates are unknown, but it would be significantly high considering the powerful engines.

In terms of records, Su-27 has the most records followed by Mig-25 and then F-15. I suppose aircraft like Rafale and EF may break such records if they try.

J-20, I know has a good T/W ratio. But, could you please share which fighters excel in this parameter ?

Nobody knows anything about J-20.

Is climb rate alone, a decisive factor in dog-fights (which is going to stay, anyway) or, if such limitations can be overcome/compensated/negated by possession of other advantages ?

I wasn't talking about dog fights, but BVR.

Could you please share how the above two work, especially the High-Off Bore-Sight & which Indian/Chinese fighters are going to have that?

The advantage of a tiny aircraft were two pronged. One, it would have high T/W ratio because it carries less fuel and has powerful engines. Second advantage is that it is small and hence difficult to spot visually.

With IRST (and 360 degree radar in case of PAKFA), small size is less significant since electronics will take over the function of the human eye.

Small size did not help the Arabs against later generation Israeli fighters. That's because the Americans managed to install powerful engines on their aircraft that allowed them to exceed the capabilities of the lighter aircraft. With more powerful engines, even large aircraft can have T/W and flight dynamics that exceeds light fighters.

The only aircraft that has 360 degree IRST would be F-35, Mig-35 and Su-35. But Su-35 and Mig-35 have it as optional while the F-35's DAS will come as a standard fitment. No idea if 360 degree IRST capability is being looked at in the Super MKI upgrade. It seems like J-20 may have 360 degree IRST capability, but this is not 100% sure. FGFA will come with 360 degree radar and perhaps even IRST while PAKFA may come with the options for the same.

HOBS allows taking shots at wide angles. So the IRST is mated to WVR missiles which will give these missiles a 360 degree engagement capability.

Anyway tomorrows fight will mostly be BVR anyway. So most of the focus will be on fighting at a distance and avoiding IRST+HOBS engagements.

What is a 11:1 T/W ratio, never heard it before? It is usually expressed in decimals, right ?

T/W is Thrust to Weight ratio. So, when we say an aircraft has a T/W of 1.1, we actually mean 1.1:1 or 1.1/1, ie for even unit of weight the engine can exert 1.1 units of thrust. Since the denominator is 1, we generally skip mentioning it. The numerator carries what is relevant and yes it can be a decimal when exact values are calculated.

Early 4th gen engines were of the 8:1 and 9:1 T/W ratio class. Later 4th gen engines managed to scale up to 10 and 10.5:1. F-35's engines are of the 11.5:1 class. PAKFA will have three engines. One is a 10.5:1 class 117 which generates 147-152KN of thrust. It will be scaled up to 11-11.5 once with thrust at 165KN on production models. A stage 2 engine called Type 30 is in development. According to Saturn, the new engine will deliver 175-180KN of thrust and weigh 30% less than 117, which translates to a T/W of greater than 17:1.

The lower the weight and greater the thrust of the engine, the superior will be the aircraft's characteristics.

 

[sob]

It doesn't work like that. When a long lead contract is signed, you pay over the term of the contract... not all at once. The annual installments would be $400 million so currency costs in one year would be marginal.

In a deal of this size of course money has not to be paid in one go, but then typically 10% or 20% is paid upfront and the balance in pre decided tranches.

The escalation clause is not a direct clause for Dassault, but this is a hidden cost due to the devaluation of the Indian currency.

GOI estimates that for the next 5 years the inflation should be around 5%, which is also the comfort zone for RBI, while for the Euro zone it may be around 1or 2%

So at least every year Indian Rupee should depreciate against the Euro at the minimum of 5%. Remember at the end of the day we have to calculate the cost in Rs. and not in Euro.

 

[TrueSpirit]

F-15, F-16, Su-27, Rafale, EF. F-22s climb rates are unknown, but it would be significantly high considering the powerful engines.

In terms of records, Su-27 has the most records followed by Mig-25 and then F-15. I suppose aircraft like Rafale and EF may break such records if they try.

So, basically, MKI 's engine does not produce enough thrust compared to its weight (& weight increases due to its high fuel-carrying capacity & payload) & hence, MKI has an inherent disadvantage is A2A combats. Or, in other words, MKI sacrifices maneuverability for range & payload. What I find strange is that a version as recent as MKI has inferior maneuverability (or shall I say, climb-rate) to a legacy platform, ie.Su-27 (no matter how robust a standard Su-27 is). I mean, a much-touted air-superiority platform should not be low on something as basic as maneuverability, especially coming from Russian pedigree.

I mean, Su-30K designers should have made provisions for an engine that does not sacrifice that indispensable advantage of Su-27, which as per you, is of utmost importance in BVR combat. When laymen talk of MKI, maneuverability is the first aspect that comes to mind. And, to learn that SU-27 betters MKI in climb rate, because the focus was on payload & range, does not inspires much confidence in the designers of Su-30K.

I mean, the standard modus-operandi should be to design a platform around an engine, isn't it ? Please educate.

 

[p2prada]

So, basically, MKI 's engine does not produce enough thrust compared to its weight (& weight increases due to its high fuel-carrying capacity & payload) & hence, MKI has an inherent disadvantage is A2A combats.

MKI uses similar thrust as the lighter Su-27 did. However MKI has other advantages that negate this.

Or, in other words, MKI sacrifices maneuverability for range & payload.

Not at all. MKIs maneuverability is far superior to the Su-27. Let's not forget canards and TVC. Just that regaining energy will take a little bit longer when the aircraft is carrying heavy loads. At lighter fuel load and payloads the aircraft performance is better since even the flight software has improved a lot compared to a legacy Flanker. Meaning the Su-27 had flaws in its FBW.

What I find strange is that a version as recent as MKI has inferior maneuverability (or shall I say, climb-rate) to a legacy platform, ie.Su-27 (no matter how robust a standard Su-27 is). I mean, a much-touted air-superiority platform should not be low on something as basic as maneuverability, especially coming from Russian pedigree.

The F-16 B60 has inferior maneuverability and climb rates compared to a B52. Designers sacrificed performance in order to get better capability.

I mean, Su-30K designers should have made provisions for an engine that does not sacrifice that indispensable advantage of Su-27, which as per you, is of utmost importance in BVR combat. When laymen talk of MKI, maneuverability is the first aspect that comes to mind. And, to learn that SU-27 betters MKI in climb rate, because the focus was on payload & range, does not inspires much confidence in the designers of Su-30K.

I mean, the standard modus-operandi should be to design a platform around an engine, isn't it ? Please educate.

Nevertheless, Su-27 is merely lighter and hence has greater T/W. You can say a high thrust variant of the AL-31 was not yet developed when the MKI was inducted. It was the same for Su-34 and Su-35, just that Su-35 was built around a better engine. Let's see if engines are part of the Super Sukhoi upgrades. Both IAF and Sukhoi saw that the capability boost at MKIs level was greater than what Su-27 could offer regardless of T/W.

Only means MKI has better BVR capability in every other way and has other advantages in dog fights with the use of canards and TVC compared to Su-27. Also the Su-27's advantage in climb rates compared to MKI is marginal at higher payloads. Su-27 has a T/W of 1.16 with 5 tonnes of fuel while MKI's is at 1.08. As payload increases, the difference between the two decreases. MKI "may" have a better L/D ratio too.

 

[p2prada]

Hal's role as main integrator was in RFP;but not the fact that the winner contender would be responsible of products. Dassault can certify HAL and the subcontenders but not what they build after.

I don't think that's true. Quality will be part of the contract.

It is the same for Sukhoi too. Meaning the Russians are responsible for HAL's quality on MKI. They have people stationed in India who ensure quality.

In the past one year Euro has appreciated by almost 12% against the Rs.

We are adding nearly a Billion Euro to the deal just on the basis of the currency fluctuation, plus we have to factor in the price variation clause over a period of time. shudder to think what would be the final price that we have to pay for the aircraft.

Early on, we might lose quite a bit of money because money will be put into production facilities and the configuration of our aircraft. Overtime it all depends on where either economy is headed. Consider a case where there is a drastic strengthening of the rupee in the next decade. We could end up buying Rafales for peanuts in 10 years.

Otherwise, even MKI started as a $3Billion program for 140 airframes and ended up with more than $10Billion spent for 220.

I suppose you might have a better idea if you compare to the Mig-21 program since you were in it.

 

[halloweene]

Had talks with some indian people today at PAS. HAL want Dassault to be responsible of "quality assessment", issue is closed. Now fixing probs with ramping up indigenization synchronized with industrial process. According to my "source" (apart from hal), final signature in december (could even be done in november), but also could be delayed one/two months depending on Rupee.
Inside Dassault, (a dfferent one from previous post), "India is our oldest partner. We are fully commited, and we will NOT sign if we have any doubt about quality issues etc. When we sign, we will be sure that everything will undergo nicely for indians. Their partnership is too important for us.

 

[TrueSpirit]

MKI uses similar thrust as the lighter Su-27 did. However MKI has other advantages that negate this.

Yeah, I suppose I understand those other advantages.

Not at all. MKIs maneuverability is far superior to the Su-27. Let's not forget canards and TVC. Just that regaining energy will take a little bit longer when the aircraft is carrying heavy loads. At lighter fuel load and payloads the aircraft performance is better since even the flight software has improved a lot compared to a legacy Flanker. Meaning the Su-27 had flaws in its FBW.

Great, then.

The F-16 B60 has inferior maneuverability and climb rates compared to a B52. Designers sacrificed performance in order to get better capability.

This is the common F-16 fighter/bomber you are talking about, right ? How could a heavy bomber have a better aerodynamic performance, apart from advantages of range, service ceiling & payload ?

Nevertheless, Su-27 is merely lighter and hence has greater T/W. You can say a high thrust variant of the AL-31 was not yet developed when the MKI was inducted. It was the same for Su-34 and Su-35, just that Su-35 was built around a better engine. Let's see if engines are part of the Super Sukhoi upgrades. Both IAF and Sukhoi saw that the capability boost at MKIs level was greater than what Su-27 could offer regardless of T/W.

Yeah, everyone is curious about the bold-ed part.

Only means MKI has better BVR capability in every other way and has other advantages in dog fights with the use of canards and TVC compared to Su-27. Also the Su-27's advantage in climb rates compared to MKI is marginal at higher payloads. Su-27 has a T/W of 1.16 with 5 tonnes of fuel while MKI's is at 1.08. As payload increases, the difference between the two decreases. MKI "may" have a better L/D ratio too.

I think these last 2 paragraphs answer my question adequately. Thank you @p2prada

 

[p2prada]

This is the common F-16 fighter/bomber you are talking about, right ?

No, the common one is F-16 B50/52. B60 comes with AESA and the works. Only UAE operates it and it is a derivative of the version offered to us in MRCA.

How could a heavy bomber have a better aerodynamic performance, apart from advantages of range, service ceiling & payload ?

I don't know what you mean. Heavy bombers are entirely different.

I think these last 2 paragraphs answer my question adequately. Thank you @p2prada

You're welcome.