Know Your 'Rafale'

[warrior monk]

I think the deal maker will be the one that transfers of maximum amount of technology not just just know how but know why to India at least cost . It is even possible US may under bid the French in this . US already wants to help out in engine tech under cutting the French even before Rafale deal is signed .

 

[gadeshi]

OK, guys, I'm tired to read full rivers of fanboys sperm about Rafale, EF-2000, F-35 or the like without even short analysis of IAF needs itself.

It resembles me much nigga's talks in Bronx:
- Johnny has long pennis (a good radar) so we need to buy his cars!
- No, Francoise has not so long pennis, but it is thicker (AESA), let's buy his stuff!
- I have a lot of money so I want to buy fancy car (or hot couture car, what ever)!

This all is complete shit, really.

The only thing you should keep in mind speaking about what fighter (or fighters) should be purchased for IAF is IAF structure.
Structure depends on many things, but the most influent are priority tasks and maintenance costs. All the park structure issues can be resolved by reviewing a balance between effectiveness in priority tasks and a maintenance costs.
In the other words, you should draw a priority tasks map and discuss what structure of your combat park will be the most effective to deal with them for the less possible money.

So, there are 3 main approaches to a combat planes park structure:

American one:
American approach is to have one heavy air dominator and another one light fighter to augment heavy one.
Brilliant examples - F-15 / F-16 and J-11 (13/15/16) / J-10.
Awful example - Su-27 and MiG-29 (will explain later).
This approach defines a light fighter as the following:

1. Single engine (as engine is commonly 1/3 or even 1/2 of fighter cost).
2. Light fighter must be less effective (1/3 or 1/2 of the heavy one) and by the same times cheapper. In the opposite it will not be neither light, nor affordable.
   
3. Light and heavy fighters numbers in the AF should be 3-4 light for one heavy.
   
4. Maximal light fighter unification with heavy one by:

• • Engine. First of All!!! So, the light fighter uses single engine the same as heavy one. This one cuts 30% maintenance costs alone.
  • Radar elements. Light fighter has basically the same radar with lesser antenna, power units and signal processors, but all the elements (especially for 4+Gen with AESA/PESA) are the same for both. Light fighter antenna just uses less number of the same TRMs. Signal processor must be a cluster of the same nodes, but light fighter has lessof them.
  • Mission computers (requirements are the same).
  • Defence suit (requirements are the same).
  • Cockpit gear (can be simply the same).
  • As many other parts (tires, wheels, spares, expendables) as possible.

American approach is ideal when you have:

• no formidable foes (or just one of them) near your borders;
• wide set of good airfields and ground infrastructure or relatively compact territory;
• you fight mostly in colonial war and not alone but with your allies.

This approach gives you the best quality to cost ratio.

European one:
EU choses monotype AF park having single type of medium fighter.
EU approach is the most cost-effective, but gives you less tactical effectiveness due to the fact that unified tool can do much but less effective than cpecial one.
However, EU can afford this due to complete dependance from US in all the operations when EU AFs rely on US heavy fighters support.

Russian one:
Russians have not a single type of fighter, but a unified heavy fighters family which has several type of heavy aircraft based on the same heavy fighter platform unified by 75 to 95% inside a platform.
This approach is defined by the following:

• Russia cannot afford itself to have less effective unified fighters force because it doesn't want to fight colonial wars, but must always be ready for a war with a formidable foes - NATO + USA.
• Russia has so vast territory, that simply cannot be covered with a dense set of airbases to allow to operate the other fighters except heavy ones.

So this approach allows you to create specialized aircrafts within the unified family and have the top notch effectiveness for a higher, but reasonable price.

As for IAF, my conclusions about structure are the following:

1. IAF has no such a formidable tasks like VKS, so Russian heavy only approach is excessive.
2. If you want to go EU way, then you should scrap all the heavies like Su-30MKI and lights like LCA and abandone FGFA to purchase Rafale or EF-2000 now and concentrate on AMCA for the future.
3. If IAF will go EU way, then it should abandon Rafale deal and go for EF-2000 as it has much better dynamic envelope, especially supersonic.
4. IAF cannot afford EU way because it has to be on par with China having heavy fighters in its AF.
5. Due to all the positions above, the most effective will have American way to form AF structure - 1 heavy dominator and one light fighter with maximal unification to heavy one as possible.

However, if IAF will chose American approach to AF park structure, it should abandone all the medium fighters projects and deals and concentrate on LCA.
But LCA must be maximal unified with Su-30MKI in this case. In the other words, it should have one Al-31F (117S for Super Sukhoi) engine, the same cockpit gear, mission computers clasters, defence suit parts, radar components and the like. Nowadays LCA is less than 1/4 of Su-30MKI effectiveness which is not acceptable.

In American structure case, your ideal LCA should be like J-10 or the other MiG-related project - Type 412:

In the other words, it should be a light fighter with a full MTOW less than 20 tons (12-15 tons for Gen 4) with a high flight envelope but 1/3 or 1/4 avionics capability and 1/3 or 1/4 of a range of heavy air dominator.

 

[gadeshi]

Now I will talk about why keeping heavy and medium fighters together is stupid decision.
As I've said earlier, USSR had negative experiance with American approach application when PFI contest was held.
PFI contest defined that there will be only one winner and that winner was Sukhoi with T-10 (future Su-27).
MiG has lost a contest, but one of its directors board men, prominent Soviet aerodynamic Lozino-Lozinskiy has offered to apply American AF model with heavy and light fighters to not allow MiG to fail the contest forever.
So, VPK commision a new PFI programme, in which Sukhoi will do a heavy fighter TPFI (Su-27) and MiG will do a light LPFI (MiG-29). MiG-29 should been to be a light fighter like Type 412 described above to became a 90-s MiG-21.
But MiG directors and chief designers of that days give a will to their hubris and violated VPK commission order.
They have continued their initial MiG-29 project instead of doing the light fighter. They wanted to "win" by the rear count making the plane lighter but the same capable as Su-27.
This all resulted in continuous MTOW and sizes growth and usage a 2 different engines (RD-33) instead of one unified (Al-31F) as ordered.
So, VVS has received 2 different fighters with less than 5% of commonality and MiG-29 still has 1/3 of Su-27 capabilities in the cost of 2/3 of Su-27. This is a complete fail in logistics and maintenance costs of VVS fighters park. This has led to disproportions of fighters numbers and MiG-29 usage restrictions in Russian reality of vast spaces and few airfields for which MiG-29 has no sufficient range and combat radius.
This also has restricted its export potential as well.

So, keeping the medium fighters which cost 2/3 of heavy ones and have 2/3 of their MTOW, that have different (from heavy one) engines and spare parts, but having 1/2 heavy effectiveness is stupid.

 

[gadeshi]

Now about perspective.
While Russia and India have chosen T-50 as a heavy dominator and the next unified platform, they have to think about if they need a light fighter?
The answer for Russia is No. However, as new Okhotnik-B UCAV will be long ranged and supersonic, it can take not so wide niche of light fighter in VKS.
India will need to chose to develop a manned light 5 Gen fighter or go for Okhotnik-B purchase and/or "make in India".

If IAF will chose a manned fighter, it should not be AMCA (because it is medium and will have too many different parts, primarily engine and avionics). It should be another project of a single-engined fighter using Item 30 engine like FGFA.
In my modest POW it should be something like these:
American XF-36 project:

or Russian E-51:

 

[gadeshi]

More info about E-51:

 

[gadeshi]

And more of them for you:

 

[gadeshi]

And the last one batch:
3D views (moveable):
https://p3d.in/EM99b/xray+subd
https://p3d.in/F0zdR/wireonxray+subd
and cross-sections (3D):
https://sketchfab.com/models/f357314b67d04364b6fb8cdeec67c98e

 

[tharun]

OK, guys, I'm tired to read full rivers of fanboys sperm about Rafale, EF-2000, F-35 or the like without even short analysis of IAF needs itself.

It resembles me much nigga's talks in Bronx:
- Johnny has long pennis (a good radar) so we need to buy his cars!
- No, Francoise has not so long pennis, but it is thicker (AESA), let's buy his stuff!
- I have a lot of money so I want to buy fancy car (or hot couture car, what ever)!

This all is complete shit, really.

The only thing you should keep in mind speaking about what fighter (or fighters) should be purchased for IAF is IAF structure.
Structure depends on many things, but the most influent are priority tasks and maintenance costs. All the park structure issues can be resolved by reviewing a balance between effectiveness in priority tasks and a maintenance costs.
In the other words, you should draw a priority tasks map and discuss what structure of your combat park will be the most effective to deal with them for the less possible money.

So, there are 3 main approaches to a combat planes park structure:

American one:
American approach is to have one heavy air dominator and another one light fighter to augment heavy one.
Brilliant examples - F-15 / F-16 and J-11 (13/15/16) / J-10.
Awful example - Su-27 and MiG-29 (will explain later).
This approach defines a light fighter as the following:

1. Single engine (as engine is commonly 1/3 or even 1/2 of fighter cost).
2. Light fighter must be less effective (1/3 or 1/2 of the heavy one) and by the same times cheapper. In the opposite it will not be neither light, nor affordable.
   
3. Light and heavy fighters numbers in the AF should be 3-4 light for one heavy.
   
4. Maximal light fighter unification with heavy one by:

• • Engine. First of All!!! So, the light fighter uses single engine the same as heavy one. This one cuts 30% maintenance costs alone.
  • Radar elements. Light fighter has basically the same radar with lesser antenna, power units and signal processors, but all the elements (especially for 4+Gen with AESA/PESA) are the same for both. Light fighter antenna just uses less number of the same TRMs. Signal processor must be a cluster of the same nodes, but light fighter has lessof them.
  • Mission computers (requirements are the same).
  • Defence suit (requirements are the same).
  • Cockpit gear (can be simply the same).
  • As many other parts (tires, wheels, spares, expendables) as possible.

American approach is ideal when you have:

• no formidable foes (or just one of them) near your borders;
• wide set of good airfields and ground infrastructure or relatively compact territory;
• you fight mostly in colonial war and not alone but with your allies.

This approach gives you the best quality to cost ratio.

European one:
EU choses monotype AF park having single type of medium fighter.
EU approach is the most cost-effective, but gives you less tactical effectiveness due to the fact that unified tool can do much but less effective than cpecial one.
However, EU can afford this due to complete dependance from US in all the operations when EU AFs rely on US heavy fighters support.

Russian one:
Russians have not a single type of fighter, but a unified heavy fighters family which has several type of heavy aircraft based on the same heavy fighter platform unified by 75 to 95% inside a platform.
This approach is defined by the following:

• Russia cannot afford itself to have less effective unified fighters force because it doesn't want to fight colonial wars, but must always be ready for a war with a formidable foes - NATO + USA.
• Russia has so vast territory, that simply cannot be covered with a dense set of airbases to allow to operate the other fighters except heavy ones.

So this approach allows you to create specialized aircrafts within the unified family and have the top notch effectiveness for a higher, but reasonable price.

As for IAF, my conclusions about structure are the following:

1. IAF has no such a formidable tasks like VKS, so Russian heavy only approach is excessive.
2. If you want to go EU way, then you should scrap all the heavies like Su-30MKI and lights like LCA and abandone FGFA to purchase Rafale or EF-2000 now and concentrate on AMCA for the future.
3. If IAF will go EU way, then it should abandon Rafale deal and go for EF-2000 as it has much better dynamic envelope, especially supersonic.
4. IAF cannot afford EU way because it has to be on par with China having heavy fighters in its AF.
5. Due to all the positions above, the most effective will have American way to form AF structure - 1 heavy dominator and one light fighter with maximal unification to heavy one as possible.

However, if IAF will chose American approach to AF park structure, it should abandone all the medium fighters projects and deals and concentrate on LCA.
But LCA must be maximal unified with Su-30MKI in this case. In the other words, it should have one Al-31F (117S for Super Sukhoi) engine, the same cockpit gear, mission computers clasters, defence suit parts, radar components and the like. Nowadays LCA is less than 1/4 of Su-30MKI effectiveness which is not acceptable.

In American structure case, your ideal LCA should be like J-10 or the other MiG-related project - Type 412:

In the other words, it should be a light fighter with a full MTOW less than 20 tons (12-15 tons for Gen 4) with a high flight envelope but 1/3 or 1/4 avionics capability and 1/3 or 1/4 of a range of heavy air dominator.

Mig-412 can u give more information about it?

 

[tharun]

And more of them for you:

Missiles are very near to engine will not there be any damage to missile?

 

[garg_bharat]

I think bulk of IAF should stay single engine fighters. Over-emphasis on twin engine is unhealthy. Aero-engine is most expensive component (both initial cost and maintenance cost) during life of aircraft.

If all fighters are twin engine, then quantity will reduce accordingly. IAF should not insist on 800 fighters in that case, and make do with 400 fighters.

As Su-30 has replaced much cheaper and much lower capability fighters, the notional strength of IAF has increased, not decreased, with the induction of Su-30.

I think MMRCA project should consider only single engine fighters. Further growth of twin engine should come from fifth generation PAK-FA/FGFA and AMCA.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Have you seen an official bill? NO.

It's like the price of SH18 for Australia : cheap. But....but.... without support, spares, weapons....

It has already been in reports that

MBDA has said that weapons will be extra cost over and above rafale costs of 12 billion which dasault is asking for

And

Support will also be extra

So stop spreading your lies

 

[gadeshi]

Mig-412 can u give more information about it?

Type 412 was a "late lesons learned" derivative of infamous MiG Type 1.42 5G project, which has been developing in parallel with 1.42 and utilizing the same engine (Al-41F Item 20) and AD layout.
I gave it as an example.
You can read about it in Russian here (not much is known for now): http://paralay.com/lfi_mig.html

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Seems us is offering f-16 with cft for longer range

Going for f-16 with cft is stupid

As it will have aerodynamic penalties and if we want longer range than we have su30mki

 

[gadeshi]

Missiles are very near to engine will not there be any damage to missile?

The same as on F-35, but with much lesser Middel cross-section
Modern fighter is a very dense layed out thing

 

[gadeshi]

Seems us is offering f-16 with cft for longer range
Going for f-16 with cft is stupid
As it will have aerodynamic penalties and if we want longer range than we have su30mki

Of course!
Heavy and light fighters should fly different missions in range and complexity. If not, than it makes no sense to maintain both types.

 

[tharun]

The same as on F-35, but with much lesser Middel cross-section
Modern fighter is a very dense layed out thing

I mean what if the solid fuel in missile gets heated and goes off in weapon's bay itself

 

[gadeshi]

I mean what if the solid fuel in missile gets heated and goes off in weapon's bay itself

It is a question of fuel quality and MWB heat isolation.
But anyway if solid fuel will ignite, it will burn aircraft at all in any case and any MWB.

 

[gadeshi]

The other Soviet / Russian light fighter projects for your consideration:
LMFS researches: http://paralay.com/lmfs.html
Sukhoi LFI variants:
S-56: http://paralay.com/s56.html
S-45: http://paralay.com/s45/s-45.html

 

[gadeshi]

And some more light fighter projects:
Su-37 (Sukhoi LFI): http://www.paralay.com/lfi_su.html

 

[Tactical Frog]

@gadeshi That was a good piece to read ! Great effort to provide ground for discussion.

Note that as for " european " approach you mention, only France pushed it to the limits so far with Rafale ( truly omnirole fighter) . The nations using Typhoon still rely heavily on Tornado as we ' ve seen in Lybia and Syria . The Typhoon is watching from a distance
In a foreseeable future , F-35 should replace typhoon in the " medium" fighter role. Which makes me think that IAF chose to back the right horse beween Rafale and Typhoon, for the reason that more investments will be made in the Rafale upgrades than in the Typhoon upgrades.
Now to be honest .. I am starting to lose hope @Gessler @abingdonboy
MoD' s play looks more and more inextricable. Seems like they want a new MMRCA competition now with most former bids ( Saab, Boeing, Lockeed) relaunched. But without officially announcing it. I am lost.