Know Your 'Rafale'

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
UK and Germany cannot offer India either EJ 200 engine TOT or any technology on the civilian N reactors/
N enrichment technologies
Can you please advise why EJ200 ToT cannot be offered?

The MMRCA RFP, I would imagine, does not have a requirement for the supply of civilian nuclear reactors...otherwise it should have been sent to Siemens and not to EADS.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
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.
The EF-2000s radar antenna size should be around 700mm compared to Rafale's 600mm. Comparatively F-16 and Mig-29 have 650mm radars IMO. So, all are more or less in the same ballpark.

EF's radar is more powerful and has a larger scanning area. It seems IAF wants to keep MKIs for air superiority though. I am basing my assumption on the fact that IAF is favouring the Rafale because of it's other capabilities apart from it's acceptable air to air capability. IAF chief did say the Super MKIs will be meant for fighting the J-20s.

If you really want to see EF in IAF colours then the EF will have to show where else apart from air to air can it beat the Rafale. This would primarily be in SEAD, precision strike and recce.

However we must not forget that Rafale was chosen only because it was cheaper of the two, regardless of capabilities.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
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).
In the Indian scenario an air superiority situation may never come up. The enemy is looking for air denial, both enemies, while we are looking at localized air superiority for a short duration so our strike fighters can get through their defences and pummel their ground forces for what it's worth.

We have so many air superiority fighters while our strike fighters are more or less neglected. We have a 600 fighter airforce with only 120+ Jags capable of DPS missions. And these Jags are ancient in technology. For air superiority we have MKI, Mirage-2000, Mig-29 and Mig-21(400-450). Pretty soon LCA as well. Our airforce can deny the enemy the use of our air space and maybe their's too while we are at it. But let's be realistic here, what's going to happen after we have air superiority? We want MRCA to replace our obsolete strike aircraft, that's all. So, when the time comes they can be rigged up with cruise missiles and bombs and blow up refineries and airports. So, with 400-500 air superiority aircraft, it makes sense to go for a 120 odd Rafales to plug the gap.

With the PAKFA coming in at the same time as Rafale, and with Jags and Mig-27s retiring, we will end up with over 1000 air superiority aircraft and no strike aircraft. IAF is not favouring Rafale because we like French. IAF likes Rafale simply because it is capable of strike, a capability that we sorely lack in.
 

weg

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
203
Likes
37
The JSF will take an eternity to accelerate to Mach 1.6, a speed anyhow which it still has to demonstrate to achieve.

The JSF did achieve Mach 1.6, it caused significant damage due to over heating however. I think it takes several minutes to get to that speed against maybe 60 seconds for the likes of the F-16/F-22/EF.

 
Last edited:

Cola

New Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
40
Likes
3
P2prada, not sure we're on the same page here.

Performance is prime factor in air combat.
I can't engage what I can't catchup with and I need speed for that.
Once I'm in combat, I want to be able to disengage at my own terms, if things get ugly and again I need speed for that.
In air combat every knot and every second counts, particularly in transonic region when drag shoots through the roof.
I'm not sure who told you that speed is irrelevant, but I assure you it isn't true and the speed advantage EF holds is very real.

However we must not forget that Rafale was chosen only because it was cheaper of the two, regardless of capabilities.
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 probably truth.
 
Last edited:

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
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.



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.



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.
What is the real operational reason for supercruise?

If you intrude enemy´s air space the time to detect, aim the weapons and launch is severely reduced when the intruder flies very fast. If you fly at high supersonic speeds you become less vulnerable to enemy´s SAMs.

To fly at high supersonic speed most aircraft need to use the afterburner which increases the fuel consumption dramatically.

So flying at high supersonic speeds (>M1.5) in dry power is a measure to reduce vulnerability. (reduces also IR signature)

The F-22 concept of survivability is the combination of all aspect / multispectral low observability and supercruise (VLO and speed)

JSF concept of survivability is much more reduced and based on frontal aspect low observability alone. No supercruise. No high kinematic capability. Low firepower. There is a reason for that: JSF requires F-22 (or Typhoon for RAF/AMI) to achieve first air superiority.

No other Western fighter has been conceived and designed for sustained operations at tactically relevant supercruise speeds (say >M1.5). I suspect to achieve this the engine must be designed specifically for that objective.

Some fighters may achieve supercruise as a fallout.

Real supercruise means accelerating in dry from subsonic level flight to supersonic speed and sustain it. (Not accelerating in A/B and then cut it off!)

All fighters, on achieving contact with the enemy, will go to maximum A/B power to accelerate and climb to give their missile maximum energy at launch, F-22 and PAK FA included.

Typhoon will be able to supercruise at tactically significant speeds if the growth potential of the EJ200 is fully exploited and the thrust vectoring (option available) is used as a trimming device.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
P2prada, not sure we're on the same page here.

Performance is prime factor in air combat.
I can't engage what I can't catchup with and I need speed for that.
Once I'm in combat, I want to be able to disengage at my own terms, if things get ugly and again I need speed for that.
In air combat every knot and every second counts, particularly in transonic region when drag shoots through the roof.
I'm not sure who told you that speed is irrelevant, but I assure you it isn't true and the speed advantage EF holds is very real.
You are giving the same reasons as Carlo Kopp. I have had pilots tell me speed is irrelevant nowadays. The missiles do the fast stuff now. The aircraft are just meant to shoot the missiles. The Russians are making 4 air to air missiles as of today. The RVV-MD(WVR), RVV-SD(BVR medium), RVV-BD(long range BVR - R-37 class) and K-100(currently for IAF's MKI).

While what you say is true, the advent of stealth and better missiles have made maneuver warfare less relevant.

However in a Rafale vs EF situation I am on the same page as you are. I have always believed EF is the better air to air fighter while Rafale is the better strike fighter. So, in a match between 4th gen aircraft, EF's advantages are duly noted. EF will better the MKI and Eagle as well, especially with refuellers present. Rafale was always designed as a ground attack fighter first and air superiority next. That's what IAF requires.

We have two better aircraft coming up for air superiority missions anyway. If IAF officials are to be believed, the Super MKI will be better than the mostly highly configured EF/Rafale and the PAKFA is going to better it even further. Both may number 600 at their peak. Maybe more because we are paying a lot of money for the development of PAKFA and have ordered only 48 as of today. So, in any EF discussion, we will have to disregard it's more capable air to air capability vis a vis Rafale.

We don't really need this pseudo-supercruise and I am sure neither does the consortium. The French aren't showing it off either. Yes, even Rafale can pseudo-supercruise. But it looks nice on a brochure with a green check next to supercruise like Pugachev's Cobra. It is great in design POV. It only goes to show the engines are very, very powerful and T/W ratio will be very high. Military application - nil.
 

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
The JSF did achieve Mach 1.6, it caused significant damage due to over heating however. I think it takes several minutes to get to that speed against maybe 60 seconds for the likes of the F-16/F-22/EF.

I should have been more accurate: ...achieve Mach 1.6 and survive it.
Thanks for your rectification.
 

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
In the Indian scenario an air superiority situation may never come up. The enemy is looking for air denial, both enemies, while we are looking at localized air superiority for a short duration so our strike fighters can get through their defences and pummel their ground forces for what it's worth.

We have so many air superiority fighters while our strike fighters are more or less neglected. We have a 600 fighter airforce with only 120+ Jags capable of DPS missions. And these Jags are ancient in technology. For air superiority we have MKI, Mirage-2000, Mig-29 and Mig-21(400-450). Pretty soon LCA as well. Our airforce can deny the enemy the use of our air space and maybe their's too while we are at it. But let's be realistic here, what's going to happen after we have air superiority? We want MRCA to replace our obsolete strike aircraft, that's all. So, when the time comes they can be rigged up with cruise missiles and bombs and blow up refineries and airports. So, with 400-500 air superiority aircraft, it makes sense to go for a 120 odd Rafales to plug the gap.

With the PAKFA coming in at the same time as Rafale, and with Jags and Mig-27s retiring, we will end up with over 1000 air superiority aircraft and no strike aircraft. IAF is not favouring Rafale because we like French. IAF likes Rafale simply because it is capable of strike, a capability that we sorely lack in.
Both aircraft are able to blow up refineries and airports.
Having on top of that a superb air superiority capability will not go amiss and you will not regret it when the critical times come. There is never enough...
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
So flying at high supersonic speeds (>M1.5) in dry power is a measure to reduce vulnerability. (reduces also IR signature)
Fuel consumption is between dry and reheat.

JSF concept of survivability is much more reduced and based on frontal aspect low observability alone. No supercruise. No high kinematic capability. Low firepower. There is a reason for that: JSF requires F-22 (or Typhoon for RAF/AMI) to achieve first air superiority.
Not really. JSF will rely on it's highly evolved avionics suite. It's skills come in electronic warfare.

No other Western fighter has been conceived and designed for sustained operations at tactically relevant supercruise speeds (say >M1.5). I suspect to achieve this the engine must be designed specifically for that objective.
Yes. This is right. Engines, wings, inlets, all have specific design rules that need to be followed for supercruise. Like the Concorde or SR-71.

Some fighters may achieve supercruise as a fallout.
An example of this, known in the western world, was accidently achieved on the F-16XL where a new engine on a prototype pushed it above Mach 1.1 on dry heat.

All fighters, on achieving contact with the enemy, will go to maximum A/B power to accelerate and climb to give their missile maximum energy at launch, F-22 and PAK FA included.
F-22 and PAKFA may not have to. They are already flying at Mach 1.8 in supercruise. Achieving an extra 0.2 Mach may not be required. Mach 2+ speeds are meant for interception and may almost always never be reached.

Typhoon will be able to supercruise at tactically significant speeds if the growth potential of the EJ200 is fully exploited and the thrust vectoring (option available) is used as a trimming device.
A new engine on either EF or Rafale will further reduce range while on internal fuel. A supercruising interception optimized EF, with 50% fuel, will probably be outrun and outranged by a Mig-21bison on AB. Are we looking at a point defence capability or long range strike?

An EF with 3-4 tons of internal fuel, 2 tons of fuel in CFT and 2 tons in drop tanks can still manage supersonic speeds with AB. Plenty of fuel for CAP missions and achievable at very high speeds, equivalent to F-22 or PAKFA, without having to bother about pseudo-supercruise speeds. The range would be equivalent to a Su-35 on internal fuel as well.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Both aircraft are able to blow up refineries and airports.
Having on top of that a superb air superiority capability will not go amiss and you will not regret it when the critical times come. There is never enough...
A lot of EF's equipment is still incomplete. Let's face it. What Rafale will do this year, EF will achieve only in 2018. Today all it does is drop PGMs. Mirage-2000 does that too. On a good day the LCA will do the same. Storm Shadow will come online only in 2014.

There will be negative publicity for EF once Rafale gets it's first AESA this year. Firing A2G missiles are crucial. As of today our Jaguars have better strike capability than the EF Typhoon.

Btw, AMCA will be an air superiority aircraft as well, according to both IAF and ADA. Earlier it was meant to be a strike aircraft, for replacing the Jags and Mig-27s. This was when Mirage-2000 was said to win the tender. Later IAF decided for AMCA to be an air superiority aircraft. I guess this happened just before Rafale and EF were shortlisted.
 

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
A lot of EF's equipment is still incomplete. Let's face it. What Rafale will do this year, EF will achieve only in 2018. Today all it does is drop PGMs. Mirage-2000 does that too. On a good day the LCA will do the same. Storm Shadow will come online only in 2014.

There will be negative publicity for EF once Rafale gets it's first AESA this year. Firing A2G missiles are crucial. As of today our Jaguars have better strike capability than the EF Typhoon.

Btw, AMCA will be an air superiority aircraft as well, according to both IAF and ADA. Earlier it was meant to be a strike aircraft, for replacing the Jags and Mig-27s. This was when Mirage-2000 was said to win the tender. Later IAF decided for AMCA to be an air superiority aircraft. I guess this happened just before Rafale and EF were shortlisted.
We are talking about operational aircraft (I assume the first 18 a/c off the shelf for training, OCU and building up CONOPS) in a timeframe 2017-2050. I guess to fix our view on the capability at this point in time is rather shortsighted. Such a rationale would be reasonable only if you thought Eurofighter to be technically unable to integrate a recce pod or a cruise missile on the platform. With such a frame of mind then PAK FA would never happen. Today is less capable than a Jaguar!

I rather have a big aperture re-positionable radar (a true breakthrough in sensor combat performance--because that is what really matters to the fighter pilot operating MMRCA between 2017 and 2050) than a small fixed antenna. Even if it is two years after. Damn the publicity!

I suppose with AMCA we are still in fluid territory...
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,868
Likes
23,312
Country flag
Siemens is a German company... they can't be trusted on sanctions, especially over nuke technology.
I would agree with you on that. Can't believe this is the same Germany that shook up the world 6 decades ago. They have this strange policy of "no arms" to any nation that gets into conflict. I mean WTF are weapons meant for then? Decoration pieces? They have good technology but over-pacifism and self-guilt for something they didn't do (present generation) is screwing their business and strategic sense and costing them billions in contracts.

You guys are far more smarter in this aspect.
 

weg

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
203
Likes
37
An example of this, known in the western world, was accidently achieved on the F-16XL where a new engine on a prototype pushed it above Mach 1.1 on dry heat.
The first aircraft that could super cruise was the English Electric Lightning. Introduced in 1959.
 

Param

New Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
I would agree with you on that. Can't believe this is the same Germany that shook up the world 6 decades ago. They have this strange policy of "no arms" to any nation that gets into conflict. I mean WTF are weapons meant for then? Decoration pieces? They have good technology but over-pacifism and self-guilt for something they didn't do (present generation) is screwing their business and strategic sense and costing them billions in contracts.

You guys are far more smarter in this aspect.
They have evolved.
 

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
In the Indian scenario an air superiority situation may never come up. The enemy is looking for air denial, both enemies, while we are looking at localized air superiority for a short duration so our strike fighters can get through their defences and pummel their ground forces for what it's worth.

We have so many air superiority fighters while our strike fighters are more or less neglected. We have a 600 fighter airforce with only 120+ Jags capable of DPS missions. And these Jags are ancient in technology. For air superiority we have MKI, Mirage-2000, Mig-29 and Mig-21(400-450). Pretty soon LCA as well. Our airforce can deny the enemy the use of our air space and maybe their's too while we are at it. But let's be realistic here, what's going to happen after we have air superiority? We want MRCA to replace our obsolete strike aircraft, that's all. So, when the time comes they can be rigged up with cruise missiles and bombs and blow up refineries and airports. So, with 400-500 air superiority aircraft, it makes sense to go for a 120 odd Rafales to plug the gap.

With the PAKFA coming in at the same time as Rafale, and with Jags and Mig-27s retiring, we will end up with over 1000 air superiority aircraft and no strike aircraft. IAF is not favouring Rafale because we like French. IAF likes Rafale simply because it is capable of strike, a capability that we sorely lack in.
Remember: since 1939 no air campaign and indeed no war has been won without control of the air, without air superiority. Going forward the same rule will apply, even more so. More key assets such as ISTAR, AEW, tankers will depend on air superiority to operate safely and close to the front where it matters. Without those assets, your multiplier effect and networked ops will soon disappear and the rest of your combat planes will be severely downgraded in effectiveness. As you lose air superiority your own airfield will be at risk and your strike force will suffer severe losses. You will enter a spiral that will lead to the collapse of your war machine, as it has been shown in the recent air campaigns.

Your best fighter is the MKI, which is also a capable strike platform with a good payload-range (certainly far better than the Deep Strike Jaguar). But Flanker vs Flanker is basically parity. But the adversary enjoys numerical superiority and will attack on several fronts.
The air superiority ranking of the MiG-21, MiG-29, LCA and Mirage 2000 (this a/c has also a strike role) is not such to guarantee the achievement of control of the air against Flanker class fighters. Even the F-16C Block 50 will be quite a tough nut to crack.

Reality is that your air superiority line up needs, in my opinion, some serious beefing up at the top end (MiG-21, MiG-29 and Mirage are more suitable for rear line point defence duties) to defeat decisively the Flanker and Flanker Plus threat on the other side. 120-200 Typhoons will raise dramatically your air power in this respect and it will also be able to do perform strike missions, once you achieve a decent level of air superiority.

It is not wise planning to assume that PAK FA will be coming in at the same time as the MMRCA. There must be some spread, as even the US avoid inducting two major types at the same time. Inevitable delays will also take care of this aspect, unless the Indo-Russian project breaks away from the trend of the past 30-40 years in fighter development. I hope it does it, but I am a prudent guy in these things...
 

Articles

Top