Know Your 'Rafale'

[Armand2REP]

Eurofighter may revise bid MoD declines comment: Gerald Howarth


Eurofighter may revise bid MoD declines comment

Dassault offered a new bid to Suisse within 24hrs, it takes EF Consortium weeks just to come to the same decision, if they even do. India doesn't want to deal with that bureaucracy.

 

[vanadium]

Dassault offered a new bid to Suisse within 24hrs, it takes EF Consortium weeks just to come to the same decision, if they even do. India doesn't want to deal with that bureaucracy.

I guess this is a chess game. You look at your opponent next moves and consider your position very carefully before putting your hand on the chessboard. Your next move may be very lateral and almost inconsequential...at first sight. I do not think speed is of essence as yet. There is no point rushing down a counter-offer in the next 24 hours.

Forget bureaucracy and all those cheap shots at EF. India´s interest is in getting the best possible deal: operationally over the next 40 years, financially, industrially and in know-how transfer to achieve full control and sovereignty of the weapon system. It might turn out that Dassault at the end of the day is not the best game in town...

 

[pmaitra]

can rafale fly using diesel?

No, but Sukhoi-25 accepts a myriad of different fuels.

 

[asianobserve]

xxx None of these aircraft, including the F-22 are capable of releasing bombs at supersonic speeds either.xxx

F-22 Raptor performs first supersonic SDB drop

 

[JAYRAM]

U.K. considering 'price cut' to win Indian defence deal

British manufacturers of Eurofighter Typhoon jets are reported to be willing to lower their bid to win back the multi-billion dollar Indian contract they controversially lost to their French rivals Dassault last week.

Ian King, chief executive of BAE Systems, said on Tuesday that he would be discussing the issue with other members the BAE-led European consortium involved in the bid and the option of a price cut was very much "on the table''.

"I will be discussing with our partners what to do next. In my view all options are on the table,'' he told The Financial Times and "confirmed'' that price reduction was being considered.

The move came as India's choice of Dassault's Rafale as the preferred bidder over BAE's Typhoon caused fury in Britain with Prime Minister David Cameron calling it a "disappointing'' decision, and MPs demanding an end to British aid to India in retaliation.

Mr. Cameron promised in Parliament that he would do "everything I can'' to persuade India to review the decision. "Of course, I will do everything I can – as I have already – to encourage the Indians to look at Typhoon, because I think it is such a good aircraft," he said as MPs described the Indian move as a "snub'' and a failure of British diplomacy.

Industry experts were reported as saying that they were surprised by India's decision as they had been confident that Typhoon would "edge out'' the Rafale which, they claimed, had not got any export orders and faced "a potential production shutdown''.

Rafale, they said, appeared to have won because of the lower French bid and "plus any other sweeteners such as more generous technology transferred agreements" offered by Paris.

The FT quoted an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute as saying that the British bid was "too technical and lacked the grand military vision of that of the French''.

The Hindu : News / International : U.K. considering 'price cut' to win Indian defence deal

 

[Armand2REP]

I guess this is a chess game. You look at your opponent next moves and consider your position very carefully before putting your hand on the chessboard. Your next move may be very lateral and almost inconsequential...at first sight. I do not think speed is of essence as yet. There is no point rushing down a counter-offer in the next 24 hours.

Forget bureaucracy and all those cheap shots at EF. India´s interest is in getting the best possible deal: operationally over the next 40 years, financially, industrially and in know-how transfer to achieve full control and sovereignty of the weapon system. It might turn out that Dassault at the end of the day is not the best game in town...

I know you like to think so but you are missing the bigger picture. This was always tied to the nuclear deal. EF never had a chance.

 

[pankaj nema]

UK and Germany cannot offer India either EJ 200 engine TOT or any technology on the civilian N reactors/
N enrichment technologies

 

[ace009]

I wonder if this has ANYTHING to do with the N-deal. If at all, this might be a "single-sourcing" deal where the IAF MMRCA, the IN NMRCA, and the SFC strike fighter are all to be sourced from Dassault Rafale. Since EF does not have a naval version and UK or Germany will never allow a nuclear delivery from EF, I think strategically it makes way more sense for MoD to make Rafale the choice fighter for IAF, IN and SFC, thereby simplifying production, tech assimilation, parts sourcing/ maintenance/ upgrade and myriad other issues.
In the future then India will basically have two partners for it's combat aircrafts - the Russians for the "Heavy fighter" category - MKIs followed by PAK-FA, while the French will be the partners for the "Medium fighter" category - Rafale followed by AMCA (probably a JV). The "Light fighter"/ interceptor will also be developed with the help of the French and Russians (and maybe the Israelis) combined.

 

[Sridhar]

Cameron not doing enough to help BAE workers, says Lancashire MP


Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Kendrick said: "The people of Preston are furious that the Indian government have selected a French company as the preferred bidder for the Indian Air Force jet.

"The prime minister goes on repeatedly about rebalancing the British economy. This is a major blow to manufacturing in this country.

"Other European leaders can go and help, their companies get major contracts, why is this prime minister not doing that, and why haven't we got this contract with the Indian government?"

Mr Cameron replied: "I am very disappointed by what has happened in India, but Eurofighter is not out of the contest, and we need to reengage as hard as we can to make sure that we get the best deal for all those workers in Britain who make Eurofighters.

"Instead of shouting from a sedentary position, I think this is something that ought to unite parties in this house, getting behind our great defence producers."

BBC News - Cameron not doing enough to help BAE workers, says Lancashire MP

 

[Bhadra]

I know you like to think so but you are missing the bigger picture. This was always tied to the nuclear deal. EF never had a chance.

This is tentamounting to pulling dirty tricks and deliberate denigration without any solid ground. India does need nuclear technology every one knows but calling this deal aimed at nuclear technology, even if it were to be so, amounts to saying that French aircraft does not meet IAF requirements.

NO sir, evryone aims at maximum advantages. India too is entitled to it.

 

[p2prada]

That depends on the price tag you put on your pilots' lives and ultimate outcome.

There is a level of acceptable risk and there is unacceptable risk. The EF was never designed for supercruise. It just flies fast, that's all.

Well, EF is more than just a little faster.
Anyway, for the plane of its size, it's more than a serious threat to long range fighters.
And I'm not quite sure if Flanker can make 25 minutes on full AB @40k ft and M1+.
Theoretical limit at @40k ft and M1+ would be ~14 min.
In reality it's something like 8-10 min, so you see a speed difference of M.3+ is a very useful thing to have.

I got my info from pilots, but this time includes merge and a dog fight with full AB. Let's not forget the fact that MKI carries twice the fuel EF can and the engine is not twice as powerful. At full AB, the MKIs fuel fraction is greater than most other fighters, or at least the F-100-220. There is no theoretical limit on AB time. It all depends on engine life and fuel load. Bombers manage more as well.

The F-15C manages a 10 minute AB time I guess.

Yes, Mig31 is even more useful in that sense.
Anyway, vast majority of air combats begins with interception, to the point that you can count on it.
However, I'm talking about same class of airplane here, EF and Rafale and Mig31/Su30 are something else.

Yes. Even if we remove the Russian and American aircraft from our discussion, the difference between Rafale and EF is very small in most parameters. Rafale's engine is powerful enough to manage supercruise at half fuel and air to air loads. Supercruise was never really a selling point. I mean to say no pilot will buy a EF/Rafale because it can supercruise at Mach 1.2. It is not a design advantage. Any aircraft with powerful engines will do Mach 1.2 and this includes Rafale, Gripen, LCA, EF and Su-35. Stick the 117S into MKI and there won't be much of a difference. Ultimately all these aircraft will still fly at subsonic speeds because once you add bombs supersonic will be moot.

Currently only PAKFA is being designed to release bombs at supersonic speeds. Other aircraft won't even manage above Mach 1 on a decent day. Tell me that EF can do Mach 1.5+ with 2 JDAMs then I will buy the claim. Mach 1.2 with 4 AAMs isn't supercruise. There are limits to supercruise when the design does not allow it. Only F-22 and SR-71 are supercruise capable. The F-22 has a modified engine nozzle while the SR-71 had modified air inlets. EF and Rafale have neither except for powerful engines.

Although this isn't addressed to me, I still think it's worth noting.
There are no fighters built against bombers or fighters...fighter plane is a fighter plane.
I believe you're thinking of multirole and singlerole fighters.
However, don't forget that it was Mig25 that scored a kill on US F18 in Iraqi war and overall posed most troubles for Americans.
Not Mig29s, or Mirages.

We can't use Iraq war as as reasonable justification to determine the quality of Soviet equipment of the time. Other than the fact that export models were downgraded, the Iraqis never gave a fight.

When the Mig-25 was first revealed to American planners. They thought the Soviets had one upped them on the fighter front. So, they assumed that will be SU's primary air superiority fighter. The basic design suggested the Mig-25 would have awesome maneuverability. Then they found the Flanker a little while later. Satellite pictures revealed a much superior fighter. Pretty soon they realized that the Mig-25 was actually an interceptor which is incapable of high G maneuvers. The Mig-25 was designed only for two purposes, interception of high speed bombers and recce. The very concept for interception is to fly fast and kill bombers before they launch nuclear devices. The F-14 was very much the same. Once the design outlived the need, they were replaced by more capable strike fighters(F-18s), which is the current mantra for air combat, strike capability.

During the cold war, each aircraft built had a task cut out for it. Air superiority fighters engaged interceptors, strike and other air superiority aircraft. Interceptors engaged bombers. Strikers engaged ground targets and ships while recce aircraft like U-2 were used for intel.

Americans had the F-15 for air superiority, F-14 for interception and F-16 for strike. F-18 replaced F-14s later on. The Soviets had Mig-25/31 for interception, Su-27/Mig-29 for air superiority and a number of older strike aircraft. In the days of satellites, Interceptors have always been used against bombers and, presently, cruise missiles.

 

[Folk hero]

it's high-time we should change the title into something meaningful, like how should we go about Rafale in our air force.:thumb:

it's becoming an eyesore every time i log into DFI.

 

[p2prada]

F-22 Raptor performs first supersonic SDB drop

Not bad. I stand corrected. I guess even a JDAM or two were dropped in tests.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

I have answered some of your points in my post to Cola. Supercruise does not mean you reach an hour faster. With after burner I can be even faster and no missile can engage me at such time.

No with after burners you will lose more fuel and can not come back to base. So super cruise is essential to get their faster, further and return back with the same load of fuel which an AB fighter would have used up and unable to return.

Top speed does not talk about design quality. If that was the case then the Mig-31 is the best fighter on the planet. Let's not forget interception is different from air superiority. Interceptors were developed to kill enemy bombers. Air superiority fighters are meant to fight other fighters.

but super cruise definitely talks about design quality.

Coming to Rafale, it is not meant for either interception or air superiority in our context. None of these aircraft, including the F-22 are capable of releasing bombs at supersonic speeds either.

Not bombs but missiles.

The G suit is not enough. It is a killer on the pilot's health to fly so high. 60000 feet is a benchmark on pilot health. Any higher and there's trouble.

No fighter pilot can reach that height with a load and cruise. We are talking about ablity of the aircraft to sustain. Why are you confusing your self with the word sustained flight and a one shot attempt at 75,00ft? Moreover pressurized cabins dont need space suits, just g-suits. Look at the video and what dress he is wearing.

 

[p2prada]

No with after burners you will lose more fuel and can not come back to base. So super cruise is essential to get their faster, further and return back with the same load of fuel which an AB fighter would have used up and unable to return.

Technically you are right. But it is not a requirement. I would rate stealth many times higher than Supercruise and in that respect we should have gone for the F-35 instead. But that is not how the world works.

Btw, supercruise utilizes more fuel than subsonic flight. Supercruise is somewhere between subsonic and supersonic flight in fuel consumption.

As for AB users being unable to return, that depends on the mission. Realistically, if the EF is required to supercruise, then with it's crappy fuel load of 5 tons, the EF won't even manage a 300Km combat radius. Let's just say for a CAP mission the EF won't fly with 100% fuel. So, 50-60% is most realistic. That effectively halves it's combat radius of 800-1000Km to 400-500Km. Now this is only in the subsonic regime. Bring in supercruise and the combat radius is effectively less than 300Km, maybe 200Km. Now do you see why supercruise is not a requirement on small and medium fighters. The F-16 cannot supercruise because the requirement does not exist. Similarly the Mig-29 also has no requirement to supercruise. EF and Rafale fall in the same category.

MKI, Eagle, Raptor and PAKFA are in the heavy category with massive loads of fuel. Supercruise on them is a requirement.

If the EF is required to kill another aircraft then the EF is going to intercept at full AB, not at crappy supercruise speeds of Mach 1.2. If the EF is required to perform CAP, then that will happen at subsonic speeds. If the EF is required to kill something on the ground, that again will be at subsonic speeds because of the extra payload. So, supercruise is an unnecessary requirement. Basically, it is useless.

If you think supercruise is awesome on EF or Rafale because the manufacturers say so then your premise is deeply flawed. Neither fighter has the range or flight time to manage it. The F-16 is better suited for supercruise, with it's larger fuel load and single engine, but it does not have it.

but super cruise definitely talks about design quality.

Again. No. Supercruise is a requirement on aircraft which specifically state the same. Concorde is supercruise capable. EF, Su-35 and Rafale have done it in tests. The F-16 achieved the same in the 80s during tests. Nothing to indicate it is part of the requirement now.

Only F-22 and PAKFA are supercruise capable because the fuel load and internal payload(missiles or bombs) allow the aircraft to benefit, aerodynamically as well as operationally, it's design to the maximum.

No fighter pilot can reach that height with a load and cruise. We are talking about ablity of the aircraft to sustain. Why are you confusing your self with the word sustained flight and a one shot attempt at 75,00ft? Moreover pressurized cabins dont need space suits, just g-suits. Look at the video and what dress he is wearing.

MKI can sustain a 9G maneuver. But the maneuver kills the pilots health. A pilot may be able to sustain ejection perhaps once in his entire life. There are major constraints to what a human can do. High altitude flying isn't easy.

 

[vanadium]

Not at all. Like I said it is unimportant. Air combat isn't a drag race. The Sea harrier does not go above Mach 1.2. The F-35 at Mach 1.6 is slower than the Rafale and the speed is enough for the F-35 to manage an overwhelming superiority against Rafale.

The Sea Harrier is subsonic. The first Western supersonic STOVL a/c is the JSF.
The JSF will take an eternity to accelerate to Mach 1.6, a speed anyhow which it still has to demonstrate to achieve.

Air combat is all about shooting down your opponents, being them fighters, strikers, bombers, AEW etc. Modern air combat is aiming at achieving success in BVR and avoiding the merge and close encounter, where more random conditions prevail and reduce the advantage of the top fighters. In BVR first detection is important so that one can start accelerating first (say from a high altitude CAP as Typhoon does) and climbing to achieve maximum energy for your missile launch and thus longer ranges. This is an energy game, so the kinematic performance of the platform is very important, as indeed that one of your missiles.

Other important aspect of BVR combat is avoiding the inevitable enemy´s counter fire. To survive it--in addition to a first rate AECM and towed decoys--high maneuverability at high altitude and high speed is vital as is also a wide radar azimuth scan coverage, to allow a generous turn away from the incoming missiles, while still being able to guide your own shots. That is why Eurofighter did not freeze the design of their AESA radar until they found a very very clever way to swivel the antenna to cover 200 degrees. Believe me this aspect of the Captor E is the true jewel of this very innovative design. And a quality that every knowledgeable fighter pilot will appreciate because it will give him the edge in combat and take him safely home.

It is not one of those glossy stuff that are easily recognizable, but just a clever engineering solution which has costed a lot of blood, sweat and tears in the lab.
Now compare it to the the smaller aperture and fixed antenna of the Rafale! And consider that you will have to live forever with that design solution because is physically constrained by volume and geometry of its smaller nosecone.

 

[vanadium]

Nevertheless, there are major human limitations at those heights and aircraft almost never fly at their service ceilings, ever. You need a space suit at those heights. However this is one point that goes into EF's favour because it was always designed to be an air superiority fighter as compared to Rafale's main purpose of being a strike fighter which has become much more important in modern warfare.

If you believe modern warfare is limited to Desert Storm, Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya air campaigns then the statement that the strike fighter has become much more important might be right. At first sight, at least.

In those campaigns you operated in an uncontested air space. In the most complete form of air superiority. Let´s call it air supremacy. The enemy buried their own air force underground. There was no point to oppose the "Allies" fighters unless you desired martyrdom! Basically air superiority worked at its most efficient without being employed. But it was there, ready to go. It was working at the level of deterrence. But the air superiority assets existed, were in theatre and the crew were trained for air combat. So air superiority was won without using it and now they call it a thing of the past, totally useless. Because has never been used in anger. But it was there, ready to go. Just by being there it obtained its effect. Effect based operations was the buzzword a few years ago. Here you are!

I do not believe for a single moment that these kind of air campaigns have much relevance in the future operational scenarios facing India. I would not say they are irrelevant--you can always learn--but I would not be drawn into concluding that the strike fighter has become more important by looking back at the recent past (where the action was all in striking).

In an Indian scenario air superiority will have to be conquered in combat against a formidable opponent. Winning the air superiority battle will be the fundamental pre-requisite to be able to prosecute the whole spectrum of modern warfare operations. Not only in the air, but also on land and sea. That is why I have always sustained in this distinguished forum that a multirole fighter optimized around the air superiority (Typhoon) is more relevant in the Indian context that one optimized around the strike role (Rafale).

 

[vanadium]

No, but Sukhoi-25 accepts a myriad of different fuels.

I love it: a truck with wings!

 

[ace009]

If you believe modern warfare is limited to Desert Storm, Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya air campaigns then the statement that the strike fighter has become much more important might be right. At first sight, at least.

In those campaigns you operated in an uncontested air space. In the most complete form of air superiority. Let´s call it air supremacy. The enemy buried their own air force underground. There was no point to oppose the "Allies" fighters unless you desired martyrdom! Basically air superiority worked at its most efficient without being employed. But it was there, ready to go. It was working at the level of deterrence. But the air superiority assets existed, were in theatre and the crew were trained for air combat. So air superiority was won without using it and now they call it a thing of the past, totally useless. Because has never been used in anger. But it was there, ready to go. Just by being there it obtained its effect. Effect based operations was the buzzword a few years ago. Here you are!

I do not believe for a single moment that these kind of air campaigns have much relevance in the future operational scenarios facing India. I would not say they are irrelevant--you can always learn--but I would not be drawn into concluding that the strike fighter has become more important by looking back at the recent past (where the action was all in striking).

In an Indian scenario air superiority will have to be conquered in combat against a formidable opponent. Winning the air superiority battle will be the fundamental pre-requisite to be able to prosecute the whole spectrum of modern warfare operations. Not only in the air, but also on land and sea. That is why I have always sustained in this distinguished forum that a multirole fighter optimized around the air superiority (Typhoon) is more relevant in the Indian context that one optimized around the strike role (Rafale).

Hey - you never know! India might fight the Bangladeshis, the Burmese or the Sri Lankans someday ... guess who will laugh then!


The Su-25 is more than a truck with wings - it's a "dump truck" with canons and wings - it can carry and dump a shitload of bombs and carries 2 evil canons - Gsh-30

 

[vanadium]

I know you like to think so but you are missing the bigger picture. This was always tied to the nuclear deal. EF never had a chance.

I kinda understand the big picture and the sort of arrogant attitude that can raise from showing off all your geopolitical attributes.

Look at the US contenders: all cock sure that the kind of relationship they could offer would allow them an easy win with two legacy entries with zillions of strings attached. You may end up the same way...