Know Your 'Rafale'

[gadeshi]

@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.

Thanks
It was just a "need to say" to stop cheap fallometrics

 

[Tactical Frog]

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.

I stand with the French claims about Rafale being able to fulfill all roles .. And I don' t see any dependance on US heavy fighter support anywhere. Actually. France lacks tankers for long range operations, but nothing else.

 

[gadeshi]

I stand with the French claims about Rafale being able to fulfill all roles .. And I don' t see any dependance on US heavy fighter support anywhere. Actually. France lacks tankers for long range operations, but nothing else.

Medium fighters simply cannot survive a battle against heavy ones due to obvious reasons.
The only conditions in which they have reasonable changes to survive and win:

1. Their numbers will 2-3 times higher than enemy heavies (very unlikely for EU in the current and near future economic conditions);
2. They will have a support, informational aid and "brute force" of a friendly heavy fighters (obviously US ones) or ground-based AD systems.

And about all roles... Rafale is rather effective transport platform in a strike role (as for multiroller), but has not so brilliant dynamic envelope, such as acceleration rates and supersonic maneurability. This makes it rather less effective interceptor and air dominator. EF-2000 looks much more prominent in these roles.

P.S.: I mean all these applicable to a real war with adequate foe, not for colonial papuas bombing runs.

 

[Gessler]

@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.

Most of the countries operating Typhoon (UK, Italy, Saudi, maybe Spain too) will eventually be using F-35 as well. In this case, the Typhoon will be air-superiority while F-35 will be manned ground-attack. Unmanned A2G roles will be taken care of in the future by the aircraft like BAE Taranis.

Something tells me that most Western air forces will resort to using drones for AD-penetration within the foreseeable future as Russian-origin air defence systems keep improving and are simply death-traps for aircraft. An unmanned plane removes the risk of endangering pilots, and can have much lower radar & infrared signature. A small, but precise payload can be carried. Larger drones in the future will be able to carry as much as fighters do today.

F-35 will only be bombing jihadi huts in the middle-east, can do little other than that. Australia is already trying to slash down it's F35 buy as much as possible and look for alternatives in the sixth-generation F-X project. It seems too skeptical at the moment, but it tells us that US corps. are seriously looking to cover up the failure that is the F35 and bring in a so-called "6th gen" fighter, which is essentially modernized versions of the tech already proven in F-22/35, but wrapped in a new airframe. This was revealed recently.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/14/air-force-opposes-f-22-production-wants-f-x/

As far as Indian needs go, we would most probably go with Rafale as the medium-end, modernized MKI as the heavy (will be eventually replaced by FGFA in the 2030s) and keep improving the LCA as the light category. IF a light 5th gen plane is considered, it might kill both LCA+Rafale...but if not, only Rafale can be purchased as the MMRCA. No other plane in that category is viable regardless of what mediapersons say.

Another aspect to consider is the naval requirement. Having one plane for IAF and a different plane in the same category for IN is not viable. It will never happen, not in this country.

A US fighter makes no sense for India...especially outgoing models like F-16. F-18? Maybe...but that won't make much difference from Rafale (costly, twin-engined, etc.) anyway. Gripen? Possible, but it could kill any future development of LCA. The Indigenous lobby will not allow that to happen.

Typhoon is not possible either because we already concluded that it is more costly than Rafale...plus we have to replace strike planes like MiG-27 and Jaguar with MMRCA, and most Typhoon operators would rather use F-35 in those roles.

@gadeshi Really liked your analysis! You should check out IDF (*****************) where there is a thread called Light Stealth Aircraft (LSA). It is much similar to the category which the E-51 model you shown above is. Apparently an ex-Indian Navy Harrier pilot (you can find him by the name vstol jockey) has completed a design with his team and is negotiating with IAI for electronics support. You can check out the thread and maybe pitch in with your ideas.

Now IF such a fighter is inducted (single-engined 5th gen), it can potentially nullify the need for a medium 4.5gen (like Rafale or any other), but what can happen of such projects within the timeframes we need them? That is the problem.

 

[gadeshi]

@gadeshi Really liked your analysis! You should check out IDF (*****************) where there is a thread called Light Stealth Aircraft (LSA). It is much similar to the category which the E-51 model you shown above is. Apparently an ex-Indian Navy Harrier pilot (you can find him by the name vstol jockey) has completed a design with his team and is negotiating with IAI for electronics support. You can check out the thread and maybe pitch in with your ideas.
Now IF such a fighter is inducted (single-engined 5th gen), it can potentially nullify the need for a medium 4.5gen (like Rafale or any other), but what can happen of such projects within the timeframes we need them? That is the problem.

Having light single-engine fighter in a pair for heavy one is just practical and cost-effective due to wide unification. Having heavy, medium and light is useless due to functions duplication between medium and light and purchase/maintenance costs growth along with logistics problems.
All the tasks which MiG-27/Jags carry now can be easily transferred to a light fighter if it will have powerfull engine, proper sizes and MTOW. Just look at the example projects above.
As for timeframes for light G5, you can use Chinese experience by just placing JV RND and parallel TOT order to MiG or Sukhoi (or Jakovlev/Irkut) for such a fighter which will be mutually lucrative and will not cause TOT problems.
The only problem I see here to make a good choice is IAF/aerospace business lobby with probable corruption interests.

 

[garg_bharat]

@gadeshi, the biggest issue for India is to simplify supply chain. This means that local production has to tie in with imports. India needs integration with current and future local weapons as well as uniformity of engines.

IAF has never been a supporter of local industry, and I doubt that is going to change in near future. So some things will have to be forced. It happens that a section of bureaucracy develops vested interests. Checks and balances are needed to make sure country does not suffer.

India has tried French in many projects and I am afraid the experience has not been as good as expected. This has resulted in overall caution.

 

[Tactical Frog]

Medium fighters simply cannot survive a battle against heavy ones due to obvious reasons.
The only conditions in which they have reasonable changes to survive and win:

1. Their numbers will 2-3 times higher than enemy heavies (very unlikely for EU in the current and near future economic conditions);
2. They will have a support, informational aid and "brute force" of a friendly heavy fighters (obviously US ones) or ground-based AD systems.

And about all roles... Rafale is rather effective transport platform in a strike role (as for multiroller), but has not so brilliant dynamic envelope, such as acceleration rates and supersonic maneurability. This makes it rather less effective interceptor and air dominator. EF-2000 looks much more prominent in these roles.

P.S.: I mean all these applicable to a real war with adequate foe, not for colonial papuas bombing runs.

Medium fighters simply cannot survive a battle against heavy ones due to obvious reasons.
The only conditions in which they have reasonable changes to survive and win:

1. Their numbers will 2-3 times higher than enemy heavies (very unlikely for EU in the current and near future economic conditions);
2. They will have a support, informational aid and "brute force" of a friendly heavy fighters (obviously US ones) or ground-based AD systems.

And about all roles... Rafale is rather effective transport platform in a strike role (as for multiroller), but has not so brilliant dynamic envelope, such as acceleration rates and supersonic maneurability. This makes it rather less effective interceptor and air dominator. EF-2000 looks much more prominent in these roles.

P.S.: I mean all these applicable to a real war with adequate foe, not for colonial papuas bombing runs.

The real war you are talking about can only be Nato vs Russia ( God forbid) . In this eventuality , yes, Europe is awfully dependent on US. Years of cutting defence spendings or playing free riders .. many Nato countries spend as little as 0,5 % GDP in defence. But if Germany was fielding 500 Typhoons , the picture would be different . And France was supposed to field much more than 150 Rafale by now too .. our own effort sank to 1,52 % in 2013.

 

[Screambowl]

yaar stop this discussion.
same old things being repeated again and again.

What new is just some match making between governments

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

I stand with the French claims about Rafale being able to fulfill all roles .. And I don' t see any dependance on US heavy fighter support anywhere. Actually. France lacks tankers for long range operations, but nothing else.

We have never said rafale is a bad plane

It is good plane

But at the asking rate -/it dosenr make sense for India to buy

 

[Gessler]

Having light single-engine fighter in a pair for heavy one is just practical and cost-effective due to wide unification. Having heavy, medium and light is useless due to functions duplication between medium and light and purchase/maintenance costs growth along with logistics problems.
All the tasks which MiG-27/Jags carry now can be easily transferred to a light fighter if it will have powerfull engine, proper sizes and MTOW. Just look at the example projects above.
As for timeframes for light G5, you can use Chinese experience by just placing JV RND and parallel TOT order to MiG or Sukhoi (or Jakovlev/Irkut) for such a fighter which will be mutually lucrative and will not cause TOT problems.
The only problem I see here to make a good choice is IAF/aerospace business lobby with probable corruption interests.

The problem is that there is no unification either way. Even if LCA development is continued, it's engines, electronics etc. will continue to be Western/Israeli while the heavy category will be filled with Russian stuff.

Only way such a unification process can take place now is if :

> We scrap Rafale, and give up plans for all MMRCA alternatives.
> We kill LCA development, too.
> AMCA will never see light of day because it's category also will be erased.

A new single-engined fighter (like E-51) will have to be developed, with most of the tech carried over from FGFA. Including engine, radar and most everything else. The time to develop it won't be that much (because really we only have to certify a new airframe, all internal tech is already being developed under PAK-FA project), but we'll need to make a naval version as well. But as of now the IAF is not making any headway toward such a goal.

I'm afraid it may be too late for IAF to adopt such an architecture.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Having light single-engine fighter in a pair for heavy one is just practical and cost-effective due to wide unification. Having heavy, medium and light is useless due to functions duplication between medium and light and purchase/maintenance costs growth along with logistics problems.
All the tasks which MiG-27/Jags carry now can be easily transferred to a light fighter if it will have powerfull engine, proper sizes and MTOW. Just look at the example projects above.
As for timeframes for light G5, you can use Chinese experience by just placing JV RND and parallel TOT order to MiG or Sukhoi (or Jakovlev/Irkut) for such a fighter which will be mutually lucrative and will not cause TOT problems.
The only problem I see here to make a good choice is IAF/aerospace business lobby with probable corruption interests.

Don't even try to explain him the stupidity of mrca

He hangs on the left side of the frenchies

 

[gadeshi]

The problem is that there is no unification either way. Even if LCA development is continued, it's engines, electronics etc. will continue to be Western/Israeli while the heavy category will be filled with Russian stuff.

Only way such a unification process can take place now is if :

> We scrap Rafale, and give up plans for all MMRCA alternatives.
> We kill LCA development, too.
> AMCA will never see light of day because it's category also will be erased.

A new single-engined fighter (like E-51) will have to be developed, with most of the tech carried over from FGFA. Including engine, radar and most everything else. The time to develop it won't be that much (because really we only have to certify a new airframe, all internal tech is already being developed under PAK-FA project), but we'll need to make a naval version as well. But as of now the IAF is not making any headway toward such a goal.

I'm afraid it may be too late for IAF to adopt such an architecture.

Really a true in every word except for the last one!
India could have all the creams of E-51like plane JV development as it will be:

1. Completely indigenous or complete JV/TOT-ted
2. Less costly due to unification and technologies/decisions/components reusage
3. Easily make a carrier version by preserving such an ability from the Day 1 but without F-35 voluntarism
4. Merge all the efforts, experience and technology chains from LCA and AMCA projects into new LTF project including researchers and engineering workforce
5. Optimize IAF park structure and logistics + maintenance costs in one package
6. Gain G5/5+/6 technology chains not just as is but making researches in JV which will allow you to truly unerstand and master them.

About the last your sentance: Russians have made the same Heavy/Medium mistake, but have fixed it by chosing the structure which is right to them, so why IAF cannot do the same?

 

[Gessler]

Don't even try to explain him the stupidity of mrca

He hangs on the left side of the frenchies

Sir, do you realize that in this case, not only MMRCA but LCA and AMCA are also stupid?

Please try to understand that if MMRCA is not coming, it's because IAF has found an alternative low-end 5th generation plane. A low-end 4th gen like LCA is obsolete and with the kind of high-end 5th gen techs (including several 5+ gen techs) that would be incorporated in FGFA and from there trickle down to the low-end 5th gen plane, even the AMCA becomes useless.

Either we take Rafale, LCA + AMCA, or we trash all of them and build a new 5th gen plane instead.

 

[Tactical Frog]

The problem is that there is no unification either way. Even if LCA development is continued, it's engines, electronics etc. will continue to be Western/Israeli while the heavy category will be filled with Russian stuff.

Only way such a unification process can take place now is if :

> We scrap Rafale, and give up plans for all MMRCA alternatives.
> We kill LCA development, too.
> AMCA will never see light of day because it's category also will be erased.

A new single-engined fighter (like E-51) will have to be developed, with most of the tech carried over from FGFA. Including engine, radar and most everything else. The time to develop it won't be that much (because really we only have to certify a new airframe, all internal tech is already being developed under PAK-FA project), but we'll need to make a naval version as well. But as of now the IAF is not making any headway toward such a goal.

I'm afraid it may be too late for IAF to adopt such an architecture.

One thing we all agree about is that IAF cannot chase several horses at the same time. Too many plans, too many platforms, too many

The problem is that there is no unification either way. Even if LCA development is continued, it's engines, electronics etc. will continue to be Western/Israeli while the heavy category will be filled with Russian stuff.

Only way such a unification process can take place now is if :

> We scrap Rafale, and give up plans for all MMRCA alternatives.
> We kill LCA development, too.
> AMCA will never see light of day because it's category also will be erased.

A new single-engined fighter (like E-51) will have to be developed, with most of the tech carried over from FGFA. Including engine, radar and most everything else. The time to develop it won't be that much (because really we only have to certify a new airframe, all internal tech is already being developed under PAK-FA project), but we'll need to make a naval version as well. But as of now the IAF is not making any headway toward such a goal.

I'm afraid it may be too late for IAF to adopt such an architecture.

IAF is chasing too many horses .. and cannot afford all of them. The way i see it :

An all Indian-Russian architecture with FGFA and a new light fighter project makes sense.

If Rafale is inducted in big numbers, it will on all likeliness suppress need for AMCA and Tejas , but keeps some space for PAK-FA project as a F-22 like ultimate interceptor.

If small numbers of Rafale are inducted, many options remain open, but it is a very uncertain path .

 

[Gessler]

Really a true in every word except for the last one!
India could have all the creams of E-51like plane JV development as it will be:

1. Completely indigenous or complete JV/TOT-ted
2. Less costly due to unification and technologies/decisions/components reusage
3. Easily make a carrier version by preserving such an ability from the Day 1 but without F-35 voluntarism
4. Merge all the efforts, experience and technology chains from LCA and AMCA projects into new LTF project including researchers and engineering workforce
5. Optimize IAF park structure
6. Gain G5/5+/6 technology chains not just as is but making researches in JV which will allow you to truly unerstand and master them.

About the last your sentance: Russians have made the same Heavy/Medium mistake, but have fixed it by chosing the structure which is right to them, so why IAF cannot do the same?

I do not dispute the feasibility of the idea at all...if such an approach is adopted, it will be the best way both cost-wise and capability-wise, no doubt about that.

I'm only unsure about the possibility of this approach being taken, at this point of time. There are too many interests and lobbies, both in support of European planes, and those in support of local industry (read, HAL)'s products.

Doing what we're discussing here will be effectively seen as a Russian ploy to kill two birds with one stone : remove French competition from the fighter market, and also kill India's 'indigenous' fighter development efforts by smashing LCA/AMCA projects and continuing dependence on Russian planes.

I'm NOT saying the above lines are true, what I'm saying is that this is how it will been seen, by many. Personally I'm fully in support of adopting this kind of hi-lo architecture, but as I said, I doubt such a plan can be adopted at this stage.

But if through some miracle it does happen, I'm the happiest person on Earth!

 

[garg_bharat]

Without referring to any one poster, can somebody explain:

1. Why is LCA obsolete?
2. How is dependence on French better than dependence on Russia?

People forget that Kaveri engine for LCA is developed to a certain level. The engine works, even if under-powered, and the engine project is continuing under another guise even if Kaveri is wound up. Tech development is still on in this area. So Kaveri can be revived when tech catches up.

Beyond engine, the radar development is on. LCA will be the first aircraft to sport locally designed AESA when available.

The ecosystem for parts is dependent on orders. Industry does not develop in vacuum. If LCA is there, private companies will offer almost all needed components as they see a market.

In weapons, Astra and locally designed laser kit for bomb are available. This is in addition to imported weapons qualified for LCA.

LCA is short-legged (by design), but forward bases do not need a long ranged plane.

Many technologies developed for LCA (and ecosystem) will be used in AMCA, AURA etc.

 

[garg_bharat]

There is no consideration (at present time) for any other Russian plane other than Su-30 and PAK-FA/FGFA. There is no consideration of Mig-35 etc. So inserting Russian fighters into MMRCA is needless.

 

[gadeshi]

Without referring to any one poster, can somebody explain:

1. Why is LCA obsolete?
2. How is dependence on French better than dependence on Russia?

People forget that Kaveri engine for LCA is developed to a certain level. The engine works, even if under-powered, and the engine project is continuing under another guise even if Kaveri is wound up. Tech development is still on in this area. So Kaveri can be revived when tech catches up.

Beyond engine, the radar development is on. LCA will be the first aircraft to sport locally designed AESA when available.

The ecosystem for parts is dependent on orders. Industry does not develop in vacuum. If LCA is there, private companies will offer almost all needed components as they see a market.

In weapons, Astra and locally designed laser kit for bomb are available. This is in addition to imported weapons qualified for LCA.

LCA is short-legged (by design), but forward bases do not need a long ranged plane.

Many technologies developed for LCA (and ecosystem) will be used in AMCA, AURA etc.

LCA in its current state is not sufficient to substitute the roles of Jag, Mirage-2000, MiG-27 and MiG-29 that it should do to effectively augment heavy Su-30. And it has completely different from Su-30 technology chain and logistics which is not very good.
Developing more powerful LCA with Al-31F (117S) could cover all the isues easily.

 

[gadeshi]

There is no consideration (at present time) for any other Russian plane other than Su-30 and PAK-FA/FGFA. There is no consideration of Mig-35 etc. So inserting Russian fighters into MMRCA is needless.

Yes, and it could be a great gain for India to develop completely indigenous LTF which will use Al-31F (117S) with a wide open international JV/cooperation with the countries you like and cover all the niches (except heavy) at the same time.

 

[Superdefender]

Uprated Kaveri, aka, 'Ghatak' will be the engine of AURA. Hence no question of Kaveri shutdown.