older tech
I compared it to drive home the point that that lifecycle cost can be used to procure more 5th gen platforms.
What does Rafale offer us besides TOT?
We already have superiority over PAF and deterrence against PLAAF.
If we just need numbers it makes more sense to go for MKIs/Mig-29s while inducting Tejas asap
We don't need Rafale until and unless we get significant amount of technology.
Whatever BS you just wrote makes me think you don't know anything about a multirole combat aircraft.
I honestly have no idea where to start.
"What does Rafale offer us besides TOT?"
Isn't it enough? What else do you need exactly? French pilots flying for India too?
Combat performance
The Rafale has already proven itself in three different wars. In Afghanistan, it performed numerous ground strikes against the Taliban, sometimes with GBU-12 Paveway II bombs used against Taliban caves. In Libya, it successfully evaded Qaddafi's woefully obsolete 1960s-vintage Soviet air defense systems and led the fight against his regime. Most recently, in Mali, the Rafale flew long distances to perform strikes against Islamic insurgents.
Thus, the Rafale is a veteran of three wars despite entering service only a little more than a decade ago, a stark distinction to all of its competitors except the Super Hornet, none of which have seen any combat whatsoever, even against obsolete Soviet air defense systems or insurgents unable to contest control of the air.
Armament, sensors, power plant, aerodynamic and kinematic performance
-The Rafale can carry more ordnance than any of its competitors, hands down. The Air Force variants (B and C) have 14, and the Navy (M) variant, 13 hardpoints. By contrast, the F-35 can carry only 4 munitions (e.g. missiles) while in its stealthy mode; the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-16 can carry only 11, and the Su-35 twelve.
-For air-to-air combat, the Rafale's two principal missiles are the MBDA's MICA (missile interception, combat and self-defense) and Meteor. The MICA is intended for short and medium range combat, with a nominal range of 80 kms, and has both electromagnetic and infrared seekers. The Meteor, with a 160 km range, is a radar-guided long-range (Beyond Visual Range) ramjet-powered missile similar to the American AIM-120D AMRAAM. The principal difference, of course, is the Meteor's ramjet engine.
-Furthermore, the Rafale has one of the biggest gun on the market (ex aequo with Sukhoi aircraft): a hefty 30mm GIAT gun firing incendiary rounds. This makes the Rafale an excellent choice for both air to air and air to ground combat, as its 30mm rounds would provide excellent support for troops on the ground. 30mm is the caliber of the guns of most APCs and IFVs.
-For air to ground combat, the Rafale can carry the GBU-12 and GBU-49 Paveway II, the GBU-24 Paveway III, the Sagem AASM bomb (with a range of 55 meters and a CEP of less than 1 meter, designed to attack both static and mobile targets), the MBDA Apache and Scalp-EG cruise missiles (designed for attacking targets such as the runways of heavily defended airfields from a distance outside the range of their air defense systems), the Exocet AM39 anti-ship transonic cruise missile, and the forementioned ASMP and ASMP-A stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles.
-The Dassault Rafale is a relatively small, light airplane. Therefore, it isn't surprising that its wing loading ratio (the ratio of its weight compared to its wingspace) is just 306 kg/sq m, the second lowest ratio on the market after the JAS-39 Gripen. Its combat radius is also impressive – 1,852 kilometers, again, the second-best in the market trailing only the F-15C/D. The Rafale also has an excellent rate of climb – 304 m/s, i.e. 60,000 ft/min. This means the plane can climb to its service ceiling (55,000 ft) in a minute.
-The plane's two SNECMA MM-2 turbofan engines provide a dry thrust of 50.4 kN each, or 75.62 kN (17,000 lbf) each on afterburner. This gives the plane a very good thrust/weight ratio of 0.988:1 in full combat load – unheard of for a modern fighter, and fully competitive even with 5th generation American, Russian, and Chinese fighters.
-
The one thing that somewhat lets the Rafale down – other than its 55,000 ft ceiling – is its speed of Mach 1.8, compared to Mach 2 or more for most other fighters. However, its principal competitor, the F-35, is worse at just Mach 1.61 and 43,000 ft. Moreover, it is not a mechanical flaw, but rather the product of a deliberate design aimed to optimize the Rafale for the by far predominant type of aerial combat – namely, close, within visual range combat. In that regime of A2A warfare, neither speed nor ceiling would be a significant issue; the predominant factors are agility, pilot visibility, sensors, gun caliber, and the quality and quantity of WVR, infrared-guided missiles
-
IR-guided WVR missiles typically have a Probability of Kill of 74%, according to research by Air Power Australia. Therefore, if a Rafale fighter begins a mission armed with 2 Meteor and 12 MICA missiles, then, even if its 2 Meteors hit nothing, its 12 MICA missiles will at least hit 7 to 8 enemy aircrafts.
I would have wrote more about it but lets get to the second part
"We already have superiority over PAF and deterrence against PLAAF"
Never in your life underestimate your enemy. PAF may be inferior but has some excellent pilots and combat records.
"If we just need numbers it makes more sense to go for MKIs/Mig-29s while inducting Tejas asap"
This isn't a game where soldiers get unlimited lives. If your air force is not ready then you're going to lose a lot of good men. Indian Air force doesn't want that does it. That doesn't mean Migs and Tejas are not up to the par but which plane would you bet on? Rafale or Migs? That's a total different topic anyways.
"We don't need Rafale until and unless we get significant amount of technology."
What does that even mean?
We need rafale for the same reason to get significant amount of good technology
The Air force needed the fighter for some reason didn't it.
