Know Your 'Rafale'

[NightRider]

O Rafale.
I love this jet.
$&/&^^*^

 

[BON PLAN]

3x 2000 liter drop tanks = 6.7 tons

NO.
density of fuel is 0,8 so 2000l = 1600kg. Add the dry weight of the tanks : saying 200kg ? TOTAL = less than 2000kg by full tank

 

[NightRider]

A follow-on order of 36 Rafale Jets will result in 40 per cent savings
Friday, August 25, 2017 By: Press Reader Source Link: CLICK HERE





The IAF is now pitching for acquiring another 36 Rafale fighters after it gets the first 36 jets under the Rs 59,000-crore contract ($9.3 billion) inked with France last September, stressing that the “follow-on” deal will cost just around 60% of the original acquisition and induction price.

Defence ministry sources on Thursday said IAF has made “some presentations” on the operational need to procure 36 additional Rafales as part of its long-term plans, with the force contending the French fighters will prove to be much cheaper than the proposed fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) to be developed with Russia. “But no final decision has been taken on either the 36 additional Rafales or the FGFA project,” said an MoD source.

The Modi government had inked the deal for the 36 Rafales, with their weapon packages, associated supplies and logistics, after scrapping the deadlocked $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project for 126 fighters due to IAF’s “critical operational necessity”.

As earlier reported by TOI, the first Rafale squadron (18 jets) will be based at Hasimara (West Bengal) to cater for China, while the second will come up at Ambala (Haryana) for Pakistan. The 36 omnirole jets, which can also deliver nuclear weapons, are slated for delivery from November 2019 to mid-2022.

The IAF has told the MoD the infrastructure coming up at Hasimara and Ambala airbases can accommodate two Rafale squadrons each. “This will cut down the induction costs of the 36 additional fighters,” said the source. Grappling with just 33-34 fighter squadrons when at least 42-44 are needed to tackle the “collusive threat” from China and Pakistan, IAF says the Rafales will be “a huge deterrent” with their deadly Meteor air-to-air missiles (150km range), Scalp air-toground cruise missiles (300km) and other weapons.
http://www.defencenews.in/article/A...ets-will-result-in-40-per-cent-savings-283874

Very advance plane but expensive too..
But our economy also moving up..

 

[TPFscopes]

NO.
density of fuel is 0,8 so 2000l = 1600kg. Add the dry weight of the tanks : saying 200kg ? TOTAL = less than 2000kg by full tank

and what is the weight of empty fuel tank?
think practically...
http://defense-update.com/20140127_rafale_omnirole_configuration.html

 

[square]

Very advance plane but expensive too..
But our economy also moving up..

humm...

atleast as par as france ....
if they can afford.....so do we...

 

[IndianHawk]

humm...

atleast as par as france ....
if they can afford.....so do we...

French can only afford rafale because they maintain a smaller airforce than compared to us. Also they don't face hostile land borders such as us that allows them to increase budget for airpower over land based systems.

 

[Armand2REP]

French can only afford rafale because they maintain a smaller airforce than compared to us. Also they don't face hostile land borders such as us that allows them to increase budget for airpower over land based systems.

I think India is starting to realise that shooting for 42 squadrons is unrealistic given how much modern fighters are costing these days. You could buy something cheap like Pakistan does but what is the point of having a paper tiger just to fill some imaginary number? What really matters is how combat effective your total force is.

 

[IndianHawk]

I think India is starting to realise that shooting for 42 squadrons is unrealistic given how much modern fighters are costing these days. You could buy something cheap like Pakistan does but what is the point of having a paper tiger just to fill some imaginary number? What really matters is how combat effective your total force is.

Importing 42 SQ is a disaster. But if we can indegenious the fighters we can build the numbers. For example russian air Force maintain 3000+ total jets ( fighter , attack transport all ) that almost double our numbers and their defense Budget is same as us while ours will almost double in next 5-7 years. The answer is indegenious development.

 

[NightRider]

humm...

atleast as par as france ....
if they can afford.....so do we...

I think we can do better.
We are good money managers , baniyas you know.

 

[NightRider]

Importing 42 SQ is a disaster. But if we can indegenious the fighters we can build the numbers. For example russian air Force maintain 3000+ total jets ( fighter , attack transport all ) that almost double our numbers and their defense Budget is same as us while ours will almost double in next 5-7 years. The answer is indegenious development.

We need the best, imported or indegenious.
What happens with china resently was total surprise, they were telling us to teach lessons ; i think we should teach them a lesson .

 

[NightRider]

I think India is starting to realise that shooting for 42 squadrons is unrealistic given how much modern fighters are costing these days. You could buy something cheap like Pakistan does but what is the point of having a paper tiger just to fill some imaginary number? What really matters is how combat effective your total force is.

Why should we buy cheap.
So much tax we are paying ..

 

[Armand2REP]

Importing 42 SQ is a disaster. But if we can indegenious the fighters we can build the numbers. For example russian air Force maintain 3000+ total jets ( fighter , attack transport all ) that almost double our numbers and their defense Budget is same as us while ours will almost double in next 5-7 years. The answer is indegenious development.

90% of the VVS was made before the fall of the CCCP. If they replaced 3000 aircraft they would need USAF budgets. Russia is downsizing even more than India.

 

[square]

French can only afford rafale because they maintain a smaller airforce than compared to us. Also they don't face hostile land borders such as us that allows them to increase budget for airpower over land based systems.

also i think rafale cost them less compare to what we are paying...........

 

[smestarz]

When you talk of Russian air force prior to the break up of soviet union, they had small planes mostly like MiG-21 which were short range but fast interceptors, they had MiG-25 which was specialised interceptor, Strategic bombers like Tu-16, Tu-20, Tu-95 which are still there, Long range Su-24 Fencer deep strike plane and Su-15 Flaggon and few other in the mix, Those planes did not have the range or the warload as the Su-30 now,
MiG-21 had 4 pylons and did not have a powerful radar, the range of the radar was not impressive.
Thus the evolution is due to having strong air borne radar which excellent range, A bigger plane with good speed, ability, and longer range and ability to carry more missiles. Thus in a way, 3 Su-30 can easily cover an area that would earlier need squadron of Su-15 or MiG-21 to cover. Due to detection range of radar, well spaced between the planes allows them bigger scanning area and hence can cover bigger air space., So when you compare planes with 50 km radar range with one having 200-400 kms radar range, the detection range itself is 4-8 times more and thus this acts as a force multiplier. The longest range missile then was AA-4 I believe with range of less than 70 kms, and now they have missiles whose WVR missile ranges are 50 kms and long range missiles go well past 150 kms. The planes have become expensive but that is due to the capability they bring in. If you just compare that single engine planes today carry warload equal or more than heavy bombers of WW2
And with one aerial refueling they could easily cover the distance that needed the then heavy bombers to be fully loaded to just make the trip. So due to the budget constraints, the Russians Air force evolved from primarily single engined air force made up of MiG-21, MiG-23 etc to air force using Su-27, Su-30 MiG-29, MiG-31 MiG-35 where the single engine interceptors were superseded eventually by twin engine MiG-29 and MiG-35.
It was never the plan to replace Single engine plane with twin engine, but since Russia is a big country that automatically becomes the part of progression. The evolution is from specialised planes to multi role planes.

You do not see the Russians clamouring about the "sanctioned strength" they are going by the capabilities and how well they can use their air assets/ The Syrian action has given them the chance to test their strength and some of their tactics. Though they did not get any A2A experience, they got to develop and test their A2G and Cruise missiles. Gone are the days of 3000 planes air force.. This is an era of network management, it is important to have networked system with good and powerful radars for long range detecting and these networked together can give an excellent situation awareness and this is FORCE MULTIPLIER. Earlier say RuAF needed 3000 planes, but with the networking assets they have, they are able to be as effective with with almost 20% of the fighter assets they had before thanks to these force multipliers (AWACS /AEWC) With these the air force is able to concentrate their entire strength as the situation arises. And hence able to use its air assets more effectively than before hence creating a more slimmer and dynmaic force where each asset can be brought to bear unlike before when a significant force was held up due to possibility of attack on another position..

90% of the VVS was made before the fall of the CCCP. If they replaced 3000 aircraft they would need USAF budgets. Russia is downsizing even more than India.

 

[smestarz]

As a tax payer, I am not thinking of cheap or expensive but something which is
a) effective against all threats that our noisy neightbours will put through
b) be a significant asset for at least next 20 years without being outdated,
c) give us an advantage and position of strength and hence acts as a deterrent

Rafale, EFT, Su-30 are planes of last generation, and no matter how much you upgrade them they would remain 4.5 ++ and not make the critical jump to 5.0 gen.

Many rafale fan boys call it marketing crap of LM but when they want to try and sell it, they easily join the band wagon and try to pimp it as ALMOST 5TH gen plane.

Thus a plane should be purchase because of what capabilities it can bring in, what roles it can perform and also questions of its cost of buying, using and maintaining. If an asset can bring in capability which ensures that our neigbours knowing that we have it, try to keep away, is a money well spent, but that unfortunately is not Rafale. This plane might be coming in the next few years.

Why should we buy cheap.
So much tax we are paying ..

 

[BON PLAN]

Very advance plane but expensive too..
But our economy also moving up..

expensive....
It was the main attack angle of the anti Rafale (and anti french ) bashing.
Now with the first indian deal we know that a dry Rafale (ie without weapon, spares, offset...) is 90 to 95 € million.
A F15 cost more (see Qatar deals for Rafale and F15).
A SH18 costs in the 85 millions.

In term of value for money it's not soo expensive.

 

[BON PLAN]

As a tax payer, I am not thinking of cheap or expensive but something which is
a) effective against all threats that our noisy neightbours will put through
b) be a significant asset for at least next 20 years without being outdated,
c) give us an advantage and position of strength and hence acts as a deterrent

Rafale, EFT, Su-30 are planes of last generation, and no matter how much you upgrade them they would remain 4.5 ++ and not make the critical jump to 5.0 gen.

Many rafale fan boys call it marketing crap of LM but when they want to try and sell it, they easily join the band wagon and try to pimp it as ALMOST 5TH gen plane.

Thus a plane should be purchase because of what capabilities it can bring in, what roles it can perform and also questions of its cost of buying, using and maintaining. If an asset can bring in capability which ensures that our neigbours knowing that we have it, try to keep away, is a money well spent, but that unfortunately is not Rafale. This plane might be coming in the next few years.

5th generation according to LM :

Stealthy = F35 is, at least from front and for US plane (will Turkish planes be so discreet ....)
Agile = F35 is not (far of a F16 agility which was the goal at the begginning of JSF)
Supercruising = F35 is not (LM definition of super cruise is > Mach 1.4 or mach 1.5)
Sensor fusion able = F35 will be (now ? on developpment)
Weapons inside = F35 is partially (only 2 bombs of half the initial weight and 2 AAM. Heavyer loads are partialy under wings)

So even according to LM definition, F35 failed to be 5th gen. The sole is F22.

 

[smestarz]

When I say 5th Gen plane of LM why you have to talk F-35 specifically, Do you forget F-22 is one?
F-35 is defined as VLO due to shaping, which unfortunately Dassault is trying to push Rafale as " oh we have done some stealth shaping ... "
F-35 wont be super cruising, not yet at least

Sensor Fusion, of course it has sensor Fusion. are you not aware of it? Or you expect each sensor fusion to be named SPECTRA? Euroffghter calls it DASS and EOTS is part of F-35

F-35 was never expected to be as expensive as F-35, rather it was always going to be a watered down F-22 so that the prices can be cheaper. Like lot of countries could not afford or be trusted with F-15 and so F-16 came into a picture as a capable plane that can hand Aerial security of small/medium size country and handle many roles, And the same co-relatiion was for F-22 and F-35.. So you see F-16 putting high speed or ceiling record?

Further having 2 bombs and 2 AAMs in internal bays and have VLO/Stealth is better than having all warload outside and yet claim to be stealthy like Rafale claims..

5th generation according to LM :

Stealthy = F35 is, at least from front and for US plane (will Turkish planes be so discreet ....)
Agile = F35 is not (far of a F16 agility which was the goal at the begginning of JSF)
Supercruising = F35 is not (LM definition of super cruise is > Mach 1.4 or mach 1.5)
Sensor fusion able = F35 will be (now ? on developpment)
Weapons inside = F35 is partially (only 2 bombs of half the initial weight and 2 AAM. Heavyer loads are partialy under wings)

So even according to LM definition, F35 failed to be 5th gen. The sole is F22.

 

[NightRider]

expensive....
It was the main attack angle of the anti Rafale (and anti french ) bashing.
Now with the first indian deal we know that a dry Rafale (ie without weapon, spares, offset...) is 90 to 95 € million.
A F15 cost more (see Qatar deals for Rafale and F15).
A SH18 costs in the 85 millions.

In term of value for money it's not soo expensive.

I don't know about details , but minister says that on tv
I remember.

 

[BON PLAN]

When I say 5th Gen plane of LM why you have to talk F-35 specifically, Do you forget F-22 is one?
F-35 is defined as VLO due to shaping, which unfortunately Dassault is trying to push Rafale as " oh we have done some stealth shaping ... "
F-35 wont be super cruising, not yet at least

Sensor Fusion, of course it has sensor Fusion. are you not aware of it? Or you expect each sensor fusion to be named SPECTRA? Euroffghter calls it DASS and EOTS is part of F-35

F-35 was never expected to be as expensive as F-35, rather it was always going to be a watered down F-22 so that the prices can be cheaper. Like lot of countries could not afford or be trusted with F-15 and so F-16 came into a picture as a capable plane that can hand Aerial security of small/medium size country and handle many roles, And the same co-relatiion was for F-22 and F-35.. So you see F-16 putting high speed or ceiling record?

Further having 2 bombs and 2 AAMs in internal bays and have VLO/Stealth is better than having all warload outside and yet claim to be stealthy like Rafale claims..

Read again my post : you agreed with me !
I say F22 is the sole 5th gen,
I say F35 will have (or have .... but with troubles) sensor fusion.
I say F35 is stealthy but with low load capacity (and with the same RCS for USAF or for Turkish air force?)
F35 is definitely not supercruising (when two european 4,99 gen planes are...)

But we can't speak of F22 as the line is closed and it would cost a lot to re open it.

I think F35 will be less versatile than F16, as it is limited now and tomorrow to 7G. And F35 customers can't have the F22 to act as a high end option (like Japan or Israel with F15 before).

Sure no one will recognise, once purchased, that F35 is not a good plane. They will not loose faces. But it will be a very dedicated and not so impressive air to ground plane, with very uncomfortable air to air perf.

As said before, a fighter is used 99,9% in peace time, to show your muscles. And the pilots of Su27, SU30, Su35, J31, J11 .... will laugh during and after meeting F35.