Lol you want information read this
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.
rafale also costs more per unitthan any of the 4.5th gen fighter and this is the reason why it had found no takers yet. And this is the reason why MMRCA deal is going dead with exasperated manohar saying a loud public NO to Dassault negotiating tactic of breaking the crucial clauses of original RFP and trying to work its way around HAL to bring a no experience Reliance as JV partner to dodge TOT clause as well.It's refusal to tand guarantee to HAL produced rafale is going to be a deal breaker. IAF is not looking for the costliest bomb truck in rafale deal. It is looking for a fighter which has the capability to justify its cost as well.
Also it is stupid to compare the stealthy mode F-35 load carrying capability to non stealthy mode rafale carrying capability. It is like saying since F-15 can carry more weapons in non stealthy mode than the F-22 in stealthy mode, the F-15 is the better than F-22!!!!
For air-to-air combat, the Rafale's two principal missiles are the MBDA's MICA (Missile d'Interception, de Combat et d'Autodefense) 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. The French MOD has already ordered 200 such missiles.
When IAF was evaluating rafale for MMRCA it did not even set its eyes on meteor . All it saw was MICA only. SO other than your word where is the proof for IAF about meteor's 160 Km range?Meteor can be separately bought and added to any fighter in IAF if IAF pays the price. So it is not the ultimate clinching criteria to buy rafale. And what rafel does not have is the deadly close combat R-73 E (primary close combat weapon of SU-30 MKI and mig-29) which is visually cued by HMDS and jam proof. Eve th yet to be FOC certified tejas mk1 has demoed this .Iaf trusts this missile for close combat.Dassualt has not demoed any visually cued high off bore sight missile like R-73 E for dog fight. SO IAF has asked dassualt to integrate this missile for rafale .
This diversity of missiles and seekers will allow a Rafale pilot to saturate his opponent in combat with a salvo of 3 different missiles at once (and remember, the Rafale can carry 13-14 missiles in total). This means his opponent, forced to duck one of the missiles, would be detected by another missile's seeker, and thus be shot down.
Once again the diversity of missile seekers can be had for any fighter if the price is to be paid. It alone won't justify 20 billion dollar fighter buy.SU-30 MKI too can carry 13-14 missiles with various seeker combos to saturate enemy fighter.
Furthermore, the Rafale has 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.
that is the job of IAF jaguar not the 20 billion dollar rafale .
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.
most of IAF fighters are going to carry an air launched brahmos(like SU-30MKI) or brahmos mini, which has no equal in rafale armament palate for the deadly unstoppable impact it has.
In short, the Rafale can carry a wide range of weapons, and perform air to air, air to ground, and air to sea combat well.
No one disputes that. Pretty much every other IAf fighter can carry such armament if they were also integrated with these off the shelf weapons.
In particular, its Exocet missiles would, in any anti-ship battle, prove very deadly, as they did when launched by Argentine A-4 Skyhawks against British warships during the 1982 Falklands War. The warships of virtually all navies of the world are currently poorly prepared for the ASCM threat.
What is more deadly for anti ship operations? Excocet or Brhmos? IAF will say brahmos without any doubt.
The Rafale's two principal sensors are the Thales RBE2 ESA radar and the Thales/SAGEM OSF (Optronique Spherique Frontal) infrared search and tracking system (IRST system).
They are dwarfed by SU-30 MKI's about to be introduced ASEA radar size. Once again IRST pods are available off the shelf and can be integrated with any fighter.
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.
rafale was selected for medium category by IAF. You are saying it is light!!! rafale has huge maintenance and life cycle costs . SO there is no point in saying it is light!!!!Tejas has even lower wing loading than gripen and rafale!!!. tejas leads in lowe wing loading specs, followed by gripen and rafale is the right way to put it.
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.
Once again there is no point in comparing a 4th gen non stealth fighter with 5th gen fighter. With 98 Kn GE-414 evem tejas mk2 will get closer to such power to weight ratio. And SU-30 MKIs can also be upgraded with the higher poweres AL engines of Su-35 or the to be produced PAKFA engines to get such a TWR. And SU-30 MKI has a thrust vectoring capacity as a bonus. SO in a not far away MLU SU-30 MKI can be upgraded with all the goodies that will be present in the yet to be produced latest rafale with meteor and all that you mentiones at a fractio of the cost. SInce most of the flanker production is indigenised , total life cycle cost too will be far lower.
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 optimise the Rafale for the by far predominant.
Wrong once again. Speed is no let down. Even the SU-30 MKI has almost the same top speed of 1970s era mig-21. No one cribs about lack of improvement in that department. Top speeds are esoteric specs which have no relevance in air combat .
I am just talking about advantages of rafale you s*uc*e*
Sent from my Micromax A106 using Tapatalk
