Know Your 'Rafale'

[Armand2REP]

Contest!
I think there is a world first in this photo, will anyone find it?

I see a really heavy Paveway under the belly.

 

[TrueSpirit]

@halloweene: Which one is correct, Meteor or Paveway ?

 

[halloweene]

Gbu 24. F18 and F14 can do it also, but... Not with 4000 L external fuel , 6 A2A missiles (did you notice the one behind the pod?)

 

[Immanuel]

Hardly worth the brag since SH can pull 14 Air to Air missiles in a single load, would like to see Rafale compare to that.

Super Hornet with 14 AAMs?

SH can carry 6 A2A missiles + 2 GBU-24 + 3 Drop tanks * 330 Gallons or 1249 L i.e a bit over 3600 L of fuel. The 4000L of fuel for Rafale is hardly impressive since the SH already carrying an extra GBU-24

Not to mention, those two stations can carry parhaps 4* CBU-105SFW or 4*JDAM-ER or even 8 SDB 1 which allows it to hit 8 targets 100 km away. If one lets loose the CBU-105, well a whopping 40 targets armored targets per bomb. Oh wait there are 3 more

SH is a far more flexible bird in comparison to the Rafale. With 5 Heavy drop tanks + 4 A2A missiles it can play a tanker role pretty mcuh every bird out there in USN inventory.

It is silly to be comparing these loads since SH does everyday what Rafale can only aspire to at a far lower cost to the operator.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Hardly worth the brag since SH can pull 14 Air to Air missiles in a single load, would like to see Rafale compare to that.

Super Hornet with 14 AAMs?

SH can carry 6 A2A missiles + 2 GBU-24 + 3 Drop tanks * 330 Gallons or 1249 L i.e a bit over 3600 L of fuel. The 4000L of fuel for Rafale is hardly impressive since the SH already carrying an extra GBU-24

Not to mention, those two stations can carry parhaps 4* CBU-105SFW or 4*JDAM-ER or even 8 SDB 1 which allows it to hit 8 targets 100 km away. If one lets loose the CBU-105, well a whopping 40 targets armored targets per bomb. Oh wait there are 3 more

SH is a far more flexible bird in comparison to the Rafale. With 5 Heavy drop tanks + 4 A2A missiles it can play a tanker role pretty mcuh every bird out there in USN inventory.

It is silly to be comparing these loads since SH does everyday what Rafale can only aspire to at a far lower cost to the operator.

SH is a bomb-truck, no doubt.

But, Rafale could also carry 12 A-A missiles, IMHO.

Given Rafale's airframe size & its vastly superior aerodynamic performance (+ maneuverability in WVR combat), it is no mean feat.

For India, Rafale was not only the better choice, but the only sensible choice, given the fact that SH (& others excluding EF) failed to take-off initially in Leh trails. Poor high-altitude performance is not something that IAF could ever be comfortable with, no matter how awesome the ECM, AESA radar, weaponry or sensor fusion is.

Not to forget, Rafale has won every single technical & performance evaluation in all trial evaluations in the world, be it Korea, Kuwait, UAE etc.

 

[Immanuel]

Taking off from Leh is a small change that doesn't take much to accomplish. Rafale is being acquired at roughly double the life cycle + weapons costs for hardly any added advantage. SH with new upgrades could have been acquired by the same time that the first rafale lands in India.

Looking at the economic needs of the country and significant deficiencies in the other services speciallythe Army (which has already faced budget cuts), its ridiculous to be paying such a high price for hardly any added advantage in aerial security. India has a lot of needs and it all has to come from the same pot.

As for WVR and BVR are concerned SH can hold its own against any comers. SH is also a true all-rounder being able to pull of tanking, awacs and the true master of aerial EW and attack. Whether its resaonable service costs or hard to match operational reliability, IAF is being given too much importance.

The MKI together with Mig-29 UPG and in the near future LCA mk1/2 are more than capable of defending the country against aerial attack from anyone with this hemisphere. what IAF needs is an all round jack of all trades which is a work horse to do its' day to day dirty works.

Rafale is just far too expensive to operate and it neither brings in any strategic weight to our relations. France is not worthy enough of being labeled a serious strategic partner.

 

[bose]

@Immanuel, SH is indeed a very good fighter aircraft , but are we sure the Americans were ready with full TOT ??

 

[halloweene]

Checked , directly talking to a former SH pilot, Jeffrey "Goldie" Goldfinger. F18 cant do that from carrier ops.
As for fraction of cost per hour, checked with Jens Schatemann, pilatus test pilot in switzerland, very well introduced in Swiss airforce. They are disatisfied with F18 costs.
Rafale have 14 hard points btw (not all cleared for missiles, but can)
Checked with Vianney Riller JR, test pilot at defesanet who flew both types in their latest version ; "Rafale is by far more advanced" (although he wont write it, journalist deontology). Try to fly a F18 Sh (not talking about Growler) over a S300 PMU1, then we'll talk.

Btw i love "Rhino"

 

[p2prada]

They are disatisfied with F18 costs.

The Malaysians found the Block 1 F-18SH was 3 times more expensive than the Su-30 MKM. The Americans promised to reduce SH's operational costs by half on Block 2, but it is still far more than MKM.

The Koreans, in 2002, found that the Su-35UB (MKI derivative from KNAAPO) was cheaper than all the other competitors.

Checked with Vianney Riller JR, test pilot at defesanet who flew both types in their latest version ; "Rafale is by far more advanced" (although he wont write it, journalist deontology).

This is our Navy Chief Admiral Verma's opinion too.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Taking off from Leh is a small change that doesn't take much to accomplish. Rafale is being acquired at roughly double the life cycle + weapons costs for hardly any added advantage. SH with new upgrades could have been acquired by the same time that the first rafale lands in India.

Looking at the economic needs of the country and significant deficiencies in the other services speciallythe Army (which has already faced budget cuts), its ridiculous to be paying such a high price for hardly any added advantage in aerial security. India has a lot of needs and it all has to come from the same pot.

As for WVR and BVR are concerned SH can hold its own against any comers. SH is also a true all-rounder being able to pull of tanking, awacs and the true master of aerial EW and attack. Whether its resaonable service costs or hard to match operational reliability, IAF is being given too much importance.

The MKI together with Mig-29 UPG and in the near future LCA mk1/2 are more than capable of defending the country against aerial attack from anyone with this hemisphere. what IAF needs is an all round jack of all trades which is a work horse to do its' day to day dirty works.

Rafale is just far too expensive to operate and it neither brings in any strategic weight to our relations. France is not worthy enough of being labeled a serious strategic partner.

Sorry to say @Immanuel, not a single sentence you wrote could be considered as fact. It would be an utter waste of time & effort to comment on them.

All that you wrote has been countered & proven wrong innumerable times in this thread as well as other threads on DFI & BR. Request you to please spend some time in going through relevant stuff.

Hell, SH for all its awesome-ness cannot even fly over the Himalayan ranges to strike Chinese positions & return. I mean, these are very basics that are public knowledge.

Plus, you have overlooked every single factor that IAF deems to be important. And then, you have completely ignored the basics like CISMOA & LSA.

Trust me, IAF knows better than you. Anyway, the replies above (from other posters) are a pointer in the right direction.

 

[Immanuel]

Actually Rafale won't ever cross the himalayan range into China without Unkil's direct permission, no matter how much we think we are in control of our war making destiny, honestly we can't even take a piss in our own backyard (----stan) without Unkil being notified. Thats the truth, we need Unkil's direct backing and approval if we plan any adventures in China. We might as well buy from the one whose support and direct permission we need.

Hahah MKM and MKI are far more expensive to operate than the SH, SH is by far the cheapest twin engine airtcraft to operate and thats a fact.

SH cost per flight hr is around 11k dollars. Moreover life cycles of parts and MTBFs for engines, radars and other avionics are much higher.

Gripen for Canada: What about the Super Hornet?

CISMOA and LSA can be diluted or even completly scrapped with negotiations, if SH was shorlisted and a large carrot of 200 aircraft orders is dangled it give us enough leverage to make demands. Yet, we are currently still stuck recieving the same level tech for Rafale as the US was willing to offer in the first place.

Its not that IAF doesn't know its just that IAF wouldn't care (all they wanted was a new toy), bunch of sissies higher up can easily play foul in this country (happens everyday)

SH's engine just needs a few mods and its ready to take off with a good load on SH the same goes for everyother aircraft in the competition. If you claim EF failed to take off of Leh yet its strange it made the downlist.

The swiss being unhappy with their F-18 costs doesn't even come into picture since they operate the F-18, the SH was designed with significant operational savings in mind.

Moreover, the SH's F414 commonality with LCA mk-2 in itself would save billions over a lifetime.

As for load out from carrier ops, I have little faith in what a suppossed former SH pilot says. Also,


As for the SH, a regular SH can be wired to be a Growler like the Aussies did to be converted when needed. Flying over a S-300, well atleast it has a standoff weapon AAGRM or HARM-E to fire at radars or SLAM-ER, JASSM to fire at S-300 type targets. Besides Growler has no equal in terms of Electronic attack. Also to me Growler and SH are the family. All the more, makes sense to have 3 or 4 squadrons out of the 200 SH aircraft to be purely dedicated to Electronic Attack.

Does Rafale even have a dedicated ARM deployed on it?

 

[halloweene]

11k dollars? Great! same cost as rafale then (according to last numbers)...For roughly the same payload (in a twice larger plane), lesser kindematics (wont go into EW suites as none of us have definitive clue), less range, strings to spare parts (maybe you dont know that on any us built plane, there is a clause that in case of war, us can preempt them), less ToT etc. etc.

 

[halloweene]

11k dollars? Great! same cost as rafale then (according to last numbers)...For roughly the same payload (in a twice larger plane), lesser kindematics (wont go into EW suites as none of us have definitive clue), less range, strings to spare parts (maybe you dont know that on any us built plane, there is a clause that in case of war, us can preempt them), less ToT etc. etc.

Rafale do not use ARM, you are right . Instead they use SCALP for pre designed SEAD (in fact DEAD btw) missions or AASM for opportunity targets. If you want to go into comparison, why not start a topic?

Growler andSH arent really a family., but nvm getting tired

 

[halloweene]

I would be grateful to you not to insult neither me (supposed) neither "Goldie" (pilot and vice president of L3com, just retired), thank you. BTW SAncho (and other), never could register to BR, any reason?

 

[Armand2REP]

Actually Rafale won't ever cross the himalayan range into China without Unkil's direct permission, no matter how much we think we are in control of our war making destiny, honestly we can't even take a piss in our own backyard (----stan) without Unkil being notified. Thats the truth, we need Unkil's direct backing and approval if we plan any adventures in China. We might as well buy from the one whose support and direct permission we need.

What does US really control? The weak minded perhaps. When they told us to go to Iraq and save the world from WMD and Al Queda, France says you are full of shyte, have fun. When they wanted to fly over French airspace to bomb Libya back in the eighties we told them to forget it, you have to fly around. When the US told us to hold on at the Paris conference to enforce the Libya no-fly zone we told them to go to hell, Rafale's are already there. The funniest lack of control was the Russian invasion of Georgia, I actually laughed watching their marines run for the docks as Russian troops came storming down. How many times has Israel, who should be the biggest US lackeys told Obama to shove it? 5-6 times now? Don't get me started on Iran and North Korea...

Hahah MKM and MKI are far more expensive to operate than the SH, SH is by far the cheapest twin engine airtcraft to operate and thats a fact.

SH cost per flight hr is around 11k dollars. Moreover life cycles of parts and MTBFs for engines, radars and other avionics are much higher.

Yes, they are quite more expensive to operate than SH. SH costs $15,346 an hour to operate according to the GAO. It is good but not the cheapest.

Gripen for Canada: What about the Super Hornet?

The Gripen flight costs have been greatly under advertised. Just ask South Africa and Czech Republic, their fleets hardly ever get off the ground.

CISMOA and LSA can be diluted or even completly scrapped with negotiations, if SH was shorlisted and a large carrot of 200 aircraft orders is dangled it give us enough leverage to make demands. Yet, we are currently still stuck recieving the same level tech for Rafale as the US was willing to offer in the first place.

France makes secure equipment that does not require agreements like CISMOA or LSA and can easily replace anything one does not want to buy from US. They never offer the same level tech as France due to restrictions.

Its not that IAF doesn't know its just that IAF wouldn't care (all they wanted was a new toy), bunch of sissies higher up can easily play foul in this country (happens everyday)

IAF reviewed what had the lowest lifecycle cost and with the new ECO engines, that was Rafale.

SH's engine just needs a few mods and its ready to take off with a good load on SH the same goes for everyother aircraft in the competition. If you claim EF failed to take off of Leh yet its strange it made the downlist.

Moreover, the SH's F414 commonality with LCA mk-2 in itself would save billions over a lifetime.

It wasn't EFT that had problems at LEH, it was the F414 engine in both the SH and LCA that had problems taking off with this engine.

As for load out from carrier ops, I have little faith in what a suppossed former SH pilot says. Also,

Yet you are an advocate for the SH but you won't put faith in an SH pilot...

As for the SH, a regular SH can be wired to be a Growler like the Aussies did to be converted when needed. Flying over a S-300, well atleast it has a standoff weapon AAGRM or HARM-E to fire at radars or SLAM-ER, JASSM to fire at S-300 type targets. Besides Growler has no equal in terms of Electronic attack. Also to me Growler and SH are the family. All the more, makes sense to have 3 or 4 squadrons out of the 200 SH aircraft to be purely dedicated to Electronic Attack.

No, they can't be converted to a Growler. It is either a Growler off the assembly line or it is an SH. Boeing changed the frame, fairings, wings and ailerons. Growler is certainly effective today in electronic attack, however when Russia and eventually China start pumping out AESA radars, it will quickly become obsolete.

Does Rafale even have a dedicated ARM deployed on it?

No it does not, and for the reason of how ineffective HARM/ALARM was over Serbia a new system of SEAD was introduced. A combination of micro-sats and Spectra detect, classify and triangulate target coordinates for stand-off weapons. This can range from SCALP, Apache to AASM depending on the target. The capabilities of Spectra to map air defences was first used over Libya which provided coordinates for US Tomahawks. It proved quite effective.

 

[halloweene]

Anw, i'lll give real answer tomorrow. In order to help, imagine mecs doing everything thy can in order to make the aircraft lighter?

 

[p2prada]

Hahah MKM and MKI are far more expensive to operate than the SH, SH is by far the cheapest twin engine airtcraft to operate and thats a fact.

Incorrect. As already posted before, MKI is cheaper to operate compared to SH. Su-35BM should beat MKI in that respect.

SH cost per flight hr is around 11k dollars. Moreover life cycles of parts and MTBFs for engines, radars and other avionics are much higher.

Are you comparing to Rafale? While Rafale's current costs are calculated in Euros, a direct comparison will be unfair. Bring both aircraft to India and lifecycle costs for Rafale should be very similar to SH. Then again, it depends on the industrial ToT too.

The MTBF and lifecycle of the F-414 is similar to the M88-2.

Also, there are no major differences in the costs with respect to Rafale. For eg: The F-414 ordered for LCA costs more than $6 Million per unit while the RD-33 Series 3 engines for Mig-29s cost less than $1.5 Million each. The M88-2/4s should cost as much as the F-414.

CISMOA and LSA can be diluted or even completly scrapped with negotiations, if SH was shorlisted and a large carrot of 200 aircraft orders is dangled it give us enough leverage to make demands.

Impossible. CISMOA and LSA are non-negotiable even if you want 2000 aircraft. We can't live considering "what if" situations.

Yet, we are currently still stuck recieving the same level tech for Rafale as the US was willing to offer in the first place.

That's nonsense. We are talking about AESA based EW and radar + at least 60% ToT. The American deal is still crippled by the Congress because we don't have either NATO status or a Major Non-NATO ally status. Meaning we get no ToT. It's a law. One of the reasons why even Javelin deal failed.

Its not that IAF doesn't know its just that IAF wouldn't care (all they wanted was a new toy), bunch of sissies higher up can easily play foul in this country (happens everyday)

Shows your lack of understanding.

There was a reason why the Indian Navy termed SH as a good aircraft, but that Rafale was a next generation aircraft.

SH's engine just needs a few mods and its ready to take off with a good load on SH the same goes for everyother aircraft in the competition. If you claim EF failed to take off of Leh yet its strange it made the downlist.

The Leh trials had nothing to do with the shortlist. The Leh trials merely required changes in fuel lines, which is a simple change.

SH is not certified to carry 14 BVR missiles. It carries only 6. That's what it is combat certified for. Carrying 14 would require recertification. Apart from the 6 BVR, it also carries 2 WVR missiles and tanks + bombs. The pic with 14 missiles is not practical in a real war because the drag is too much and leads to performance degradation in every regime.

The swiss being unhappy with their F-18 costs doesn't even come into picture since they operate the F-18, the SH was designed with significant operational savings in mind.

The first SH costs 3 times as much as MKI, the second costs a little less than twice as that of the MKI. It is still quite expensive. So don't give it the cheap tag.

Moreover, the SH's F414 commonality with LCA mk-2 in itself would save billions over a lifetime.

IAF does not care about this.

As for load out from carrier ops, I have little faith in what a suppossed former SH pilot says.

Then who are you going to rely on? Brochures?

As for the SH, a regular SH can be wired to be a Growler like the Aussies did to be converted when needed.

Irrelevant to us. The ECM pods are not for sale. The Aussie Growlers are lemons.

Flying over a S-300, well atleast it has a standoff weapon AAGRM or HARM-E to fire at radars or SLAM-ER, JASSM to fire at S-300 type targets. Besides Growler has no equal in terms of Electronic attack. Also to me Growler and SH are the family. All the more, makes sense to have 3 or 4 squadrons out of the 200 SH aircraft to be purely dedicated to Electronic Attack.

These are reasons enough to justify a SH over Rafale for USN, not for IAF. IAF won't be flying SH after all, let alone the Growler.

 

[p2prada]

I forgot to add one point.

The Australians bought 24 Super Hornets for $115 Million (unit costs) each in 2007. Training and support costs + unit costs was $234 Million. All these are 2007 figures. So SH is not cheap either. It is cheap only for the USN.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

India, Dassault agree to set aside divergences, move ahead in other areas

NEW DELHI: India and French firm Dassault Aviation today decided to keep aside their sharp differences over contractual obligations and move ahead on the other aspects of the deal to procure 126 multirole combat aircraft for the IAF.

During the contract negotiation committee meeting today, the two sides agreed to keep their discussions pending on the issue of having separate contracts and the role of HAL in the deal and move ahead on other things such as pricing and support services, sources told PTI here today.


Serious differences have cropped up in the contract negotiations between the Defence Ministry and the French firm, threatening to delay the country's single largest dose military acquisition.

The French firm has already agreed with the Defence Ministry's demand for having one contract with the four major firms involved in the deal, including MBDA, for the weapons package for the aircraft instead of four separate contracts, they said.

The firm is understood to have agreed to the Defence Ministry's demand on the issue after the involvement of French government.

India, Dassault agree to set aside divergences, move ahead in other areas - Economic Times

 

[halloweene]

Hint : internal fuel, 4.7 tons add tanks, pylons, 4000 L of fuel, GBU24, 6 Micas, pilot weight...