Know Your 'Rafale'

[PaliwalWarrior]

Whoever thinks that the Su-30MKIs are going to be less expensive for IAF than the Rafales over their entire lifetime is in for a rude awakening

If that is indeed the case then

Why is dasault offering annual.maintainace contract for 36 rafale deal @ 5% of capital costs per annum ?

If the above is true it should come in a lot cheaper

The HAL / Russian combi is offering at the same for su30

 

[smestarz]

Looks like similar AMC of new computer, they come after 6 months with a blower, blow off any dust and then then thats it, 5% of capital cost done for the year, and that would mean say 4 million a year per plane in case its 80 million flyway cost.

If that is indeed the case then

Why is dasault offering annual.maintainace contract for 36 rafale deal @ 5% of capital costs per annum ?

If the above is true it should come in a lot cheaper

The HAL / Russian combi is offering at the same for su30

 

[BON PLAN]

The key word here is developing mica with 60 km range

So now yourself have admitted that current mica don't have 60 km range

And the mica with 60 km range is being developed

NO. Where I have write this ????

1997 MICA millesime reach a target at 67km (Taiwanese M2000 shooting a target during 1997). Why do you, why do we understand actual mica is shorter legs ???
Mica is like AMRAAM : it evolves. And not in a regression mode.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

NO. Where I have write this ????

1997 MICA millesime reach a target at 67km (Taiwanese M2000 shooting a target during 1997). Why do you, why do we understand actual mica is shorter legs ???
Mica is like AMRAAM : it evolves. And not in a regression mode.

If you look up my post where your originL post mentioning that is contained

Also seems you have deleted your original posts

Ha-ha

 

[smestarz]

There is big difference between MICA and AMRAAM
AMRAAM was always designed to be Medium-Long range missile. After it was decided that F-14 Tomcats would be retired and these carried the excellent long range AIM-54 Phoenix, it was decided that the next Navy plane should be able to carry medium long range missiles and those should not be as big as AIM-54 or expensive as them. Further these missiles were almost entirely exclusive to F-14 Tomcats.

Phoenix missiles were about 4 metre long and 500 kg in weight with range of about 200 kms,
AMRAAM was 3.7 metre long, 150 kgs (less than 30% weight) and range almost half, but importantly the AMRAAM brought in longer range and more capable missiles to front lines planes such as F-16 and F/A-18 which earlier used AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 sparrow, and thus there was overall cost saving as there was commonality of missiles and more units could be ordered.

Phoenix missile was costing about half a million dollars when fighter planes would cost say 5-10 million dollars..

MICA is a good missile but it was always developed to be medium range,
So it depends on what you define as Medium range or long range.
BVR in a way is a vague term if you determine the term in terms of kms or miles it can be more accurate.

MICA is a BVR with range of 60 kms + but then compare with missile that has range of 100 kms+ and the 40% more range does talk a lot in terms of REACH.

NO. Where I have write this ????

1997 MICA millesime reach a target at 67km (Taiwanese M2000 shooting a target during 1997). Why do you, why do we understand actual mica is shorter legs ???
Mica is like AMRAAM : it evolves. And not in a regression mode.

 

[smestarz]

I shall just give a logical answer.
MICA is good and it has a range, say X.
There are 2 points.

1. When the buyers want a longer range missile than the MICA that comes with it
2. When Dassault and France promote that Rafale will be using the LONGER RANGE Meteor with their Rafales

These two statements does sort of let the readers feel that MICA is either not that capable or simply when Dassault says LONGER RANGE METEOR, does confirm that MICA has shorter legs.
Thats the pudding for you.

NO. Where I have write this ????

1997 MICA millesime reach a target at 67km (Taiwanese M2000 shooting a target during 1997). Why do you, why do we understand actual mica is shorter legs ???
Mica is like AMRAAM : it evolves. And not in a regression mode.

 

[BON PLAN]

If you look up my post where your originL post mentioning that is contained

Also seems you have deleted your original posts

Ha-ha

??? a post deleted? absolutely not. You are tired I'm afraid.

 

[BON PLAN]

MICA is a good missile but it was always developed to be medium range,
So it depends on what you define as Medium range or long range.
BVR in a way is a vague term if you determine the term in terms of kms or miles it can be more accurate.

MICA is a BVR with range of 60 kms + but then compare with missile that has range of 100 kms+ and the 40% more range does talk a lot in terms of REACH.

I agree. And you must add to the range, the Pk.... AMRAAM is not known to have a so nice Pk.

 

[BON PLAN]

I shall just give a logical answer.
MICA is good and it has a range, say X.
There are 2 points.

1. When the buyers want a longer range missile than the MICA that comes with it
2. When Dassault and France promote that Rafale will be using the LONGER RANGE Meteor with their Rafales

These two statements does sort of let the readers feel that MICA is either not that capable or simply when Dassault says LONGER RANGE METEOR, does confirm that MICA has shorter legs.
Thats the pudding for you.

It's logical to present Meteor with A LONGER range than MICA !

As already said, MICA was tailor made for french air force. They don't think a greater range is so usefull. But in case of (awacs, tanker) and for marketing reason Meteor is to be induced on Rafale. But only with an order of 100pcs for french navy and air force.

 

[smestarz]

The French thinking.. nice, did it not cost them WW2?
With 100 units, and say 2 units per plane that is good enough for just 50 planes at the most.. and if they fiire, then no refills

It's logical to present Meteor with A LONGER range than MICA !

As already said, MICA was tailor made for french air force. They don't think a greater range is so usefull. But in case of (awacs, tanker) and for marketing reason Meteor is to be induced on Rafale. But only with an order of 100pcs for french navy and air force.

 

[BON PLAN]

The French thinking.. nice, did it not cost them WW2?
With 100 units, and say 2 units per plane that is good enough for just 50 planes at the most.. and if they fiire, then no refills

Because it's a no use weapon in the mind of the few french air force top brass that are thinking.

if WW2 is a subject you like, open a new thread and invite me, but please don't pollute all forum with that !

 

[gadeshi]

I agree. And you must add to the range, the Pk.... AMRAAM is not known to have a so nice Pk.

Pakis use AIM-120C-3 and C-5 which range is 70 and 80 km respectively.
However bearing in mind F-16C-50 radar capabilities (detect a fighter from 75km max and track it from 50km) pakis cannot use their AIM-120 on ranges they've paid for

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[smestarz]

I did reply about the subject in question, 50 pairs of Meteors for 120 odd planes, as you said only few squadrons might get it and rest have to make do with MICA.
but did also point of how it cost the French during WW2, its not at all going away from the topic. Incidentally Indian Air force top brass faces myopia very much like the French

Because it's a no use weapon in the mind of the few french air force top brass that are thinking.

if WW2 is a subject you like, open a new thread and invite me, but please don't pollute all forum with that !

 

[smestarz]

LOL an example I can think of for this particular incident is giving Free Viagra to old men but then they dont get to wear glasses.

Pakis use AIM-120C-3 and C-5 which range is 70 and 80 km respectively.
However bearing in mind F-16C-50 radar capabilities (detect a fighter from 75km max and track it from 50km) pakis cannot use their AIM-120 on ranges they've paid for

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Gessler]

Any current-generation BVRAAM having a good Ph/Pk beyond a range of 100km is very unlikely. Especially against fast-moving, smart targets. Almost all BVR missiles currently in operation will work the best in the region between 60 and 80km....beyond that you're pretty much left hoping for a fluke/lucky hit.

In order to retain enough momentum & accuracy at ranges in excess of 100km against targets using modern top-of-the-line countermeasures, you need both vastly improved propulsion concepts (like Meteor) and advanced AESA-based seekers (like K-77M).

 

[Gessler]

It makes sense to market Meteor as having longer range (or just being better in general) than MICA. Especially at this point because Meteor is yet to enter service (therefore has lots of new export potential) compared to MICA which was inducted almost 20 years ago.

But this does not mean MICA is useless or ineffective - it is still a great air-to-air weapon and allows you to have a common platform to use for both radar-guided BVR missiles and IR-guided WVR missiles (a major selling point for the MICA), which greatly cuts down on the price for acquiring two different types of AAMs, while also making maintenance & repair procedures easier.

For IAF, we already ordered both versions of MICA for the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 as part of the upgrade deal. So it makes sense to use them on Rafale as well. Whether we will actually buy Meteor or not is a discussion for the future - for now, the Astra Mk-1 (with Indian seeker) can serve as the BVR armament for Rafale while the MICA-IR can take the role of the WVR weapon (and still be interchangeable with MICA-EM if for some reason Astra is not available).

Edit : Not so sure about buying anything from MBDA now. They have a 25% stake-holding by Finmeccanica, which was blacklisted in India. Dunno how this goes.

 

[abingdonboy]

IF Manohar parrikar clearly says that he is not buying any rafales, IAf will automatically give importance to tejas mk2.

IAF wants twin engined medium fighter , regardless of the cost , so it is vey careful to not to show any interest in tejas mk2!!!

So how will the single engined Mk.2 with (at best) 50% of the payload capacity and maybe 60% of the range of the Rafale compete agaisnt the Rafale? There is no competition between the MMRCA and LCA at all. The LCA is not being devloped to compete with the Rafale and nor should it be, it is very good for what it is meant to be (an air defence fighter with CAS utility). Why conflate issues?

Mirage 2000 upgrade is all to do with improving the life of fuselage & bettering radars & avionics, nothing to do with improving the TWR or BVR missile range of the fighter,

Who said it was? The TWR for the Mirage 2000s is adequate and it will be coming with some deadly weapons (MICA). The upgraded M2Ks will be quite a step ahead of the LCA, let's not delude ourselves.

 

[abingdonboy]

Rafale M is a distant dream. So lets keep it out of discussion.

It really isn't but, yes, let's leave that to one side.

Mig-29K, 45 ordered and capped. Availablity 60% ( it's russian, not even manufactured in India so i assume it's availability is no better than of SU-30 MKI's). That's 27 Mig-29s for a requirement of 60 fighters over two carriers. Some of it will still be required to be shore based. So how many can actually be put to use during combat? Less than 15 per carrier. In contrast 60 NLCA MK-2 has been ordered. Availablity 80%. That's 48 aircraft available at any given time. Starting 2024 when NLCA MK-2 would be a new top of the line fighter, Mig-29s would be a 15 years old fighter. Now it should be obvious why i said NLCA will be principal fighter of carrier borne fleet.

As per broadsword NLCA MK-2 should carry 3.5 tons of weapons in addition to full load of internal fuel when operating from carrier. Considering MK-2 is a significantly improved design it's pylons should carry a load more than 1200 kg limit that is there in MK-1. In this regard carrying 2x Brahmos NG on two in-board pylons does not seems infeasible to me. You can always send few NLCA MK-2s in air to air configuration as escort.

This is a fair enough analysis but it still negates the very basics of carrier warfare. The single engined NLCA will NEVER be the IN's primary carrier fighter or strike asset. Since the 1950s the carrier fighters that have been intended for such roles have been substantially larger and heavier than the LCA, the NLCA will at best be a air defence asset for the fleet whilst heavier IN carrier fighters take the fight to the enemy. With its limited range and payload capacity not to mention inherent restriction of operating on the high seas with zero redundancy (single engine) it is quite nonsensical to project the NLCA as a carrier strike platform.


It's really quite pointless to pretend the LCA is anything more than it is, onto bigger and better things now gentlemen....

 

[abingdonboy]

The pace of inductions is too slow. The deliveries are more important than ceremonies.

We want to see steady deliveries like 2 per quarter to gain confidence in this program.

The production rate will be upped to 16/year within the next 2 years which is pretty impressive considering it took the Pakis about 7 years to ramp up production to a similar rate despite having the Chinese holding their hand the entire time.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

As expected none of the rafale lobby even so called Indians like

@Gessler @abingdonboy to name a few

Have spoken a single good word about tejas &this moment of its maiden sqdn formation

Mind you @Gessler is a person who who goes all gaga &oh &ah even if eric happier so as farts