Know Your 'Rafale'

[Immanuel]

IN if it acquires 4 Juan Carlos LPD, might order the F-35B for these ships and thus transforming them into mini carriers with a good amoount of fire-power & reach. INS Vishal will in all probability have the F-35C along side the LCA MK-2 and no way Unkil gives out precious tech like EMALS and carrier design & building know-how without such things. Rafale won't go beyond the IA, politics, high cost won't allow it. It will be lucky if IAF can convince additonal orders in the future to get the numbers upto 90. Also, the deliveries are painfully slow which only makes the Rafale buy a complete waste of time. IMO, they should have just ordered more Super MKI

As for flyaway costs of the F-35, the current LRIP versions cost between 100-140 million not bad considering the aircraft is not yet in full rate production, the costs continue to drop. By end of decade they should be well with-in the 120 million mark for all 3 versions. The Rafale costs roughly the same or a bit less while the F-35 has far superior sensors and is a 5th gen aircraft.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/how-much-will-the-f-35-actually-cost/

 

[Gessler]

IN if it acquires 4 Juan Carlos LPD, might order the F-35B for these ships and thus transforming them into mini carriers with a good amoount of fire-power & reach.

Juan Carlos is an LHD not an LPD.

I don't know why everyone doesn't like IN getting what it wants. They asked for an amphibious warfare vessel,
everyone wants to give them a STOVL aircraft carrier instead. What is this game?

That said, no one has decided yet which LHD/LPH type vessel we're going to select yet. The operation of F-35B is only possible if the said vessel has a ski-jump. Only Carlos has it.

In case anyone still believes that IN needs or wants F-35B, I advice that they use Google and look up the designs of the other LHD/LPH (Landing Platform Helicopter)-type vessels being considered alongside the Carlos. Do you see any one of them with a ski-jump? No. It's because IN neither wants it, nor needs it. Hence it was not a criteria for selection.

If you still don't understand the significance of an amphib vessel and continue to push for an imaginary requirement of F-35Bs...nothing I can do to convince you people to stop.

INS Vishal will in all probability have the F-35C along side the LCA MK-2 and no way Unkil gives out precious tech like EMALS and carrier design & building know-how without such things. Rafale won't go beyond the IA, politics, high cost won't allow it. It will be lucky if IAF can convince additonal orders in the future to get the numbers upto 90. Also, the deliveries are painfully slow which only makes the Rafale buy a complete waste of time. IMO, they should have just ordered more Super MKI

As for flyaway costs of the F-35, the current LRIP versions cost between 100-140 million not bad considering the aircraft is not yet in full rate production, the costs continue to drop. By end of decade they should be well with-in the 120 million mark for all 3 versions. The Rafale costs roughly the same or a bit less while the F-35 has far superior sensors and is a 5th gen aircraft.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/how-much-will-the-f-35-actually-cost/

Hmm. Looks like you have your own pre-conceived notions about the structure & plan of IN. Fine. Go ahead with that idea.

Doesn't seem like you don't understand the difference between a strike bomber & a multi-role plane, either. But don't let that stop you.

 

[Immanuel]

Juan Carlos is an LHD not an LPD.

I don't know why everyone doesn't like IN getting what it wants. They asked for an amphibious warfare vessel,
everyone wants to give them a STOVL aircraft carrier instead. What is this game?

That said, no one has decided yet which LHD/LPH type vessel we're going to select yet. The operation of F-35B is only possible if the said vessel has a ski-jump. Only Carlos has it.

In case anyone still believes that IN needs or wants F-35B, I advice that they use Google and look up the designs of the other LHD/LPH (Landing Platform Helicopter)-type vessels being considered alongside the Carlos. Do you see any one of them with a ski-jump? No. It's because IN neither wants it, nor needs it. Hence it was not a criteria for selection.

If you still don't understand the significance of an amphib vessel and continue to push for an imaginary requirement of F-35Bs...nothing I can do to convince you people to stop.



Hmm. Looks like you have your own pre-conceived notions about the structure & plan of IN. Fine. Go ahead with that idea.

Doesn't seem like you don't understand the difference between a strike bomber & a multi-role plane, either. But don't let that stop you.

Juan Carlos is the only contender in the LPD competition that meets most of the requirements of the RFP. None of its other competitors barring the US LPDs can carry nearly as many troops, helos and STOVL birds. So facts are that the Jaun Carlos might be the winner of the deal, it certainly is the best suited to win.

As for the operating the F-35 on the Juan Carlos that depends, still needs to be seen if IN opts to do so. It would be rather wise of IN if it did use the F-35 on board the Juna Carlos, it allows the IN to quickly deploy a mini naval force plush with its own fighter power, helos, tanks, troops to any region its deems fit. Eitherway, the chance of the F-35 showing up in the IN through the Juna Carlos And/or INS Vishal class carriers is still far higher than the chance of Rafale being acquired for the IN quite simply because the timelines do not match. These aircraft for the IN are needed when the carriers are actually ready and that won't happen till later half of next decade.

So now you will educated me on topics of bombers and multirole aircraft? Really? I wager on any given day the Su-30mki in its current state is more multirole than the Rafale ever was.

 

[Gessler]

Juan Carlos is the only contender in the LPD competition that meets most of the requirements of the RFP. None of its other competitors barring the US LPDs can carry nearly as many troops, helos and STOVL birds. So facts are that the Jaun Carlos might be the winner of the deal, it certainly is the best suited to win.

I do not dispute the fact that the Carlos is most likely to win - the point I was making was that eventhough Carlos was the only ship among the competitors that can handle F-35B, the fact that other ships were considered too clearly means that IN had no plans for using these ships as STOVL carriers.

There is a difference between understanding what the scenario demands (like what I did), and proposing an entirely new scenario altogether (what you did).

As for the operating the F-35 on the Juan Carlos that depends, still needs to be seen if IN opts to do so. It would be rather wise of IN if it did use the F-35 on board the Juna Carlos, it allows the IN to quickly deploy a mini naval force plush with its own fighter power, helos, tanks, troops to any region its deems fit.

Or maybe, it would be rather stupid as IN never asked for STOVL fighters in the first place, and putting F-35B on the LHD/LPH would severely reduce the amount of amphibious warfare assets it can carry (a fighter fleet occupies a lot of space in both the hangar deck as well as flight deck), therefore taking away from the IN the ability that they wanted in the first place.

That said, any amphibious assault that's big enough to be requiring support of fighter aircraft would obviously have a CBG supporting it.

So now you will educated me on topics of bombers and multirole aircraft? Really?

I will have to because you seem to want to send a strike bomber (F-35) to do a job meant for
multirole/air-superiority aircraft (Rafale/FGFA).

If IN gets F-35B/C, then god forbid...they won't be able to think of going near a Chinese carrier group unless IAF decides to cover IN's F-35s with their own FGFAs and Rafale/MKIs.

I wager on any given day the Su-30mki in its current state is more multirole than the Rafale ever was.

Ofcourse! That's why we had to start the MMRCA competition!

I haven't seen the MKI conducting any terrain-hugging flights that are crucial for stealthy strike missions. Here's a quirk : ask any IAF officer what aircraft he would want replacing the MiG-27 or Jaguar. Rafale or MKI. Or atleast ask him the purpose of MMRCA tender.

Please stop posting these jokes, you're making me laugh too hard.

 

[Chinmoy]

I do not dispute the fact that the Carlos is most likely to win - the point I was making was that eventhough Carlos was the only ship among the competitors that can handle F-35B, the fact that other ships were considered too clearly means that IN had no plans for using these ships as STOVL carriers.

There is a difference between understanding what the scenario demands (like what I did), and proposing an entirely new scenario altogether (what you did).



Or maybe, it would be rather stupid as IN never asked for STOVL fighters in the first place, and putting F-35B on the LHD/LPH would severely reduce the amount of amphibious warfare assets it can carry (a fighter fleet occupies a lot of space in both the hangar deck as well as flight deck), therefore taking away from the IN the ability that they wanted in the first place.

That said, any amphibious assault that's big enough to be requiring support of fighter aircraft would obviously have a CBG supporting it.



I will have to because you seem to want to send a strike bomber (F-35) to do a job meant for
multirole/air-superiority aircraft (Rafale/FGFA).

If IN gets F-35B/C, then god forbid...they won't be able to think of going near a Chinese carrier group unless IAF decides to cover IN's F-35s with their own FGFAs and Rafale/MKIs.



Ofcourse! That's why we had to start the MMRCA competition!

I haven't seen the MKI conducting any terrain-hugging flights that are crucial for stealthy strike missions. Here's a quirk : ask any IAF officer what aircraft he would want replacing the MiG-27 or Jaguar. Rafale or MKI. Or atleast ask him the purpose of MMRCA tender.

Please stop posting these jokes, you're making me laugh too hard.

Well said..... I too don't understand, why there is so much confusion in terms like MRCA, Air Superiority and Ground attack. In my humble opinion, F-35 is more of a ground attack fighter with some A to A combat capability. Its bay is designed more to carry smart bombs then AAM. And in a true Air combat, it would find itself on a slight disadvantage if its AAM doesn't hit in one shot. Its like a sniper who is there in open 100 metres away and misses his first shot.

Since you had been a Harrier pilot yourself, I would like to forward a simple question of mine. What is the basic time difference in between launching an AAM from your hardpoint and launching the same by allowing it a free fall.

 

[Gessler]

Since you had been a Harrier pilot yourself, I would like to forward a simple question of mine. What is the basic time difference in between launching an AAM from your hardpoint and launching the same by allowing it a free fall.

I'm not a Harrier pilot, never was. I said I was in touch with an ex-IN Harrier pilot on other forums.

However I can answer you question: I believe you are referring to the difference between rail-launched AAMs (where the motor starts while the missile is still attached to the rail on the jet) and ejector-launch AAMs (where the motor on the missile starts after it falls away from the launch aircraft).

What happens in such an ejected AAM is that there is a thin string that attaches the rail to the missile, once the ejected missile falls to a safe distance the string comes off, this action triggers the motor on the AAM to start. The time delay here quite frankly depends on how fast the plane is going, and ofcourse, the length of the string - information that I'm not privy to!

Either way, the time difference is just seconds.

 

[Chinmoy]

I'm not a Harrier pilot, never was. I said I was in touch with an ex-IN Harrier pilot on other forums.

However I can answer you question: I believe you are referring to the difference between rail-launched AAMs (where the motor starts while the missile is still attached to the rail on the jet) and ejector-launch AAMs (where the motor on the missile starts after it falls away from the launch aircraft).

What happens in such an ejected AAM is that there is a thin string that attaches the rail to the missile, once the ejected missile falls to a safe distance the string comes off, this action triggers the motor on the AAM to start. The time delay here quite frankly depends on how fast the plane is going, and ofcourse, the length of the string - information that I'm not privy to!

Either way, the time difference is just seconds.

Thanks, got it . So does it have any implication on the RCS of a plane? I mean does this delay of say 1 second make any difference in BVR engagement?

 

[Gessler]

Thanks, got it . So does it have any implication on the RCS of a plane? I mean does this delay of say 1 second make any difference in BVR engagement?

Nothing significant enough to make a difference. The time difference that could matter in a BVR engagement has more to do with how fast the missile can go once launched, how much energy (forward momentum) it has left by the time it reaches the target, etc.

About RCS, I'm not sure what you mean. The two launch types (rail & ejector) have existed for decades before the emergence of stealth fighters or any low-RCS aircraft. It has more to do with other aspects like; Sometimes the plume of thrust coming from an AAM could be too hot or too powerful that it could damage the aircraft's fuselage. In situations like these ejector-launch is preferred.

Speaking of RCS, modern stealth aircraft that carry weapons inside Internal Weapon Bays (IWBs) obviously cannot use a rail-launch system. Unless you fit the launcher on the bay door, like on the F-35 - Then it is theoretically possible to rail-launch from weapon bays, but only if your missile can fit on the bay door hardpoint.

Side-mounted bays (usually fitted with IR-guided WVR missiles) can however be rail-launched.

 

[SajeevJino]

No it's not like that. The point that I was trying to make is that even when India developed a Marine corps-type force, their operations are likely to be areas which can be reached by any IN or IAF jet. They do not need a specialized aircraft just for that.

If our Marines were going to fight a war somewhere in Latin America independent of the IN's airpower, then it makes sense to put F-35Bs on LHDs and send them with the Marines.

I sure It would be nice for some F 35 in the LHD ... if we send our forces into Mali or Seychelles

Ships and Heli's moves slowly for such long range, not the F 35

Both can develop along the same lines. I cannot vouch for small advantages because I did not personally inspect them. But such small advantages are not worth justifying an F-35 purchase.

More the advantages more the power

Think about it, if a so-called "5th gen" plane that costs $116 million (not including engine, weapons; total could be closer to $170mn) at present date, gives only marginal difference in electronics capability compared to a 4.5 gen plane costing $81 million (for India), then that 5th gen plane is simply not worth the money.

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

Including weapons and spare parts and everything . $170 is not a huge figure.. and agreed the Rafale almost close to the above figure..! with full support systems

J-20's RCS is going to be bigger than F-22 or F-35. It's not very maneuverable either, weighs too much, and again no supercruise capability in sight. That means Rafale will have lesser trouble handling J-20 than F-35 or F-22.

I think the J 20 design looks better than PAK FA, neither F 35. I believe J 20 is pretty low RCS than F 35 but not close to F 22, But honestly those Chinese system.. could i believe it or not

No one knows for sure what J-20's radar is like. But it isn't likely to be very good, although it will be big.

+1

A little bit of trivia : at a time when the Chinese latest radar on the J-10 could track 12 targets, Rafale's PESA radar at the time could track 40!

yeah ..agreed

As far as air-to-air capabilities go, the features you listed above are common to any IRST system in the world. Nothing unique to EOTS. A visual difference is that while most fighter-based IRSTs today are positioned beside the cockpit, focusing on air-combat, the EOTS sits under the nose focusing on ground targets.

But that's not a problem because F-35 is essentially a strike aircraft meant to attack ground targets inside airspace that has already been cleared & secured by friendly air-superiority aircraft. So in essence if IN takes F-35C, then in a real war it will always have to depend on IAF's FGFAs to provide air cover.

Huh ...There is no issue mounting the EOTS bottom of the aircraft , still it can track air targets

Here, have it from USAF Chief of Air Combat Command, Gen. Mike Hostage ;

" “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Times. "

http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04/f-35-needs-f-22-acc-says/

And I sure F 22 and F 15 remains the USAF's primary Air superiority platform, F 16 and F 35 remians as strike fighters.. US is smart enough to think new generation ground based systems pose serious threat in future battle

As you can see, a strike plane like F-35 will not survive on it's own against enemy A2A fighters. Rafale can. If you purchase the F-35, it creates a dangerous dependency on IAF airpower whenever IN wants to carry out an operation. At this point more pots start boiling - how well can a US plane like F-35 operable alongside a Russian platform like FGFA? Changing up datalinks is not the only problem - the F35 will never be able to log as many sorties as FGFA can - interoperability will take a hit, each plane suffering because of the other's deficiencies. In the meantime, FGFA itself can bomb more targets than F35 ever will!

FGFA vs F 35 should be a blind game .. as we both said the F 35 remains the best strike fighter, FGFA eat the F 35 in any day .

F 35 lacks few air to air characteristics, where Rafale lacks some Stealth measures

Using IR-guided missiles based on targeting info given by onboard IRST is nothing new.

Su-30MKI, Su-35, Rafale, EFT, FGFA, J-10B, J-11 all planes can do that. Even Tejas can if it gets an IRST in Mk.2 program.

yeah ,,,!

About the missiles, usually IR-guidance and BVR ranges do not sail in the same boat. IR has some limitations due to weather conditions, cloud cover, background ambient heat etc. At present, Rafale's OSF and Eurofighter's PIRATE systems are thought to be best fighter-based IRSTs around. As far as air-combat goes, they can do a far better job than EOTS.

huh ...yet to read the last day's link ..let me read that ..then we have a new thread based on this ...

Oh development started long time ago, I expect to see a test firing within 1-2 years time - they even displayed a realized seeker model at MAKS.

An AESA seeker head with 64 GaN-based T/R modules! Almost impossible if jam or spoof this missile with present countermeasure technologies!

Yeah the Russians are the first one who working on AESA based seeker in Air to air missiles

FGFA is going to get them all - good for Indian forces.

I almost forget , should we get the FGFA or PAK FA

...not just Russians but Japanese also developing AESA-seeker BVR missile called AAM-4B. It's a new
version of existing missile called AAM-4 -

Before you question Japan's knowledge of AESA tech, know this : the first fighter-based AESA radar was developed in Japan by Mitsubishi Electric. It's the J/APG-1 on the F-2 fighter.

Thanks ...good to know about that

That depends on target's infrared signature. Which also keeps changing. For example, Rafale has one of the lowest IR signatures out there thanks to the M88-2 engines that come with dual cooling channels. I don't have the links right now but maybe you can find them online.

However, even when it comes to passive targeting capabilities, Rafale is again on par or superior to F-35 due to SPECTRA's passive detection capabilities. I am attaching a doc about the same by the same guy who authored the Wordpress link I gave you last time;

Passive TARGETING capabilities are also highly developed on the Rafale thanks to interferometry and highly capable IRST - and above all, SPECTRA's ability to combine all these sensors to provide accurate location data of targets based on their electronic/heat emissions.

ultra powerful compared to all other 4th gen fighters ...!! I think is the Rafale's performance overly estimated, like Russians

Lol...have you heard or seen the Cold War space race? The Russians were responsible for a whole lot of scientific and military achievements mankind has ever seen. Hell, the math needed to build the F-117 NIghthawk was the work of Russian scientists!

You are greatly underestimating the Ruskies. Their biggest problem was lack of funds.

I believe those Russian items are sub standard and not reliable .. I could give thousands of examples for that

In aviation industry Russia is third, USA and EU is first

Why do you think it is a drama?

The 40N6 missile round that's supposed to be used by S400 launchers has a stated range of approx. 400 km, altitude of around 190km and a maximum speed of Mach 12.

The terrain and radar clutter, horizon makes impossible to track a fighter jets cruising at low altitude,

Anyone who said FGFA is/going to be cancelled is an idiot who has no idea about aircraft in the first place. Do not believe such bogus. This would be the 100th time they said IAF was going to cancel this, cancel that!

I'm also the one who saying the FGFA project might be cancelled, looking upon the Russian progress

True & wrong. IAF's Rafale and IN's Rafale-M will be produced on the same production line, all their related tools, maintenance or simulator equipment will also be produced together. That saves a lot of money & time.

That's what I said, Production line would be cheaper, But IN and IAF won't share the Logistics

However they will still have their own service centers where needed because they don't always operate in the same theaters. For examples, places like Arakkonam IN base could have a Rafale center that is geared to maintaining Rafale-M version while Gwalior AFB will have a center for Air Force version Rafales.

Arakkonam needs to be expanded to add new fighter squadron's.

 

[SajeevJino]

Juan Carlos is an LHD not an LPD.

I don't know why everyone doesn't like IN getting what it wants. They asked for an amphibious warfare vessel,
everyone wants to give them a STOVL aircraft carrier instead. What is this game?

No they asked the Multi purpose support vessel,

http://tenders.gov.in/innerpage.asp?choice=tc5&tid=del696578&work=1

That said, no one has decided yet which LHD/LPH type vessel we're going to select yet. The operation of F-35B is only possible if the said vessel has a ski-jump. Only Carlos has it.

Flat decks too operate those F 35 ..

In case anyone still believes that IN needs or wants F-35B, I advice that they use Google and look up the designs of the other LHD/LPH (Landing Platform Helicopter)-type vessels being considered alongside the Carlos. Do you see any one of them with a ski-jump? No. It's because IN neither wants it, nor needs it. Hence it was not a criteria for selection.

The flat deck need to be strength and the lift's too ..to handle the F 35 B , We don't need angled deck for F 35 B

US Marines don't have angled deck, they have flatten one and they using the F 35 on it.

If you still don't understand the significance of an amphib vessel and continue to push for an imaginary requirement of F-35Bs...nothing I can do to convince you people to stop.

Air power .. is the future

 

[Immanuel]

I do not dispute the fact that the Carlos is most likely to win - the point I was making was that eventhough Carlos was the only ship among the competitors that can handle F-35B, the fact that other ships were considered too clearly means that IN had no plans for using these ships as STOVL carriers.

There is a difference between understanding what the scenario demands (like what I did), and proposing an entirely new scenario altogether (what you did).

Or maybe, it would be rather stupid as IN never asked for STOVL fighters in the first place, and putting F-35B on the LHD/LPH would severely reduce the amount of amphibious warfare assets it can carry (a fighter fleet occupies a lot of space in both the hangar deck as well as flight deck), therefore taking away from the IN the ability that they wanted in the first place.

That said, any amphibious assault that's big enough to be requiring support of fighter aircraft would obviously have a CBG supporting it.

I will have to because you seem to want to send a strike bomber (F-35) to do a job meant for
multirole/air-superiority aircraft (Rafale/FGFA).

If IN gets F-35B/C, then god forbid...they won't be able to think of going near a Chinese carrier group unless IAF decides to cover IN's F-35s with their own FGFAs and Rafale/MKIs.

Ofcourse! That's why we had to start the MMRCA competition!

I haven't seen the MKI conducting any terrain-hugging flights that are crucial for stealthy strike missions. Here's a quirk : ask any IAF officer what aircraft he would want replacing the MiG-27 or Jaguar. Rafale or MKI. Or atleast ask him the purpose of MMRCA tender.

Please stop posting these jokes, you're making me laugh too hard.

As for what the IN wants to do with the LPD is not entirely known. IN has always loved the flexibility that comes having the Harrier fleet and the F-35B is something that quite easily meets the need. A fleet of 48 F-35Bs in total for the 4 ships would allow for proper amphibious warfare.

Amphibious warfare ships need to get pretty close to the enemy shore lines to deploy their ground troops and this is where they are vulnerable from enemy aircraft, having the F-35B on the Juan Carlos provides the ship with air cover. The F-35 also provides excellent ground sensor coverage with DAS and EOTS monitoring FOBs and far away badlands, all quite essential really. Half the ship's F-35 fleet can also be used for ground strikes on the shore.

Also, the Juan Carlos can carry upto 12 F-35B while still carrying another dozen or so choppers some including the Chinooks while still carrying atleast 2 landing ship craft and around 40 armored vehicles, more than enough to meet create havoc. Also, this allows the Juan Carlos class ship to be independent without having the CBG to be around to protect its ass from enemy aircraft. Last I recall, we only have 2 CBG during the timelines of 2025, with a 3rd one on the way and a 4th half way ready. Having 4 independent LPD groups allows the IN to open up multilple small fronts further burdening the enemy.

F-35 from day one of FOC will be far more multirole than the Rafale ever was, Rafale as I recall doesn't even have a dedicated DEAD missile deployed on it while the F-35 will deploy everything from Aim-120Cs, Python-5s, I-Derby-ERs, JSOW, JDAM, Paveways, SDB, CBU-105, Harpoons, SLAM-ERs, HARM-Es, JSM not mention a host load of Israeli weapons and EU weapons while the Rafale's arsenal is limited and quite expensive. How are you going to play multiple roles when you don't have the weapons to do it. Wasn't one of the reasons for the heavy cost increase in the Indian Rafale deal because of integration of new weapons.

How will the Rafale have a better advantage in taking down a PLAN carrier, that the F-35 doesn't? Why will the IN rely on the IAF by the way when they have the Mig-29K, LCA MK-1/2 by then

Currently the MKI deploys more multilrole weapons and can be used for more roles than the Rafale.

Why would the F-35B/C have trouble facing the likes of the Su-33 in combat, when the Rafale was hammered plenty of times by the MKI in excercises, Rafale isn't any better. If anything F-35 brings better avionics, sensors to the table from day one. The Rafale's AESA currently doesn't even out perform the Block 60's AESA radar which was deployed over 10 years ago.

Haha, what else can I say to xxxxxxxx MOD: like you that think the piloting the better aircraft wins the war. IN pilot's whether in Harriers or F-35Bs or LCAs will be deadly against any enemy. IN pilot's in simple Harriers have scored simulated kills on the USN's super carrier with clever use of tactics.

It's you who is making a fool out of yourself by bringing the MRCA into this discussion for which the original requirment was for a single engined multilrole fighter. IAF initially wanted more Mirages. Technically speaking F-35 then is the ideal MRCA of this age based on the original requirement.

Terrain hugging flights are over-rated, our enemies specially to the east deploy plenty of low level air defences and SAMs, AAs. The Rafale won't get 10 km in before its shot down, all the active cancellation crap doesn't work when our enemies are watching quite carefully day or night. Just because it bombed ill-defended huts in Mali, Syria, Lybia doesn't make it fit for use in China.

Jaguars are not going to be replaced any time soon; they will recieve AESA and other upgrades. Mig-27s and Jags should eventually be replaced by the AMCA whenever ready, post 2025.

As for IAF officers, they will take whatever they can to battle, its not the aircraft that wins the war, rather the creative use of tactics, this is exactly why IAF pilots have often out performed others in 'better aircraft'

 

[Immanuel]

F-35 VS FGFA VS Rafale VS MKI VS EF are all quite irrelevant disucssions really, combat and repeated excersises have only proven that the better pilot and the better tactics win. This is exactly why a T-38 was able to take down the F-22 or F-4 the Rafale in dogfights or the F-18G to have a simulated Aim-120 kill on the F-22. MKI to swat the EF/Rafale or the MKI to be shot down in BVR by the EF.

I wager IN/IAF pilots will be just as happy or capable flying any of these aircraft.

 

[SajeevJino]

I'm not a Harrier pilot, never was. I said I was in touch with an ex-IN Harrier pilot on other forums.
.

He is a good friend of @Adux and @sayareakd

 

[Gessler]

As for what the IN wants to do with the LPD is not entirely known. IN has always loved the flexibility that comes having the Harrier fleet and the F-35B is something that quite easily meets the need. A fleet of 48 F-35Bs in total for the 4 ships would allow for proper amphibious warfare.

Amphibious warfare ships need to get pretty close to the enemy shore lines to deploy their ground troops and this is where they are vulnerable from enemy aircraft, having the F-35B on the Juan Carlos provides the ship with air cover. The F-35 also provides excellent ground sensor coverage with DAS and EOTS monitoring FOBs and far away badlands, all quite essential really. Half the ship's F-35 fleet can also be used for ground strikes on the shore.

Also, the Juan Carlos can carry upto 12 F-35B while still carrying another dozen or so choppers some including the Chinooks while still carrying atleast 2 landing ship craft and around 40 armored vehicles, more than enough to meet create havoc. Also, this allows the Juan Carlos class ship to be independent without having the CBG to be around to protect its ass from enemy aircraft. Last I recall, we only have 2 CBG during the timelines of 2025, with a 3rd one on the way and a 4th half way ready. Having 4 independent LPD groups allows the IN to open up multilple small fronts further burdening the enemy.

As I said, nothing I can say to convince people who are determined to decide what IN should do, instead of trying to understand what it is that they actually want to do.

F-35 from day one of FOC will be far more multirole than the Rafale ever was, Rafale as I recall doesn't even have a dedicated DEAD missile deployed on it while the F-35 will deploy everything from Aim-120Cs, Python-5s, I-Derby-ERs, JSOW, JDAM, Paveways, SDB, CBU-105, Harpoons, SLAM-ERs, HARM-Es, JSM not mention a host load of Israeli weapons and EU weapons while the Rafale's arsenal is limited and quite expensive.

The F-35 (or ANY modern Western fighter like EF, Rafale, Gripen) can all be integrated with those weapons. Of all the stuff you mentioned, they isn't a single weapon that the F-35 can use, but the Rafale cannot...SHOULD the Air Force operating the said Rafale wants that weapon. Basically you have no clue how NATO weapon integration works.

Again I say this - Rafale can operate ANY Western-origin missile system that F-35 can.

How are you going to play multiple roles when you don't have the weapons to do it. Wasn't one of the reasons for the heavy cost increase in the Indian Rafale deal because of integration of new weapons.

Sure because we wanted those capabilities! Even F-35 is being integrated with the said European/Israeli weapons only because these countries have already signed up for the JSF project and have each provided hundreds of millions in investment. What do you think all this money is for? It's for purposes like these!

IAF wants to integrate Indian weapons like Astra BVRAAM and in future BrahMos-NG cruise missiles on the Rafale. There is also said to be a 750-km version of Nirbhay in development that is exclusively designed for air-launching from MMRCA, Jaguar or Mirage.

Rafale can & will also be integrated with the DRDO-designed NGARM (Next-Generation Anti-Radiation Missile) once that is completed.

In the meantime, ANY latest American/European weapon system you want can also be integrated with the Rafale. US companies like Raytheon have already made it clear that they are willing to provide any weapons necessary for IAF to be integrated into the Rafale.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repo...h-skin-custom&Path=TOIM/2011/06/22&ID=Ar01301

The fact that you took out all that effort to list all the weapons F-35 is being integrated with clearly shows that you have no clue about missile integration, or what the JSF program is all about.

How will the Rafale have a better advantage in taking down a PLAN carrier, that the F-35 doesn't?

Because a strike plane like F-35 will never survive an engagement with advanced aircraft like J-20 that are designed for air-superiority. General Mike Hostage of the USAF agrees.

A multirole plane like Rafale can at the very least, have a good chance against A2A fighters. And not just because of the weapons it carries.

Why will the IN rely on the IAF by the way when they have the Mig-29K, LCA MK-1/2 by then

A plane like MiG-29K (which has no RCS-reduction features at all) to escort F-35? Lol, what a nice way to destroy what little stealth advantage F-35 has!

The N-LCA Mk.2 is ever only likely to be used as a BARCAP fighter from the carriers. It doesn't have the payload-to-sortie ratio to justify being a strike fighter, nor the aerodynamic performance or range needed to tackle the likes of J-20 or Su-35/J-11B.

There is no way a MiG-29 and an LCA can match toe-to-toe with 5th gen PLAAF fighters AND be protecting the F-35's fat a$$ from annihilation at the same time.

Another problem is logistics - there is no way an F-35C and a Mig-29 can be operating from the same carrier (the 35C is best used from a CATOBAR EMALS while 29K cannot use CATOBAR at all). The method you proposed will mean that we will need to deploy 2 CBGs in order to facilitate the F35s flying from, say Vishaal, to reach their target and get back unscathed.

...and that job won't be nearly as effective as the job that can be performed by a single CBG operating a single type of aircraft in different configurations (Rafale-M).

Currently the MKI deploys more multilrole weapons and can be used for more roles than the Rafale.

That's akin to saying MiG-21 is better than LCA because at the moment it can use BVR weapons while LCA cannot.

Why would the F-35B/C have trouble facing the likes of the Su-33 in combat, when the Rafale was hammered plenty of times by the MKI in excercises, Rafale isn't any better.

Stop quoting exercises mate. MiG-21s beat the crap out of F-15s in exercises. What does that prove? That we should abandon FGFA, LCA, MMRCA and build more MiG-21s instead?

Rafale could handle a super-maneuverable thrust-vectored stealth fighter like F-22 in exercises. Besides MKI is a great air-superiority plane.

If anything F-35 brings better avionics, sensors to the table from day one. The Rafale's AESA currently doesn't even out perform the Block 60's AESA radar which was deployed over 10 years ago.

Lol what a meek assessment. I suppose Thales & Grumman gave you a one-on-one performance analysis chart? RBE-2AA has a 100% performance increase over RBE-2 PESA, and that, combined with SPECTRA can easily detect fighter-sized targets (approx. 3sqm) at 278km** or more. Check the docs I attached in replies to SajeevJino.

**and that 278km estimate was made when originally Thales hoped to achieve a 50% increase in performance for the AESA over the older PESA. They managed to get 100% increase instead, thanks to newer technologies. A conservative estimate puts the detection range for loaded 4.5 gen fighter aircraft at well over ~300km.

Haha, what else can I say to dumbasses like you

Reported for insulting other members.

If you are incapable of putting up a valid argument and take forward the discussion, I suggest you shut down and sleep off.

that think the piloting the better aircraft wins the war. IN pilot's whether in Harriers or F-35Bs or LCAs will be deadly against any enemy. IN pilot's in simple Harriers have scored simulated kills on the USN's super carrier with clever use of tactics.

If you even had a basic understanding of air warfare, you'll know that the amount of factors judging victory in an engagement are outside the scope of generalization entirely. A vehemently unprofessional, but fully well-equipped force like the Saudi military can be defeated by a moderately equipped, but better trained and better coordinated military.

But regardless, an ace pilot sitting in a Hawker Hunter won't be able to do zilch to protect himself from a fleet of modern 4.5/5th gen fighters, supported by AWACS, SAM systems & connected to SATCOM. All pointing their missiles right at the Hunter with just a push of button needed to take him out.

As per what you say, we should stop all procurement programs and spend all those billions for better training of our pilots instead!

It's you who is making a fool out of yourself by bringing the MRCA into this discussion for which the original requirment was for a single engined multilrole fighter. IAF initially wanted more Mirages.

Maybe you didn't get the memo but the 'original' requirement was scrapped and replaced by fresh requirements fueled by emerging trends in aerospace technology, and changing IAF doctrines.

As I said, people seem to be wanting to give to the military what it doesn't or no longer wants.

Technically speaking F-35 then is the ideal MRCA of this age based on the original requirement.

...toh new/updated requirement ka koi farak nhi padtha? Aapko tho raksha mantri hone chahiye!

Terrain hugging flights are over-rated, our enemies specially to the east deploy plenty of low level air defences and SAMs, AAs. The Rafale won't get 10 km in before its shot down, all the active cancellation crap doesn't work when our enemies are watching quite carefully day or night.

It gets increasingly funny how you discard/disregard every single tactic used by the air forces of the world just because you want to prove a point.

You don't need active cancellation to avoid every single radar - SPECTRA can just jam these puny gapfiller radars like anything. Modern AESA-based apertures will be more resistant, but anyway you only need to reduce the scanning radar's efficiency to get close enough to fire off a missile. If you have a reasonably good line of sight, you don't even need to come close - Rafale has one of the most advanced airborne interferometry and depending on range of the missile, can fire off an ARM at 100km or more.

Or, if you chose a more network-centric approach, you don't even need line of sight -

You can take out AD assets and the enemy won't even know what hit them.

The real threat however, are the massive long-range radars that are used in conjunction with high-altitude, long-range SAMs like those used in S-400 Triumf. China has it's own versions and may give to Pakistan too. If an S-400 battery sees you flying high & shoots, you can kiss your a$$ goodbye.

Systems like the S400 are the worst nightmare for even well-trained, well-equipped forces like Israeli AF.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-idf-officer-in-our-nightmares-we-never-saw-russias-s-400-in-syria/

Impressively enough, Rafale with SPECTRA had shown a greater resilience in SEAD operation trials against comparabe, but older systems like Slovakian-operated S-300PMU. Note that during this time, it was proven that SPECTRA was perhaps the only Western fighter-based system that could do SEAD this well.

http://ultimaratio-blog.org/en/archives/5749

But ofcourse I'm not saying SPECTRA can easily handle any AD system. SAM technologies have developed greatly, but SPECTRA has been similarly improved and will be enhanced further in future.

Just because it bombed ill-defended huts in Mali, Syria, Lybia doesn't make it fit for use in China.

Your words are a logical fallacy. Atleast Rafale has bombed Gaddafi/ISIS huts. What has MKI bombed?

Jaguars are not going to be replaced any time soon; they will recieve AESA and other upgrades. Mig-27s and Jags should eventually be replaced by the AMCA whenever ready, post 2025.

What did I ask you and what are you saying. I asked if given a choice between MKI and Rafale, what plane would someone like an IAF officer want replacing Jaguar/MiG-27, if money was not an issue?

And what, AMCA??

By the year 2025, HAL/ADA would have made the Tejas Mk.2 operational, and hopefully atleast 1 squadron of operational aircraft be inducted. That is if everything goes according to plan...which it never does.

If you're going to wait for AMCA to replace planes like MiG-27, then my friend, you are looking at the Flying Coffin story being repeated all over again. Seriously, why do some people never learn? Why the lives of Indian pilots means so less to some people?

As for IAF officers, they will take whatever they can to battle, its not the aircraft that wins the war, rather the creative use of tactics, this is exactly why IAF pilots have often out performed others in 'better aircraft'

Maybe you missed the memo again but it is not me but these same IAF officers you are talking about who have put forward the requirement for a plane like Rafale.

Regardless, what you're saying would mean that IN has no need for F-35C, we can use Rafale-M at much cheaper price & commonality with IAF stocks, plus Make in India possibility and yet be able to defeat any 5th gen Chinese plane like J-20, thanks to our better training & professionalism!

Each one of your arguments is in logical conflict with the other.

 

[Gessler]

I sure It would be nice for some F 35 in the LHD ... if we send our forces into Mali or Seychelles

Ships and Heli's moves slowly for such long range, not the F 35




More the advantages more the power

As I said, IN has not given any requirement for it's LHDs to be operating F-35Bs.

What you are proposing is a hypothetical scenario. I think we can agree on that.

Including weapons and spare parts and everything . $170 is not a huge figure.. and agreed the Rafale almost close to the above figure..! with full support systems

Also consider maintenance costs & production. F35 costs almost twice as much as Rafale to maintain per flight hour. Especially the naval versions.

Secondly, with F35 we won't get any licensed production opportunity at all, even if we operate it, we won't learn much from it that can help our own industry. Plus any sanctions could render the fleet inoperable.

Rafale on the other hand offers a far greater level of technological autonomy for India, and if your following that guy Parikrama's posts on the other forums, Dassault has reportedly given it's nod for providing some major technological assistance for Indian aerospace projects including Tejas. Plus we can have Rafale made in India - lost of jobs, business & experience-building for local industry.

As I have shown Rafale's electronics etc. are at levels comparable to modern 5th gen aircraft. While general processing power etc. is far, far ahead of old examples like F-22. (Look it up on the net, you will be surprised).

F-35 for India doesn't make much sense. We're not the type to accept whatever US throws at us and keep quiet about it!

I think the J 20 design looks better than PAK FA, neither F 35. I believe J 20 is pretty low RCS than F 35 but not close to F 22, But honestly those Chinese system.. could i believe it or not

J-20 has gone for copying F-22's design methods, hoping to achieve similar results. PAK-FA on the other hand is fundamentally designed to mitigate the stealth advantage of VLO fighters like F-22/35 and destroy them. It is designed with a good amount of RCS-reduction features, but has been given world-beating performance, electronics & radar/situational awareness capabilities.

Huh ...There is no issue mounting the EOTS bottom of the aircraft , still it can track air targets

It can. But not at the same efficiency as one mounted beside the cockpit. Especially as most A2A fighters can reach altitudes far higher than F35 can ever manage.

The basic purpose of EOTS is ground-attack. Please do some research, you can find enough on the net.

I almost forget , should we get the FGFA or PAK FA

The FGFA obviously. It's more suited for our needs.

ultra powerful compared to all other 4th gen fighters ...!! I think is the Rafale's performance overly estimated, like Russians

Why do you say that?

I believe those Russian items are sub standard and not reliable .. I could give thousands of examples for that

In aviation industry Russia is third, USA and EU is first

Most of the time Russians lacked the funds, so had to cut corners to make things work.

But never doubt their technical capability.

The terrain and radar clutter, horizon makes impossible to track a fighter jets cruising at low altitude,

Lol, no system in the world at target a terrain-hugging aircraft/missile at 400km. The S-400 in itself is not
a missile, it is an air defence system that comprises various types of missiles that are designed to handle different roles.

Please refer to the following link from Ausairpower, authored by Dr. Carlo Kopp to understand what each missile-type is designed to do -

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html

As you can see, S400 comprises both large, long-range SAMs like the 40/48N6 that go at incredible hypersonic speeds to altitudes that can rival our PDV exoatmospheric interceptor missile (therefore performing a BMD role as well), and short/medium-range ones like 9M96 (very similar to Barak-8). The long-range ones are designed to take out high-flying targets at the quoted ranges (250 to 400km).

If the target is flying low, as you said it cannot be detected at longer ranges and when it comes close, the short/medium-range missiles like 9M96 are used against it.

They are also developing a new breed of missiles called 77N6-N series that can potentially take out ICBMs travelling at Mach 25 velocities.

I'm also the one who saying the FGFA project might be cancelled, looking upon the Russian progress

Don't worry about that. Things will iron out.

Okay even if we say FGFA would be cancelled, what are the alternatives?

 

[Immanuel]

As I said, nothing I can say to convince people who are determined to decide what IN should do, instead of trying to understand what it is that they actually want to do.
The F-35 (or ANY modern Western fighter like EF, Rafale, Gripen) can all be integrated with those weapons. Of all the stuff you mentioned, they isn't a single weapon that the F-35 can use, but the Rafale cannot...SHOULD the Air Force operating the said Rafale wants that weapon. Basically you have no clue how NATO weapon integration works.

Again I say this - Rafale can operate ANY Western-origin missile system that F-35 can.

Sure because we wanted those capabilities! Even F-35 is being integrated with the said European/Israeli weapons only because these countries have already signed up for the JSF project and have each provided hundreds of millions in investment. What do you think all this money is for? It's for purposes like these!

IAF wants to integrate Indian weapons like Astra BVRAAM and in future BrahMos-NG cruise missiles on the Rafale. There is also said to be a 750-km version of Nirbhay in development that is exclusively designed for air-launching from MMRCA, Jaguar or Mirage.

Rafale can & will also be integrated with the DRDO-designed NGARM (Next-Generation Anti-Radiation Missile) once that is completed.

In the meantime, ANY latest American/European weapon system you want can also be integrated with the Rafale. US companies like Raytheon have already made it clear that they are willing to provide any weapons necessary for IAF to be integrated into the Rafale.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repo...h-skin-custom&Path=TOIM/2011/06/22&ID=Ar01301

The fact that you took out all that effort to list all the weapons F-35 is being integrated with clearly shows that you have no clue about missile integration, or what the JSF program is all about.

Because a strike plane like F-35 will never survive an engagement with advanced aircraft like J-20 that are designed for air-superiority. General Mike Hostage of the USAF agrees.

A multirole plane like Rafale can at the very least, have a good chance against A2A fighters. And not just because of the weapons it carries.

A plane like MiG-29K (which has no RCS-reduction features at all) to escort F-35? Lol, what a nice way to destroy what little stealth advantage F-35 has!

The N-LCA Mk.2 is ever only likely to be used as a BARCAP fighter from the carriers. It doesn't have the payload-to-sortie ratio to justify being a strike fighter, nor the aerodynamic performance or range needed to tackle the likes of J-20 or Su-35/J-11B.

There is no way a MiG-29 and an LCA can match toe-to-toe with 5th gen PLAAF fighters AND be protecting the F-35's fat a$$ from annihilation at the same time.

Another problem is logistics - there is no way an F-35C and a Mig-29 can be operating from the same carrier (the 35C is best used from a CATOBAR EMALS while 29K cannot use CATOBAR at all). The method you proposed will mean that we will need to deploy 2 CBGs in order to facilitate the F35s flying from, say Vishaal, to reach their target and get back unscathed.

...and that job won't be nearly as effective as the job that can be performed by a single CBG operating a single type of aircraft in different configurations (Rafale-M).

That's akin to saying MiG-21 is better than LCA because at the moment it can use BVR weapons while LCA cannot.

Stop quoting exercises mate. MiG-21s beat the crap out of F-15s in exercises. What does that prove? That we should abandon FGFA, LCA, MMRCA and build more MiG-21s instead?

Rafale could handle a super-maneuverable thrust-vectored stealth fighter like F-22 in exercises. Besides MKI is a great air-superiority plane.

Lol what a meek assessment. I suppose Thales & Grumman gave you a one-on-one performance analysis chart? RBE-2AA has a 100% performance increase over RBE-2 PESA, and that, combined with SPECTRA can easily detect fighter-sized targets (approx. 3sqm) at 278km** or more. Check the docs I attached in replies to SajeevJino.

**and that 278km estimate was made when originally Thales hoped to achieve a 50% increase in performance for the AESA over the older PESA. They managed to get 100% increase instead, thanks to newer technologies. A conservative estimate puts the detection range for loaded 4.5 gen fighter aircraft at well over ~300km.

Reported for insulting other members.

If you are incapable of putting up a valid argument and take forward the discussion, I suggest you shut down and sleep off.

If you even had a basic understanding of air warfare, you'll know that the amount of factors judging victory in an engagement are outside the scope of generalization entirely. A vehemently unprofessional, but fully well-equipped force like the Saudi military can be defeated by a moderately equipped, but better trained and better coordinated military.

But regardless, an ace pilot sitting in a Hawker Hunter won't be able to do zilch to protect himself from a fleet of modern 4.5/5th gen fighters, supported by AWACS, SAM systems & connected to SATCOM. All pointing their missiles right at the Hunter with just a push of button needed to take him out.

As per what you say, we should stop all procurement programs and spend all those billions for better training of our pilots instead!

Maybe you didn't get the memo but the 'original' requirement was scrapped and replaced by fresh requirements fueled by emerging trends in aerospace technology, and changing IAF doctrines.

As I said, people seem to be wanting to give to the military what it doesn't or no longer wants.


...toh new/updated requirement ka koi farak nhi padtha? Aapko tho raksha mantri hone chahiye!

It gets increasingly funny how you discard/disregard every single tactic used by the air forces of the world just because you want to prove a point.

You don't need active cancellation to avoid every single radar - SPECTRA can just jam these puny gapfiller radars like anything. Modern AESA-based apertures will be more resistant, but anyway you only need to reduce the scanning radar's efficiency to get close enough to fire off a missile. If you have a reasonably good line of sight, you don't even need to come close - Rafale has one of the most advanced airborne interferometry and depending on range of the missile, can fire off an ARM at 100km or more.

Or, if you chose a more network-centric approach, you don't even need line of sight -

You can take out AD assets and the enemy won't even know what hit them.

The real threat however, are the massive long-range radars that are used in conjunction with high-altitude, long-range SAMs like those used in S-400 Triumf. China has it's own versions and may give to Pakistan too. If an S-400 battery sees you flying high & shoots, you can kiss your a$$ goodbye.

Systems like the S400 are the worst nightmare for even well-trained, well-equipped forces like Israeli AF.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-idf-officer-in-our-nightmares-we-never-saw-russias-s-400-in-syria/

Impressively enough, Rafale with SPECTRA had shown a greater resilience in SEAD operation trials against comparabe, but older systems like Slovakian-operated S-300PMU. Note that during this time, it was proven that SPECTRA was perhaps the only Western fighter-based system that could do SEAD this well.

http://ultimaratio-blog.org/en/archives/5749

But ofcourse I'm not saying SPECTRA can easily handle any AD system. SAM technologies have developed greatly, but SPECTRA has been similarly improved and will be enhanced further in future.

Your words are a logical fallacy. Atleast Rafale has bombed Gaddafi/ISIS huts. What has MKI bombed?

What did I ask you and what are you saying. I asked if given a choice between MKI and Rafale, what plane would someone like an IAF officer want replacing Jaguar/MiG-27, if money was not an issue?

And what, AMCA??

By the year 2025, HAL/ADA would have made the Tejas Mk.2 operational, and hopefully atleast 1 squadron of operational aircraft be inducted. That is if everything goes according to plan...which it never does.

If you're going to wait for AMCA to replace planes like MiG-27, then my friend, you are looking at the Flying Coffin story being repeated all over again. Seriously, why do some people never learn? Why the lives of Indian pilots means so less to some people?

Maybe you missed the memo again but it is not me but these same IAF officers you are talking about who have put forward the requirement for a plane like Rafale.

Regardless, what you're saying would mean that IN has no need for F-35C, we can use Rafale-M at much cheaper price & commonality with IAF stocks, plus Make in India possibility and yet be able to defeat any 5th gen Chinese plane like J-20, thanks to our better training & professionalism!

Each one of your arguments is in logical conflict with the other.

As for IN deploying the F-35B on the LPD, I always said, they might and IMO they should, it would allow IN to use its 4 LPD as part of 4 independent Amphibious Assault Groups without the need of Carrier cover.

Indeed Rafale can fire any Western weapons but integration at what cost? In the end India has to pay way too much for a 4.5 gen aircraft in 5th gen timelines, all this would be justified if Rafale was delivered to the IAF in 2013 but the last deliveries are in 2023 for the 1st 36. Rafale is a good multirole aircraft yet rather not needed in the numbers being acquired, 36 is hardly anything when availability even in the French AF is around 55%, with the IAF thats around 20-24 fighters available at anytime. Secondly to justify more aircraft in the future beyond 54-90 will be anything but easy due to high cost and availabity of other options like PAKFA, F-35.

Keep dreaming if you think Brahmos will ever be allowed by the Russians on the Rafale. As for the Nirbhay, lets first test the long range version being deployed on the MKI and think later of what will be integrated on the Rafale.

As far as Nirbhay is concerned they are atleast another 5 years away from being fully deployed in all 3 services let alone completion of a mini version.
My point was, IN doesn't have to rely on the IAF, it has its own assets including the Mig-29Ks for carrier defense for INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant, F-35 can play offensive/defensive roles including A2A on the INS Vishal class, you would silly to think it can't hold its own in air combat.

Also, I never said the Mig-29K will be on the INS Vishal, the INS Vishal will have LCA MK-2 and the F-35C, you can keep dreaming of the Rafale on the Vishal around 2027 if you want but its not happening. The Mig-29K will be deployed in equal numbers on the INS Vikramditya and the IAC-1 INS Vikrant along side limited numbers of the LCA MK-1 for testing.

As for the LCA-MK-2 being used only for BARCAP is again some buttery bullshit at best. The LCA MK-2 will deploy plenty of weapons including medium range land attack cruise missiles, anti ship missiles, guided bombs, DEAD weapons

Didn't UAE cancel the Rafale a few years ago because the Rafale didn't provide any additonal advanatages over their block 60s where even the AESA wasn't as good, the French proposed upgrades were far too expensive for them.

Don't go lecturing us on your suppossed knowledge of warfare by posting Bullshit brochures, Spectra is good but in the timelines of 2027 for the IN its useless, it may be good enough for current gen puny SAMs but by 2025, PAK & China would have deployed plenty of AESA based radars. IAF can have a few squadrons of the Rafale, sure it'll help them get off a few shots during times of anger. But having a small number of Rafale at ridiculous prices and timelines is the bottom line of this deal. Money not being an issue is never the question, money is always an issue, saale bill tera cha-cha bharega kya?

MKI/Super MKI is capable enough to bomb the said mud huts

Mig-27 will being decommisioned starting 2017, where is the Rafale by then? I never said AMCA will replace the Mig-27, I said the Jag. How will adding the Rafale suddenlly save Indian pilot's lives? When was the last crash of the Mig-27? For the size of the fleet and number of hours flown, attrition rates can't be that bad. Mig-21 is 1st that needs to be replaced.

IAF put out a requirement for a plane after the original requirment, the last 10 years the IAF's top management has been high on some bad juju. From sabotaging of the LCA to the MRCA debacle, they are the makers of their own troubles. It's obvious they started having issues as soon as the new DM started looking into the deal.

F-35C will show up on the INS Vishal because the US will have enough poiltical pull as they will be helping on the carrier particularly in EMALS, nuke propulsion.

 

[Immanuel]

Funny you post a graph of estimated costs of the F-35 per flying over the next couple of decades but magically the Rafale costs remains the same?

The cost of the rafale have incredibly stayed 'the same' through the last 5 years so much so that we still haven't had a confirmed order

If the order for the F-35 B and C is big enough for Example: 48 F-35 for 4 LPD and 72 F-35c for 2 INS Vishal class carriers, you can be sure to have local assembly of the F-35.

 

[Gessler]

As for IN deploying the F-35B on the LPD, I always said, they might and IMO they should, it would allow IN to use its 4 LPD as part of 4 independent Amphibious Assault Groups without the need of Carrier cover.

Indeed Rafale can fire any Western weapons but integration at what cost? In the end India has to pay way too much for a 4.5 gen aircraft in 5th gen timelines, all this would be justified if Rafale was delivered to the IAF in 2013 but the last deliveries are in 2023 for the 1st 36. Rafale is a good multirole aircraft yet rather not needed in the numbers being acquired, 36 is hardly anything when availability even in the French AF is around 55%, with the IAF thats around 20-24 fighters available at anytime. Secondly to justify more aircraft in the future beyond 54-90 will be anything but easy due to high cost and availabity of other options like PAKFA, F-35.

IAF is pretty clear about what it wants. I have methodically destroyed your flawed argument that F-35 comes pre-integrated with x number of Western weapons. I have shown you very clearly why it is so - the countries that are integrating their weapons on F-35 have already provided millions in investment for the JSF program. Derby missile? Israeli investment. NSM? Norwegian investment. and so on...

Again it seems you may have missed the memo. Even if we were gonna get F-35, IAF will still ask for our own weapons integration on the F-35 and that will, assuming US actually allows it, again cost us additional money, on top of whatever F-35 already costs - which is pretty high and is giving almost every single member country of JSF second thoughts about their investment.

IAF wants 90% availability on it's fleet of Rafales. The French side has stated that it's possible, but a whole ecosystem of spares, maintenance facilities etc. needs to be developed in India. The Indian side has already promised orders of significantly large quantities on top of the 54 being currently negotiated. Based on simple knowledge of aerospace down-time, it's possible to deduce that a 90-Rafale fleet is simply not big enough to sustain such an ecosystem.

Either way, an availability of atleast 80% has been guaranteed by Dassault side, even without many spares-system development. The current deal includes purchase of spares for ~10-15 years plus development of ecosystem to last 40 years of operation.

Besides, you seem to think that IAF procures each weapon system at the cost/expense of another. We aren't in that bad a condition as yet...no thanks to people like you. We will procure Rafale, FGFA and Sukhoi upgrade alongside Tejas Mk.2 development. Each plane has it's role and will not interfere with another's business.

Keep dreaming if you think Brahmos will ever be allowed by the Russians on the Rafale.

Apparently they have already considered at;

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/03/brahmos-considers-all-new-ashm-for-mig.html

In the BrahMos Aerospace JV, India has 50.5 percent stake and Russia has 49.5 percent. Our decision holds!

My point was, IN doesn't have to rely on the IAF, it has its own assets including the Mig-29Ks for carrier defense for INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant, F-35 can play offensive/defensive roles including A2A on the INS Vishal class, you would silly to think it can't hold its own in air combat.

USAF ACC Chief Mike Hostage says : F-35 isn't designed as an air-superiority aircraft. If dedicated A2A assets are not available, F-35 fleet will become irrelevant.

Mr. Immanuel says : F-35 can tackle any A2A threat, doesn't even need any escort.

Is this supposed to be a joke or are you actually implying that you know more about F-35's capabilities than a USAF general? If you are, I can only pity the utterly whitewashed & delusional state you are in! That's the end of argument right there!

Kuch bhi bol leta hai...isko raksha mantri bana dala toh life jinga lala.

Also, I never said the Mig-29K will be on the INS Vishal, the INS Vishal will have LCA MK-2 and the F-35C, you can keep dreaming of the Rafale on the Vishal around 2027 if you want but its not happening. The Mig-29K will be deployed in equal numbers on the INS Vikramditya and the IAC-1 INS Vikrant along side limited numbers of the LCA MK-1 for testing.

IN has said that the only LCA they will buy on an operational basis will be the Mk-2 version. Rest of your post is utter balderdash that makes no sense.

As for the LCA-MK-2 being used only for BARCAP is again some buttery bullshit at best. The LCA MK-2 will deploy plenty of weapons including medium range land attack cruise missiles, anti ship missiles, guided bombs, DEAD weapons

Abbey, main fighter aur LCA bhi attack karne chale gaya toh BARCAP kaun enforce karega? If we put LCA+Rafale/F35 on Vishaal, obviously the more capable plane will go to the offensive role. What does that leave LCA with?

It is amusing how you manage to utterly humiliate yourself with every post.

Didn't UAE cancel the Rafale a few years ago because the Rafale didn't provide any additonal advanatages over their block 60s where even the AESA wasn't as good, the French proposed upgrades were far too expensive for them.

UAE/rest of Arab states make appeasement purchases. Recently KSA has stated an intent for acquiring 72 Rafales. This, while they already ordered similar number of Typhoons. Any level-headed AF wouldn't buy Typhoon & Rafale alongside each other - but there is no logical reasoning behind what Arab states want to buy, not to buy. If you go by their decisions, you'll find your argument in deep sh!t...if it isn't already that is.

Don't go lecturing us on your suppossed knowledge of warfare by posting Bullshit brochures, Spectra is good but in the timelines of 2027 for the IN its useless, it may be good enough for current gen puny SAMs but by 2025, PAK & China would have deployed plenty of AESA based radars.

Lol, so Rafale with GaN (by that time) will be obsolete but F35 with GaAs will be relevant? The aspect you fail to understand is that in matters of AD, electronics play a huge role. Rafale's development path can put any 5th gen fighters to shame. But even to start off with, there isn't that much of a gap between Rafale's and F-35's electronics to justify a purchase of that crap plane.

IAF can have a few squadrons of the Rafale, sure it'll help them get off a few shots during times of anger. But having a small number of Rafale at ridiculous prices and timelines is the bottom line of this deal. Money not being an issue is never the question, money is always an issue,

Exactly that's why spending a huge amount like $9 billion with targets like 90% availability will make no sense unless they are planning to operate a huge fleet of the said aircraft eventually. Too bad you're unable to connect the dots.

And yes, money is always an issue. That's why you get a bang-for-your-buck multi-role plane like Rafale with 5th gen electronics & features instead of a crappy strike bomber like F35 that can only do 1 role effectively, that too only if supported by friendly A2A fighters that are reasonably advanced.

saale bill tera cha-cha bharega kya?

My chacha is actually quite rich, so you never know....

Reported anyway.

MKI/Super MKI is capable enough to bomb the said mud huts

Don't give me your assumptions - assumptions don't prove anything. With the level of combat availability MKIs have right now - in order to send 1 jet to bomb ISIS, we'll have to send 3 additional planes for cannibalizing spares.

So many mistakes were done in MKI procurement process. Mistakes that IAF hopes to rectify in the MMRCA deal.

Mig-27 will being decommisioned starting 2017, where is the Rafale by then?

IAF fleet strength is dwindling. Even if we think they start decommissioning on time (an achievement in itself), much of the upgraded fleet will still be in service into the 2020s, but won't survive that decade. Rafale is the only logical replacement by that time.

Regardless, my point stands high & mighty unlike your weak argument. If MKI was capable of replacing the likes of MiG-27/Jaguar in strike roles, there would have been no need to start MMRCA competition in the first place.

F-35C will show up on the INS Vishal because the US will have enough poiltical pull as they will be helping on the carrier particularly in EMALS, nuke propulsion.

So now you're counting on the US arm-twisting the IN to accept the F35C to drive your point home.

As I expected, people like you have zero concern for India's safety or military capability. You just want to prove your worthless, ill-conceived point, doesn't matter if it costs the IN the operational flexibility it desires.

How can your arguments even hold up against me who's views are based entirely on analyzing the forces' requirements? And in between instances of waging ill-conceived proposals, you are forced to insult me & my family...it is unarguably proved that people resort to violence when they realize that their stand is too weak to pass the test of judgement. I have no need to pass insults to you or your family members because my argument is strong, information is genuine, and my will is bold.

You on the other hand, are an example of apathy regarding Indian defence needs.

 

[SajeevJino]

.

Hmmm ... Nice to see, F 35 vs Rafale

I personally feel, IN might love the F 35 and I sure it will come through INS VISHAL, and IN won't reluctant to invest another billions to buy some VTOL for those LHD's .. thus cheaper production line,

As far as I know the F 35 is better than Rafale F3, in terms of strike and combat air patrol, like I said earlier It's very hard that Close combat or Dog fights can happens in future, those smart long range missile's from Fighter jets can kill any enemy air borne targets.

Even if the Dog fights happens, obviously Rafale may win, once again those SAM's are better than fighter jets in terms of air superiority in friendly air space

For ground strike, take the F 35 any day,

@Gessler Did any S 400 score a long range interception .... more than 100 kilometers

leave those theory .. I'm well aware of those websites and S 400 Capability

 

[Gessler]

.

Hmmm ... Nice to see, F 35 vs Rafale

I personally feel, IN might love the F 35 and I sure it will come through INS VISHAL, and IN won't reluctant to invest another billions to buy some VTOL for those LHD's .. thus cheaper production line,

As I said, IN is more interested in Rafale-M than F-35 right now. Only way we'll get F35 is if IN succumbs to US pressure - not sure why some members here actually seem to be rooting for that. If IN is not interested in F35 it must be because the said aircraft does not offer the capabilities IN wants. If we are forced to buy such a plane, we should all be sad, not happy. Too bad some people don't realize that. Yet.

As for local production, it won't be justifiable to produce an uber-costly plane like F35 here unless Navy & Air Force both buy F35 in large numbers. IAF is already choked with commitments like FGFA, MMRCA, LCA, Super-MKI, maybe AMCA in future and now F-35?! IAF doesn't want any F35. Again, we would be proposing entirely new scenarios and trying to play armchair general. Not a safe thing to do.

As far as I know the F 35 is better than Rafale F3, in terms of strike and combat air patrol,

Only real advantage F35 has even in strike scenario is it's VLO airframe. But make no mistake, it is only stealthy in radar spectrum. It's IR signature still isn't stealthy and lack of supercruise capability further worsens this problem. What makes this even more serious is that most close-range SAMs are IR-guided.

Even this VLO airframe comes at a great cost. For example, F35 can never have the kind of terrain-hugging flight features (or generally very low-altitude performance) as Rafale or even the A-10 it's supposed to replace. Basically while planes like A-10 or Su-25 get down & dirty with ground forces (therefore being a true CAS aircraft), the F35 instead chooses to stay at relatively medium altitudes and attack from there by making use of latest smart weapons.

Thing with Rafale is, it can both get close to the ground to plot terrain-hugging flight profiles to deliver payloads under the radar (although this is not like a CAS aircraft);

OR

It can also decide to stay at medium/high altitudes and make use of any latest smart weapons that F35 can, to achieve the same results.

A true "Omni-role" fighter.

Let's also consider the price aspect. For all the money you'll pay for F35, you'll only be getting a good strike plane. At a cheaper price, you can get Rafale - which is a good strike plane, a good air-superiority fighter, a good interdiction aircraft, and above all a great weapons platform, all in one.

Is it any wonder now that IN wants Rafale-M and not F-35C?

like I said earlier It's very hard that Close combat or Dog fights can happens in future, those smart long range missile's from Fighter jets can kill any enemy air borne targets.

It's more likely than you think. It's not feasible to assume that you can detect a fighter like J-20 at long ranges and be able to kill it before it can do anything - that's the biggest one-sided BS marketing claim ever.

By the time modern GaAs AESA radars can as much as detect a proper stealthy aircraft, you are already entering WVR range. And a radar detected a target does not mean it can automatically track & lock them in seconds. This process is very difficult when modern ECMs are involved. At this point the pilot can even visually acquire his target and ID it.

Besides, as you agreed yourself, in BVR combat, weapons often matter more than the launch platform.

For ground strike, take the F 35 any day,

Not if you're already getting Rafales.

As I showed above, even in strike scenarios, there isn't much F35 can pull off that Rafale can't. Basically what F35 is designed to do is stay as far away from the target as possible and rely on modern smart bombs & cruise missiles to take out ground targets. Rafale can use any of those weapons.

But Raffy can do the additional job of getting down & dirty with the terrain when the situation demands it. For example, when there's a powerful long-range UHF AESA radar scanning the airspace out to 100s of kms, it might be advisable to lay low and try to sneak up on the targets.

Either way Rafale offers more flexibility. It also allows to carry approx. 2,000-4,000 kgs more payload than F35 depending on variant, if I remember the numbers correctly.

@Gessler Did any S 400 score a long range interception .... more than 100 kilometers

leave those theory .. I'm well aware of those websites and S 400 Capability

I don't have the info right now. See if you can find some on the net.

All necessary tests needed to certify S-400 as being able to to what it is meant to do have been done & dusted. The system is operational.