Know Your 'Rafale'

[ersakthivel]

Stop wasteful military deals - The New Indian Express

IMHO the 200 Kg ballast must have been placed simulating excess weight component that will need to be added as new requirements arose which is a standard practice in any test flight program. For example if IRST needs to ne added to Tejas mk-1 . Then we can replace this ballast with IRST equipment .

In the same way this 200 KG extra weight will also replicate the performance of MK-2 .Since in the same way it will simulate the fuselage plug to be added for MK-2 to increase it's weight.

SO he is not far off the mark when he says this. may be he did not give detailed explanations but it is more or less correct.

Riaz Khokar in his critical article about Tejas mk-2 expectations also referred to this 200 KG ballast weight in tejas mk-2 and feigned ignorance of it. he should know any way that it simulates the excess weight that may be added in future if IAf asks for further additions. Since the many weight saving exercise were carried out already reducing the weight of the mk-1 close to a ton this ballast if it is still used in mk-1 will simulate the excess weight of the mk-2.

Who did all the IOCs and FOCs for SU-30 MKI? The sukhoi guys? No. Even before the SU-30 MKI was finished as a product IAF put money into it based on the performance of base line version of Su-30 . Without gettng so many OCs a squadron of less tested F-35 are already opertating. Also russian airforce is gearing up to introduce without insisting on so many changes and 2300 flight tests spanning 14 years ,
Just four or five prototypes of PAKFA are up in the air with older engines originally not meant for it. The new engine for PAKFA is yet toget certification.

Then how can the Russian airforce introduce PAKFA next year with fewer than 1000 sub standard test flights with fixtures on the air frame and old lesser power engines on which it is running now?

SO the author is correct on this count as well.

wiki states the Range 850 KM and ferry range 3000 KM for tejas MK 1.

MK 1 can fly 2X850 Km =1700 KM .

If MK 1 can fly 1700 KM than certainly MK2 with additional 40% fuel can at least fly more than 50 percent long distance.SInce reserve fuel back up levels will be the same for mk-1 and mk-2 along with the fact it is the take off and sharp manoeuvres which eat up most fuel not cruising at a comfortable fuel burn ratio as per design.

After all GE404 is a highly fuel efficient engine and GE 414 IN S 6 goes one step further and it is more advanced than the older engines on RAFALE .



.So MK2 will have close to 75 % of rafale's range in normal design load normal internal fuel condition in which most of the IAF missions are carried out.

You can't go lugging tons and tons of extra fuel (bullock cart level close combat performance config )into heavily defended PAk and Chinese air space defended by F-16 newer blocks and chinese flanker versions in the same way french are flying over next to no defence air spaces of male and Afganisthan. SO even if IAF attempts fly with such heavy external fuel tanks on the first blush of contact with defending fighters those fuel tanks will be dumped.

Fuel capacity of 2 engine Rafale with a few more tons of extra empty weight is 4700 KG against the few tons lesser weight single engine LCA MK2 which has 3000 to 3400 KG of internal fuel.

So for normal combat missions which demand high close combat performance with full internal fuel only tejas mk-2 will have almost close to the same range as RAAFLE.

In addition tejas mk-2 has air to air refuelling in buddy mode as well .

Mk2 can carryout 80 percent of the missions which Rafale can. And we have extra super Sukhois FGFA s to cover the remaining 30 percent. With french already wiggling out of TOT commitments with "HAL ---no good " certificate close to 30 billion dollar expenditure is a sheer waste of money on a redundant acquisition , if you consider the sjy high upgrading price for Mirage 2000 will repeat itself for RAFALE . then we can operate close to 250 tejas mk-2 and 50 extra Super Sukhoi fighters which has complete TOT including engine in our hands,

last but not the least tejas mk-2 will have even lower wing loading with comparable TWR and a a ten percent higher top speeds of mach-2 meaning that tejas mk-2 has better designed air frame using the latest composite tech with close to 60 percent of it's weight in composites as suggested by CEMEILAC.

it will have the same long range BVRs and same powered ASEA radar with matching antena dia as RAFALE.

Some people are misquoting the clean config RCS of tejas mk-1 as a third of mirage -2000. But the proper quote that can be read from B. harry's vayu piece on tejas is

"tejas will have a third of clean config RCS of the latest 4th gen fighters in design phase. When this comment wa made i only TYPHOON and RAFALE was in the works not Mirage-2000.

So with no canards and more aerodynamic and RCS optimization that will take place for tejas mk-2 along with far lesser physical dimensions than the TYPHOON and RAFALE you can rightfully expect tejas mk-2 to have far lesser clean config RCS than the RAFALE as well.

Also the single engine of tejas mk-2 will release more than 40 percent lesser heat energy into the atmosphere . it means a substantially lesser IRST detection range as well.

So for the close to 20 percent shortfall in range over RAFALE Tejas mk-2 has some very significant advantage over RAFALE in home air space defence as well.

the ASEA for tejas mk-2 is also getting ready with foreign collaboration as well. And tejas mk-2 will always be upgradable with whatever longer range BVRs supplied in future from russia for FGFA as well. As we are doing the avionics and radar integration on FGFA we can port these close to 200 KM range BVRs on tejas mk-2 as well with no hefty fees and least hassles.

Thats what the test pilot Suneth krishna said that tejas is a modular fighter easily upgradable in batches as all it's design knowledge is here.

The weapon load is never a problem we can operate 3 Tejas mk-2 for the cost of one RAFALE with far lesser per hour operation cost as well.

That means fo the same price we will have three RAFALE sized ASEA radars with three EW suits along with 21 pylons carrying close to 30 air to air missile=s if dual rack launch pylons are added in future.



SO even though making a few mistakes like naming the HPT 40 as HJT 44 and mistaking the comments of french pilots as test flight comments the author is correct by and large, If at all the author mentioned the rejection by IAF of HPT-35 effort by HAL then there would be more questions to be answered.

 

[ersakthivel]

IMHO the 200 Kg ballast must have been placed simulating excess weight component that will need to be added as new requirements arose which is a standard practice in any test flight program. For example if IRST needs to ne added to Tejas mk-1 . Then we can replace this ballast with IRST equipment .

In the same way this 200 KG extra weight will also replicate the performance of MK-2 .Since in the same way it will simulate the fuselage plug to be added for MK-2 to increase it's weight.

SO he is not far off the mark when he says this. may be he did not give detailed explanations but it is more or less correct.

Riaz Khokar in his critical article about Tejas mk-2 expectations also referred to this 200 KG ballast weight in tejas mk-2 and feigned ignorance of it. he should know any way that it simulates the excess weight that may be added in future if IAf asks for further additions. Since the many weight saving exercise were carried out already reducing the weight of the mk-1 close to a ton this ballast if it is still used in mk-1 will simulate the excess weight of the mk-2.

Who did all the IOCs and FOCs for SU-30 MKI? The sukhoi guys? No. Even before the SU-30 MKI was finished as a product IAF put money into it based on the performance of base line version of Su-30 . Without gettng so many OCs a squadron of less tested F-35 are already opertating. Also russian airforce is gearing up to introduce without insisting on so many changes and 2300 flight tests spanning 14 years ,
Just four or five prototypes of PAKFA are up in the air with older engines originally not meant for it. The new engine for PAKFA is yet toget certification.

Then how can the Russian airforce introduce PAKFA next year with fewer than 1000 sub standard test flights with fixtures on the air frame and old lesser power engines on which it is running now?

SO the author is correct on this count as well.

wiki states the Range 850 KM and ferry range 3000 KM for tejas MK 1.

MK 1 can fly 2X850 Km =1700 KM .

If MK 1 can fly 1700 KM than certainly MK2 with additional 40% fuel can at least fly more than 50 percent long distance.SInce reserve fuel back up levels will be the same for mk-1 and mk-2 along with the fact it is the take off and sharp manoeuvres which eat up most fuel not cruising at a comfortable fuel burn ratio as per design.

After all GE404 is a highly fuel efficient engine and GE 414 IN S 6 goes one step further and it is more advanced than the older engines on RAFALE .



.So MK2 will have close to 75 % of rafale's range in normal design load normal internal fuel condition in which most of the IAF missions are carried out.

You can't go lugging tons and tons of extra fuel (bullock cart level close combat performance config )into heavily defended PAk and Chinese air space defended by F-16 newer blocks and chinese flanker versions in the same way french are flying over next to no defence air spaces of male and Afganisthan. SO even if IAF attempts fly with such heavy external fuel tanks on the first blush of contact with defending fighters those fuel tanks will be dumped.

Fuel capacity of 2 engine Rafale with a few more tons of extra empty weight is 4700 KG against the few tons lesser weight single engine LCA MK2 which has 3000 to 3400 KG of internal fuel.

So for normal combat missions which demand high close combat performance with full internal fuel only tejas mk-2 will have almost close to the same range as RAAFLE.

In addition tejas mk-2 has air to air refuelling in buddy mode as well .

Mk2 can carryout 80 percent of the missions which Rafale can. And we have extra super Sukhois FGFA s to cover the remaining 30 percent. With french already wiggling out of TOT commitments with "HAL ---no good " certificate close to 30 billion dollar expenditure is a sheer waste of money on a redundant acquisition , if you consider the sjy high upgrading price for Mirage 2000 will repeat itself for RAFALE . then we can operate close to 250 tejas mk-2 and 50 extra Super Sukhoi fighters which has complete TOT including engine in our hands,

And last but not the least tejas mk-2 will have even lower wing loading with comparable TWR and a a ten percent higher top speeds of mach-2 meaning that tejas mk-2 has better designed air frame using the latest composite tech with close to 60 percent of it's weight in composites as suggested by CEMEILAC.

it will have the same long range BVRs and same powered ASEA radar with matching antena dia as RAFALE.

Some people are misquoting the clean config RCS of tejas mk-1 as a third of mirage -2000. But the proper quote that can be read from B. harry's vayu piece on tejas is

"tejas will have a third of clean config RCS of the latest 4th gen fighters in design phase. When this comment wa made i only TYPHOON and RAFALE was in the works not Mirage-2000.

So with no canards and more aerodynamic and RCS optimization that will take place for tejas mk-2 along with far lesser physical dimensions than the TYPHOON and RAFALE you can rightfully expect tejas mk-2 to have far lesser clean config RCS than the RAFALE as well.

Also the single engine of tejas mk-2 will release more than 40 percent lesser heat energy into the atmosphere . it means a substantially lesser IRST detection range as well.

So for the close to 20 percent shortfall in range over RAFALE Tejas mk-2 has some very significant advantage over RAFALE in home air space defence as well.

the ASEA for tejas mk-2 is also getting ready with foreign collaboration as well. And tejas mk-2 will always be upgradable with whatever longer range BVRs supplied in future from russia for FGFA as well. As we are doing the avionics and radar integration on FGFA we can port these close to 200 KM range BVRs on tejas mk-2 as well with no hefty fees and least hassles.

Thats what the test pilot Suneth krishna said that tejas is a modular fighter easily upgradable in batches as all it's design knowledge is here.

The weapon load is never a problem we can operate 3 Tejas mk-2 for the cost of one RAFALE with far lesser per hour operation cost as well.

That means fo the same price we will have three RAFALE sized ASEA radars with three EW suits along with 21 pylons carrying close to 30 air to air missile=s if dual rack launch pylons are added in future.

"



SO even though making a few mistakes like naming the HPT 40 as HJT 44 and mistaking the comments of french pilots as test flight comments the author is correct by and large, If at all the author mentioned the rejection by IAF of HPT-35 effort by HAL then there would be more questions to be answered.

[

 

[ersakthivel]

Undermining national security - The New Indian Express

Undermining national security

By Arjun Subramaniam

Published: 07th November 2013 12:00 AM

In the comments section of the counter article from Arjun Subramanium , I have posted all the stuff I have posted here in DFI on comments page 4 and 5.

lets see what is the reaction.

 

[greek guy]

Hi guys!

I am a greek guy and I support India.. Pakistan supports Turkey so I support India! We use mainly Mirage 2000 and F-16 in Greek Air Force, and we have to choose a New Combat Aircraft to replace older fighters..
So I would like to discuss with you about Rafale!

First of all, the upgrade of Indian Mirage 2000H is a mistake.. France does not produce the fighter and has focused on Rafale development.. India should stick on more Rafales.. but I understand you have problem with fighters availability huh?

France makes very good fighters but she offers them in quite high price..

 

[p2prada]

Hi guys!

I am a greek guy and I support India.. Pakistan supports Turkey so I support India!

Welcome to the forum. The sentiment is appreciated.

Please introduce yourself so we can get to know you better.

We use mainly Mirage 2000 and F-16 in Greek Air Force, and we have to choose a New Combat Aircraft to replace older fighters..
So I would like to discuss with you about Rafale!

IMHO, your air force is better off with F-35s instead because you can negotiate better credit terms with the Americans compared to the French who will not give you any credit at all.

First of all, the upgrade of Indian Mirage 2000H is a mistake.. France does not produce the fighter and has focused on Rafale development.. India should stick on more Rafales.. but I understand you have problem with fighters availability huh?

IAF should have taken the decision to upgrade the M-2000 a few years earlier, when M-2000 was still in production. Nevertheless, the cost of the upgrade is minuscule compared to the cost of a new M-2000 or even the cheaper F-16.

France makes very good fighters but she offers them in quite high price..

Weapons are the real problem. They are very, very expensive. We recently ordered 490 Mica for about $1.3 Billion in 2012, that's $2.7 Million each. Indian Navy had concluded a deal for 40 R-77s in 2006 in a $21.88 Million deal, that's a little over $500,000 per missile.

 

[greek guy]

Welcome to the forum. The sentiment is appreciated.

IMHO, your air force is better off with F-35s instead because you can negotiate better credit terms with the Americans compared to the French who will not give you any credit at all.

IAF should have taken the decision to upgrade the M-2000 a few years earlier, when M-2000 was still in production. Nevertheless, the cost of the upgrade is minuscule compared to the cost of a new M-2000 or even the cheaper F-16.

Weapons are the real problem. They are very, very expensive. We recently ordered 490 Mica for about $1.3 Billion in 2012, that's $2.7 Million each. Indian Navy had concluded a deal for 40 R-77s in 2006 in a $21.88 Million deal, that's a little over $500,000 per missile.

My name is John in english and I am electrical engineer..
I am not racist and I respect all people.. but I don't like the fact that Greece is full of Pakistani immigrants!!
They come all the way from Pakistan to Greece transferring dope to pay for the journey..
they have no food to eat and they steal or do other crimes .. they respect nothing except Coran.. they are fanatic islamists.. and they support terrorism!
I mean Pakistan wants to sell nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia and Turkey to destroy Israel !?

Greek Air force will upgrade some F-16s with AESA radar and test them against turkish F-35s as soon as they get them.. to see how really good is in aerial warfare.. then we decide on the new fighter..

In my opinion India should have bought all the industrial production line of Mirage 2000 from France!
You could redesign the fighter with canards and stealth characteristics instead of going with Tejas development..
It would be cheaper and indian air force would have produced enough fighters to replace older MiG planes..

Mirage 2000-5 is very capable fighter but it lacks the ability to use new air-to-air missiles like Meteor Mk2.. This is serious problem..
We use them basically as bombers with cruise missiles SCALP EG..

F-16C block 52 are at the same level with Mirage 2000-5 however Pakistani F-16 block50 have technology restrictions.. Americans don't trust Pakistan because they give everything to China!

Weapons get more expensive because they use more and more advanced electronics..
However Russia has huge defense industry and can produce weapons at low price..
France is not Russia..

 

[jmj_overlord]

France is not Russia..

what did you mean by france is not russia ? did you refer to the technology or the cost factor of the products of the countries ?

 

[p2prada]

My name is John in english and I am electrical engineer..

Thanks for the intro, John.

I am not racist and I respect all people.. but I don't like the fact that Greece is full of Pakistani immigrants!!
They come all the way from Pakistan to Greece transferring dope to pay for the journey..
they have no food to eat and they steal or do other crimes .. they respect nothing except Coran.. they are fanatic islamists.. and they support terrorism!
I mean Pakistan wants to sell nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia and Turkey to destroy Israel !?

Yeah, their state policies don't make them likable. Some Pakistanis introduce themselves as Indians when they are visiting other countries.

Greek Air force will upgrade some F-16s with AESA radar and test them against turkish F-35s as soon as they get them.. to see how really good is in aerial warfare.. then we decide on the new fighter..

Test them? How? You mean the frequent interception and escort duties?

In my opinion India should have bought all the industrial production line of Mirage 2000 from France!
You could redesign the fighter with canards and stealth characteristics instead of going with Tejas development..
It would be cheaper and indian air force would have produced enough fighters to replace older MiG planes..

Too expensive. We are better off with the LCA program. Our indigenous industry's development is more important than buying the Mirage-2000 line, even if it takes longer. We have plans on making far better aircraft than Rafale today. Google AMCA.

Rafale is plenty enough. We don't want to pay the French twice for their aircraft.

Mirage 2000-5 is very capable fighter but it lacks the ability to use new air-to-air missiles like Meteor Mk2.. This is serious problem..

It is not a problem for us. MICA is enough for self-defense.

Rafale will come with Meteor and MBDA has offered Meteor for other aircraft too.

We use them basically as bombers with cruise missiles SCALP EG..

We use them for the nuclear strike role. So, it's important for us. Maybe Rafale will take over once it is ready, but that will probably be a decade from now.

F-16C block 52 are at the same level with Mirage 2000-5 however Pakistani F-16 block50 have technology restrictions.. Americans don't trust Pakistan because they give everything to China!

They have too few Block 52s. Only 18. The rest of their fleet are F-16A/Bs and are being upgraded to Block 40 standards in avionics.

Weapons get more expensive because they use more and more advanced electronics..
However Russia has huge defense industry and can produce weapons at low price..
France is not Russia..

American weapons are the better bet for HAF. So, American aircraft. Lesser impact on your credit rating, especially if you get them on soft loans like the Israelis are.

The problem with Rafale is that the numbers built is too low. If India, UAE, Kuwait, Yemen and Brazil go for Rafale, then it will become a more affordable option for smaller countries. France will be able to expand their production line and make it cheaper over the next 5-10 years.

IAF has asked for Russian weapons on Rafale, so that will make it more affordable in the long run.

 

[p2prada]

Russia open to arming Indian Rafale | idrw.org

Russia open to arming Indian Rafale

While the Indian Air Force (IAF) sets its highest hopes on the MMRCA contract being signed this financial year amidst receding chances, Russia, maker of one of the five defeated aircraft in the competition, has said it would be willing to integrate Russian weapons on the Rafale if India so desires. Russia's largest guided weapons house, Korporatsia Takticheskogo Raketnogo Vooruzheniya's (KTBP) Chief Boris Obnosov.

At the recent MAKS 2013 show in Zhukovsky, Obnosov is quoted by the Russian Embassy's Russia and India Report to have said, "These include long, medium- and short-range air-to-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, guided aviation bombs and a large spectrum of submarine weapons. By their performance characteristics they are as good as if not better than best Western analogues." While the 18 flyaway aircraft being contracted will come integrated with standard issue weapons build by MBDA and Sagem, the MMRCA tender makes it compulsory for the platform to be capable of taking on missiles specific by the Indian Air Force as well. Sources inform SP's that the IAF hasn't finalised its weapons fit for the Rafale on this option in question.

 

[greek guy]

what did you mean by france is not russia ? did you refer to the technology or the cost factor of the products of the countries ?

Russia inherited a huge electronics industry from ex Soviet Union and put it to work just to survive.. Russian main exports are oil and weapons!
They dont pay a lot of money for R&D (research and development) and they get the funding from customers..
like PAK-FA.. India will offer the money for the production and Russia will offer the technology.. At the end Russia gets PAK-FA without paying anything..

 

[greek guy]

Development of Rafale started on 1986! I mean it is a good aircraft but it was designed to intercept Soviet Flankers.. It is not stealth fighter and has reached the maximum of its career..

French cant sell Rafales because it is very expensive.. They offer to take used Mirage-2000 back to France and replace them with new Rafale.. I think 1 Rafale for 2 Mirage 2000..
It is not a good deal..
Mirage 2000 is not good for nuclear strike because it has short range.. Su-30 should be your nuclear striker...

An other problem with French is that they don't transfer enough technology to the customer's industry.. Bear in mind that..
and theoretically the russian missiles can be certified for launch on French aircrafts but they will not be 100% effective.. they use different software and chips..

I've just looked for AMCA.. it is a stealth-version of Tejas.. but it has two engines?.. it should have one engine to be cheaper and easier to maintain..

 

[rvjpheonix]

Development of Rafale started on 1986! I mean it is a good aircraft but it was designed to intercept Soviet Flankers.. It is not stealth fighter and has reached the maximum of its career..

French cant sell Rafales because it is very expensive.. They offer to take used Mirage-2000 back to France and replace them with new Rafale.. I think 1 Rafale for 2 Mirage 2000..
It is not a good deal..
Mirage 2000 is not good for nuclear strike because it has short range.. Su-30 should be your nuclear striker...

An other problem with French is that they don't transfer enough technology to the customer's industry.. Bear in mind that..
and theoretically the russian missiles can be certified for launch on French aircrafts but they will not be 100% effective.. they use different software and chips..

I've just looked for AMCA.. it is a stealth-version of Tejas.. but it has two engines?.. it should have one engine to be cheaper and easier to maintain..

No the AMCA is not a stealth version of tejas, it is quite different. And it aims pretty high too with techs such as fly by light. Its a medium fighter as compared to lca. There is a thread on AMCA here

 

[kseeker]

India and Dassault in Final MMRCA Negotiations | idrw.org

SOURCE: flyawaysimulation.com

The Indian Air Force plans to dispose of its Mikoyan MiG-21 aircraft from 2014 and replace them with Rafale fighters. Although the Mikoyan MiG-21s are popular among pilots, they are now obsolete and there have been several fatal crashes in recent years.

The Indian Defence Ministry announced that Dassault secured an "L1 vendor" status after being selected as the lowest-price bidder who complied with all the requirements in the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition.

With "L1 vendor" status, Dassault is now conducting final negotiations for the deal with India's Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC), which consists of the defence program's main stakeholders, namely the Indian air force and Hindustan Aeronautics; a state-owned company managed by the Indian Ministry of Defence. The company will build some of the Rafale fighters domestically.

Dassault Rafale fighter, the aircraft India plan to replace their MIG's with.Hindustan Aeronautics manufactures and assembles aircraft from its base in Bangalore, and is one of Asia's largest aerospace companies. The negotiations between Dassault and the CNC are expected to take 6-12 months.

The value of the MMRCA contest is estimated to be between $10 billion and $20 billion. Other competing aircrafts were Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, RSK MiG-35, Lockheed Martin F-16IN Super Viper and Saab Gripen NG. Rafale was selected as the preferred aircraft.

The Indian Defence Ministry officials dismissed false reports in Indian publications that stated there were concerns about the Rafale's life-cycle costs.

 

[lookieloo]

Russia open to arming Indian Rafale | idrw.org

Russia open to arming Indian Rafale

While the Indian Air Force (IAF) sets its highest hopes on the MMRCA contract being signed this financial year amidst receding chances, Russia, maker of one of the five defeated aircraft in the competition, has said it would be willing to integrate Russian weapons on the Rafale if India so desires. Russia's largest guided weapons house, Korporatsia Takticheskogo Raketnogo Vooruzheniya's (KTBP) Chief Boris Obnosov.

At the recent MAKS 2013 show in Zhukovsky, Obnosov is quoted by the Russian Embassy's Russia and India Report to have said, "These include long, medium- and short-range air-to-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, guided aviation bombs and a large spectrum of submarine weapons. By their performance characteristics they are as good as if not better than best Western analogues." While the 18 flyaway aircraft being contracted will come integrated with standard issue weapons build by MBDA and Sagem, the MMRCA tender makes it compulsory for the platform to be capable of taking on missiles specific by the Indian Air Force as well. Sources inform SP's that the IAF hasn't finalised its weapons fit for the Rafale on this option in question.

Interesting... :suspicious: I'm sure the Russians will be extremely grateful for an opportunity to nose-around a Rafale or two in the process of integration. Was openness to this kind of thing actually an MRCA requirement? Were the competitors actually willing to accept it? Assuming the French are ok with their technology going to the Russians (and I doubt they are), I wonder how their Western allies will react. Perhaps sending an Su-30MKI to Europe for Meteor integration would smooth things over.

 

[p2prada]

Was openness to this kind of thing actually an MRCA requirement? Were the competitors actually willing to accept it?

Yes, there is a demand to integrate anything that IAF wishes, including weapons of any choice. Rafale has an open architecture, so it is possible. IAF wants the Israeli Litening pod and Russian KH-31P on Rafale from what we know of currently.

Assuming the French are ok with their technology going to the Russians (and I doubt they are), I wonder how their Western allies will react.

The Russians won't be interested. They have equivalency with Su-35 and a superior development program with PAKFA.
What's there on Rafale that they will be particularly interested in? They are actually developing better stuff for PAKFA.

What will the western allies do about it? Only the French operate Rafale and it is ITAR free. It is of no real threat to other western countries. Datalinks will be Indian too, not Link 16.

Perhaps sending an Su-30MKI to Europe for Meteor integration would smooth things over.

IAF has a requirement for Taurus presently. I doubt the aircraft has to fly all the way to Europe for this.

Meteor has been offered, but we need to see what the Russians have in store. Derivative weapons of PAKFA are a better bet. We can even integrate them on Rafale later on.

 

[akhil999in]

Re: Rafale – The obvious choice for India's Strategic Forces Comma

(A)
Nuclear weapons carry a shield of heavy structural material to avoid radiation during storage. This shield is not essential for the weapon physics. When the missile is fired in anger if the warhead looses the shield shortly after or even before launch, much less weight needs to be transported to destination, so more range or more MIRVs, can be obtained from the same machine.

(B)
Human (or animal) delivery can overcome some problems of mechanized delivery. Humans can deliver with perfect penetration, near zero CEP, and very low probability of interception, very low unit cost, and surprise through prior transportation even years before a war. Pakistan showed the technical feasibility on 26/11/2008 at Mumbai. Whether they have transported already to India needs to be verified. The transportation can be to an intermediate place away from target too.

 

[lookieloo]

The Russians won't be interested. They have equivalency with Su-35 and a superior development program with PAKFA.
What's there on Rafale that they will be particularly interested in? They are actually developing better stuff for PAKFA.

The naivete on display ^^ here ^^ is out-of-character. I can only assume you are being willfully obfuscatory for the benefit of others on the thread.

If Russian tech is so superior, why wasn't the Mig-35 picked instead? Going by Jane's-type stats, it was quite superior to everything else on offer, and excuses about wanting to "avoid a single supplier" don't hold up given India's procurement history and urgent need to replace older types.

The French may have missed the VLO boat, but it's a fair bet that all other aspects of their design are more than a match for Russian engineering. That was the entire point of selecting Rafale in the first place.

The fact is, Rafale and Typhoon made the short-list because, besides being the most-modern designs, they would also provide India with access to the top levels of engineering/manufacturing capability, far beyond what the Russians possess or what the US was likely to offer.

 

[p2prada]

The naivete on display ^^ here ^^ is out-of-character. I can only assume you are being willfully obfuscatory for the benefit of others on the thread.

Not really. Rafale is quite old. There is nothing on it that the Russians haven't already experimented with. It's like that case with F-117. Silly assumption that the Russians will have stealth technology using the bits and pieces of a crashed aircraft. Like Iran getting a hold of the Sentinel does any real good to them.

The Russians have equivalent development programs going on that are aimed at delivering better products than what Dassault already has, namely Su-35 and Super MKI, let alone bringing in PAKFA.

If Russian tech is so superior, why wasn't the Mig-35 picked instead? Going by Jane's-type stats, it was quite superior to everything else on offer, and excuses about wanting to "avoid a single supplier" don't hold up given India's procurement history and urgent need to replace older types.

Mig-35 is still an old aircraft and has older manufacturing techniques and older base technologies like the engine. Rafale's technologies were more advanced in terms of build material and base technology. Regardless of Jane's stats, IAF found only two contenders worth pushing to the next round, EF and Rafale. Rafale won because it was cheaper. End of story.

Case in point, the Attack helicopter competition. Mi-28 did not even make it into the final round of bids because the Apache had better technical merits. So, in this case it wasn't about which helicopter was cheaper. Mi-28 lost, even if it lost on 20 parameters out of hundreds.

The French may have missed the VLO boat, but it's a fair bet that all other aspects of their design are more than a match for Russian engineering. That was the entire point of selecting Rafale in the first place.

Yes. Rafale was significantly superior to Mig-35. But PAKFA is significantly superior to Rafale. There isn't anything relevant for Russia to learn from Rafale. It is the French who will really benefit from knowing more about the Russian weapons.

You are underestimating the Russians when they are the only ones in the world who are matching the Americans in developing new weapons.

The fact is, Rafale and Typhoon made the short-list because, besides being the most-modern designs, they would also provide India with access to the top levels of engineering/manufacturing capability, far beyond what the Russians possess or what the US was likely to offer.

We are on the same page as far as MRCA is concerned. But apples and oranges in comparison to what you are insinuating.

 

[Drsomnath999]

Swiss Battle Could Be Euro-Canard Turning Point

First it was Dassault with the Rafale and then it was Eurofighter with the Typhoon that competed for the favor of the UAE Air Force. In Oman, it was the Saab Gripen against the Typhoon. In Qatar, who knows? Around the world, Europe's three rival fighters have been locked in virtual combat. For Europe this is not necessarily a good situation, but the result of Switzerland's evaluation of the three–in which it first favored the Rafale and then selected Saab's Gripen, could prove pivotal in other competitions.

"This is a very bad situation," said the head of the European Defence Agency, who said that Europe simply cannot afford such wasteful competition. When choosing a new fighter, each nation has different priorities, criteria and methodology. In addition to technical evaluation, politics, technology transfer, industrial offsets and commission payments have all played a part in previous selections. So when Switzerland evaluated the three so-called "Euro-canards," many observers awaited its choice with considerable anticipation. By reputation, the Swiss are thorough and methodical. Moreover, they are quite rich, and politically neutral.

Nevertheless, and perhaps inevitably, the Swiss choice of the Gripen as its New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) could not escape controversy. The government overruled the air force's choice of the Rafale on cost grounds, it was alleged. The purchase was supposed to be off-the-shelf, but the Gripen-E is a new development, some argued. A significant minority of Swiss citizens were entirely opposed to the NFA buy–and their voices may yet be heard if a national referendum is called on the decision.

The NFA evaluation started badly when Boeing decided not to bid, because (it said) the Super Hornet far exceeded the requirement. "It spelled Gripen, so we withdrew," a Boeing official told AIN. The competition was characterized by many as a replacement for the air force's 54 remaining Northrop F-5E/Fs. They now operated alongside 33 Boeing F-18C/D Hornets acquired in the mid-to-late 1990s. Both types were dedicated to the air superiority role.

As Col. Fabio Antognini, project manager, explained in a presentation to the Fighter Conference organized by Defence IQ in London last year, the air force also wanted the NFA in order to reintroduce the air-to-ground and reconnaissance roles that had been lost with the retirement of the Mirage IIIRS in 2003. Despite its neutrality, the Swiss saw a future need to contribute to combined operations abroad with these additional capabilities. Besides, the NFA would supplement the F-18C/Ds whenever the requirement for increased protection of Swiss airspace arose. This would involve patrols that were constantly airborne. Therefore, between 30 and 50 NFAs would be required.

Three Contenders Evaluated

In the second half of 2008, the Swiss air force conducted in-country flight evaluations of the three remaining contenders–the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale – from Emmen airbase. In some 10 sorties each, Swiss pilots (including Antognini) and ground-based specialists evaluated them in five roles: air policing; defensive counter-air; offensive counter-air; strike; and reconnaissance. Each contender was also allowed one flight to demonstrate additional capabilities that were not in the Swiss requirement.

Following this fly-off, the contenders were invited to submit details of improvements that they were scheduled to make to their aircraft by the projected delivery date to Switzerland of 2015. Between March and August 2009, the air force evaluation team visited Dassault, Eurofighter and Saab to witness flight and simulator demonstrations.

The result was two confidential flight test reports that were approved for distribution in November 2009. They were subsequently leaked to the Swiss media, providing outsiders with a fascinating insight into the respective flying performance of the three contenders, as seen by the Swiss air force. The Rafale was the clear winner of the fly-off in each of the five roles. Moreover, the French jet retained its winning position in the Swiss evaluation of how the three contenders would be improved by 2015 (see table 1).

"The strong points of the Rafale were the quality of its sensors, such as the PESA (passive electronically scanned array) radar; the frontal optronics; and the EW (electronic warfare) suite, Spectra," the report on the 2008 fly-off noted. "The good data fusion of all its sensors allowed to provide the pilot a very good situational awareness," it continued. "The weak point of the Rafale was the lack of a helmet-mounted sight system," the evaluators remarked.

The report praised the aerodynamic performance of the Eurofighter, notably its ability to supercruise at Mach 1.4. But the sensor data fusion and the EW suite were "weak points," while range and systems reliability were noted to be "limiting factors." Moreover, the report said, "the capabilities of the Eurofighter to fulfill recce and strike missions were rated as unsatisfactory."

The report acknowledged that because of the Gripen's design–it is the smallest of the contenders and the only one powered by a single engine–its "endurance, aircraft performances and aircraft weapon load were among the main limiting factors." The evaluators said there was no sensor data fusion between the radar and EW suite, although the latter "was among the strong points of the Gripen."

Only the Rafale met the minimum expected capabilities (MEC) in all five roles. The Eurofighter failed to make the grade in the strike and reconnaissance categories. The Gripen failed to achieve the MEC in all five roles.

That verdict did not change, even when the improvements to be expected by 2015 were factored in. The development of the Eurofighter's air-ground capability has lagged significantly behind that of the Rafale. Even so, the proposed Tranche 3 P1E enhancements to the four-nation jet, that were evaluated by the Swiss team, failed to match the F3+ standard improvements to the Rafale numbering 18, and already contracted by the French air force. They included AESA radar and other sensor improvements. Moreover, the Swiss noted, "If the Rafale is sold to the UAE, 11 new upgrade items not taken in the evaluation will be part of the delivered configuration."

As for the Gripen, Saab told the Swiss that it had scheduled 98 upgrade items for the MS21 version of 2015, including AESA radar and infrared search and track. But these were not enough to push the Swedish jet above the MEC level in any of the five roles. The November 2009 report therefore recommended the Rafale as the New Fighter Aircraft.

Leaked Test Reports

Antognini declined to comment on the leaked flight test reports. "All three candidates passed the evaluation"¦They met our requirements," he told the Fighter Conference. He told AIN that it is important to note that those two reports were not the whole story. There were eight others produced, covering maintenance, noise, growth potential and other criteria. These were all weighted according to a pre-determined scale of Swiss priorities. This scale was also leaked to the media (see table 2) but the other reports stayed confidential.

Then the cost was factored into the evaluation, said Antognini, before one final main report was sent to the Federal Council–the Swiss government's seven-member decision-making authority. The acquisition cost of the Gripen would clearly be lower than its two larger competitors. The smaller jet would also score better on adaptability to Swiss airfields and life-cycle costs.

The first thing that the Federal Council did was–nothing! The crisis in financial markets gave even the Swiss pause for thought. The Federal Council wanted to trim the nation's defense budget. Given the bids submitted by Dassault, Eurofighter and Saab, the NFA budget of some CHF 5 billion ($5.5 billion) did not seem affordable, despite all three contenders offering to offset 100 percent of the cost by placing contracts with Swiss industry–and especially since the Euro currency was depreciating all the time against the ever-stronger Swiss franc.

Over the next year, however, the Swiss Parliament voted extra funds for defense, and told the Federal Council to conclude its NFA evaluation. The three manufacturers sharpened their pencils, while evidently reducing the number of aircraft on offer.

Of most significance, Saab defined proposed upgrades to the Gripen in much greater detail, flew the NG demonstrator with a new F414 engine and AESA radar, and suggested that the Swedish government would soon place an order.

The Choice Revealed

On Nov. 30, 2011, the Federal Council announced its choice. The Gripen was the lowest cost option, but it met the requirements, and was the most adaptable choice, the Council said. Ruag Aerospace and up to 200 other Swiss companies stood to gain much from codevelopment of the Gripen-NG (subsequently redesignated Gripen E). Meanwhile, Sweden's status as a neutral country, like Switzerland, had been a consideration.

Defense minister Ueli Maurer told journalists that the acquisition cost was CHF3.1 billion ($3.4 billion) for a 22-aircraft package including training, support and spares. Swiss media previously reported that the Rafale bid was about CHF3.5 billion, with the Eurofighter costing CHF4 billion, although the proposed number of aircraft was never made clear. Commenting on the decision, Dassault insisted that the Rafale could have met the Swiss requirement "with a smaller number of aircraft an equivalent or lower cost."

Reviewing the decision a few months ago, former Swiss Air Force commander Gen. Max Gygax admitted that, in the end, the choice was a political one. "The Gripen is multi-role, and life-cycle costs are very important," he told journalists at the Paris Air Show in June. "The Gripen-E is a big step forward from the current C/D version," he noted. But even the latter's performance in the 2008 fly-off was much closer to that of the Eurofighter and Rafale than the Swiss evaluation team had anticipated, he told AIN.

As the clear winner of the flight evaluation, the Rafale won the battle, but lost the war in Switzerland.The Eurofighter did not emerge with much credit. Gygax told AIN that he did not expect the four-nation jet to score worse than the Rafale in air-to-air roles. Moreover, he added, the unpublished reports on maintenance and training did not rate the Eurofighter any better than the Rafale. "The spares are possibly cheaper because of the large number of aircraft, but it's a very manpower-intensive aircraft," he said.

Swiss Battle Could Be Euro-Canard Turning Point | Aviation International News

 

[Drsomnath999]

Rafale Solo Display by Anthony Pecchi:

CHEERS