Know Your 'Rafale'

[Sancho]

https://www.ft.com/content/3609a75a-105d-11e1-8010-00144feabdc0

“Dassault seem unaware that all the diplomatic and political will in the world cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms,” Sheikh Mohammed told the UAE’s state news service on Wednesday.

EF was technically unsuitable.
UAE super Rafale was too costly for this poor emiratis.

Hilarious how you prove your denial to be wrong in the same post. :biggrin2:

 

[Sancho]

EF should have had an AESA radar since 4 years and nothing concrete on the horizon.

Lol, how so when the first customer is suppose to be Kuwait? And if you don't follow the news, their EFs including AESA is already in production, with delivery in the the same time frame as F3Rs for India.

 

[asianobserve]

France spent 1500 € billiard each year on social transferts (health, social security, jobless wages, refugges help, money to boost natality (including for some that are unable to raise childs)... There is no more than 51 social services in France). And it doesn't help some to accept a job, if this job is not tailor made for them...

Too much social killed the social.

No wonder more than half of France's military aircrafts are unfit to fly:

French warplanes and helicopters may be battling jihadists in the deserts of Africa and the Middle East, but the French Air Force on the whole is in a disastrous state, with 56 per cent of all its aircraft unfit to fly at any given moment, according to a senior minister.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/

 

[BON PLAN]

Wikipedia states that Eurofighter MToW is 23.5 tons while Rafale is 24.5 tons. Rafale has 2 engines of 50/75 kN dry/wet thrust while in Eurofighter, it is twin 60/90 dry/wet thrust engines.

Why is the Rafale having higher MToW than EF? Is EF badly designed?

21 Tons on a french Wikipedia... I don't know which is right.

Rafale is aerodynamically better. Why?
- Dassault has more than 60 years of skill in delta config. Eurofighter Gmbh lacks this experience.
- Rafale use close coupled canards. ie the canards can energize the air flow over the wing and maximise the lift of the main wing, where the uncoupled canard of the EF can't. It's usefull in low speed, take off, landing, high AoA figures. Rafale land in far less space without chute than EF with a chute.
- The main wings of the Rafale are better integrated with the frame : some more lift.
- Dassault used its own and internally developped FBW until early 80's. Not the case of EF Gmbh.

 

[BON PLAN]

Lol, how so when the first customer is suppose to be Kuwait? And if you don't follow the news, their EFs including AESA is already in production, with delivery in the the same time frame as F3Rs for India.

Let's see. The futur is never writen.
And I'm sure Captor E will not have all the modes at the beginning (mainly Air to air. For the rest, let's wait some years).

 

[BON PLAN]

No wonder more than half of France's military aircrafts are unfit to fly:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/

unfortunately YES .

 

[BON PLAN]

Hilarious how you prove your denial to be wrong in the same post. :biggrin2:

"Commercial term" and "too costly" are in the same financial area. Nothing to do with technical.

 

[lcafanboy]

Wikipedia states that Eurofighter MToW is 23.5 tons while Rafale is 24.5 tons. Rafale has 2 engines of 50/75 kN dry/wet thrust while in Eurofighter, it is twin 60/90 dry/wet thrust engines.

Why is the Rafale having higher MToW than EF? Is EF badly designed?

EF center pylon can't carry huge amount of weight as it comes directly below air intake and is weak in that area and also Typhoon weighs more at 11 tons while Rafales weigh just 9.5 tons, so a difference of 1.5 tons which is huge.

 

[Sancho]

Let's see. The futur is never writen.
And I'm sure Captor E will not have all the modes at the beginning (mainly Air to air. For the rest, let's wait some years).

That's the funny part, for Rafale you are 100% certain what an F4 upgrade in 2025 will include, but at the same time you doubt that EF will have AESA by 2019/20.
I expect mainly A2A modes as well, although recent reports suggested some more already and since we know that the UK will start replacing SEAD Tornados from 2019 onwards too, we know that adding more modes won't take that long, the question is only to what extend they will upgrade it (EA capabilities might be on the card).
However, as soon as the AESA is available, it will outclass Rafale in A2A detection range again, simply by the fact that it's a vastly larger radar. Just as IRST and CAS will be fields where EF will be superior. That's why I keep saying, that Rafale is losing it's edge, because it don't get comprehensive upgrades as it's competitors.

 

[Kshithij]

EF center pylon can't carry huge amount of weight as it comes directly below air intake and is weak in that area and also Typhoon weighs more at 11 tons while Rafales weigh just 9.5 tons, so a difference of 1.5 tons which is huge.

I didn't observe it till now. That is a pretty bad design. What were they thinking while doing that? The design also causes a direct exposure to engine isntead of S-shaped duct or Y shaped duct. This increases RCS too. Rafale is indeed better

 

[lcafanboy]

I didn't observe it till now. That is a pretty bad design. What were they thinking while doing that? The design also causes a direct exposure to engine isntead of S-shaped duct or Y shaped duct. This increases RCS too. Rafale is indeed better

Further if you look at Rafales it looks like Arrow. The area below cockpit is pressed inside which gives it lift and aerodynamic superiority over any contemporary aircraft.

 

[Sancho]

EF center pylon can't carry huge amount of weight as it comes directly below air intake and is weak in that area

That's not correct, the hardpoint is under the fuselage while the air intake is directed upwards to the engines. The main design flaw of the EF, is that the centerline station is so close in between the gear bays, that only loads with a limited diameter can be carried. So it's size and not weight restriction that is the issue.

 

[Kay]

Politics is about perception - Congress wanted to make the Rafale deal sound tainted and create that perception but failed. GOI defended the deal well with facts with public backing from IAF and the perception battle is won. The public is not interested in the procedural nitty gritties of the deal, but mostly whether it is clean or corrupt - and they mostly accept it as a clean deal.
This means Rafale deal will not be cancelled - which again means there will be no Eurofighter deal.

 

[BON PLAN]

That's the funny part, for Rafale you are 100% certain what an F4 upgrade in 2025 will include, but at the same time you doubt that EF will have AESA by 2019/20.
I expect mainly A2A modes as well, although recent reports suggested some more already and since we know that the UK will start replacing SEAD Tornados from 2019 onwards too, we know that adding more modes won't take that long, the question is only to what extend they will upgrade it (EA capabilities might be on the card).
However, as soon as the AESA is available, it will outclass Rafale in A2A detection range again, simply by the fact that it's a vastly larger radar. Just as IRST and CAS will be fields where EF will be superior. That's why I keep saying, that Rafale is losing it's edge, because it don't get comprehensive upgrades as it's competitors.

:blah:
1) Rafale F1, F2, F3.1, F3.2, F3.3, F3 O4T were on time and on spec. F3R is on track on time. Why the F4 will be different? EF evolution were far less accurate in time, budget and spec (AESA is to come until... 4 years !)
2) outclass ? This radar hasn't see the sky but you are sure it will outclass others. I say "BS".

 

[BON PLAN]

That's not correct, the hardpoint is under the fuselage while the air intake is directed upwards to the engines. The main design flaw of the EF, is that the centerline station is so close in between the gear bays, that only loads with a limited diameter can be carried. So it's size and not weight restriction that is the issue.

A fact is that EF can only carry "small" external tanks.
Another fact is that the front wheel avoid a long center line weapon (like .... ASMP A)
And to locate the laser pod on the center line station is an error.

=> This plane wasn't designed for air to ground mission. Maybe a deep evolution for the german replacement of Tornado will remove that air to air only heritage...
another Starfighter F104 G history ???

 

[WolfPack86]

:blah:
1) Rafale F1, F2, F3.1, F3.2, F3.3, F3 O4T were on time and on spec. F3R is on track on time. Why the F4 will be different? EF evolution were far less accurate in time, budget and spec (AESA is to come until... 4 years !)
2) outclass ? This radar hasn't see the sky but you are sure it will outclass others. I say "BS".

I want France to push harder for Rafale deal with India and including technology transfer also delivering 36 rafales before 36 months. Did France started building Indian Rafales.

 

[Kshithij]

Assembling 1 rafale takes 11 month time. Most probably, France has started building rafale

 

[Sancho]

2) outclass ? This radar hasn't see the sky but you are sure it will outclass others. I say "BS".

That's common sense! A larger radar diameter provides more performance, that's why a 13 years old larger BARS PESA, offers as much range as a 5 year old smaller RBE 2 AESA.
Captor M had superior detection range than RBE 2 PESA and the same advantage will be visible again with Captor E and around 1400 TR modules as well. Btw, the radar is flying since 2016.

Radar was never an advantage of the Rafale, since Dassault / Thales designed it with a smaller nose diameter in favour for a fully integrated FSO and SPECTRA passive detection. That's why IRST and GaN SPECTRA upgrades would had been more important for Rafale to maintain it's edge, than repeating to have the first AESA in Europe.

 

[Sancho]

Politics is about perception - Congress wanted to make the Rafale deal sound tainted and create that perception but failed.

Just as the NDA government tries to distract the perception away from valid questions on the deal. Or how they created the perception that Rafale is not a capable fighter because nobody buys it, when they were in opposition.

The public is not interested in the procedural nitty gritties of the deal...
...and they mostly accept it as a clean deal.

And that's the issue, the public needs to be interested and not take for granted, what any government says!

When the DM admits that the EF was fully compliant to the IAF requirements, it's valid to ask why it then wasn't considered for a separate deal for 36 fighters?
When the DM admits that DAC clearance was gained ahead of the contract negotiations, it's valid to ask about if there was DAC clearance ahead of the announcement of the deal?
When the former DM Parrikar admits, that the MMRCA negotiations were in a deadlock, because Dassault's non compliance, it's valid to ask why they weren't disqualified and the tender cancelled, before a separate deal was made?
If the deal was clean, it's valid to ask why a single vendor situation was created against MoD rules?
If the costs of the deal were better, it's valid to for a proof, or to ask why only 36 fighters were bought, but infrastructure for 72?
If the PM was bold in taking the decision to buy 36 Rafales, it's valid to ask why he isn't bold anymore to explain his deal and remains silent now?

 

[Kshithij]

When the former DM Parrikar admits, that the MMRCA negotiations were in a deadlock, because Dassault's non compliance, it's valid to ask why they weren't disqualified and the tender cancelled, before a separate deal was made?

Parrikar said that it was India's fault, not Dassault's fault. He says clearly that since there was a negotiation on Rafale, it is necessary that it is the lowest bidder. HAL can demand 1000 crore for assembly cost of 1 rafale. Dassault gave a quotation for its fly away cost. How can Dassault give the cost of HAL? HAl or not is India's concern. If any local assembly is needed, that has to be negotiated with local manufacturer at India's expense. So, Dassault was the single lowest bidder. There is no doubt about it.

If the deal was clean, it's valid to ask why a single vendor situation was created against MoD rules?

The single vendor situation is never the question here. Dassault was selected over 7 years back. The delays have been due to Indian mistake. Dassault was the lowest bidder. Indian mistake has to be compensated by India itself, not Dassault, That is why a new deal was struck even with single vendor situation. There is no law against that. Since, electing incompetent leaders and risking everyone's security is not a crime in India, there were little practical option.

If the costs of the deal were better, it's valid to for a proof, or to ask why only 36 fighters were bought, but infrastructure for 72?

Yes, this is the question. Why infrastructure for 72 planes are made? Why did India even need 36 more planes. Why couldn't Su30 or Tejas be made instead of this Rafale? The cost of Su30 was 75 million dollars with 55% Indian content. What is the cost benefit analysis of buying Rafale over Su30?

This is the only valid question you have posted. And definitely, this needs an answer. Your other questions are simply distractions and makes your valid question lose its value too