Know Your 'Rafale'

[asianobserve]

Us recently supplied the last of the F 16s to pak.That explains the danger of trusting US completely.US might help us against China(secretly) but what if it is a two front war ?

You seem to have low self-esteem...Do you think in case of war the US will side with double-crossing-beggar Pakistan over giant India (now that there's no more USSR and China is the common threat)? Unless of course you see India as only on par with Pakistan...

And don't be bothered by a couple of F16s, they're on tight leash by the US.

 

[lambu]

The forces behind Dassault's coup

India's lucrative and long-running medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition took an important step forward recently with the announcement that India will now enter into exclusive negotiations with French contractor Dassault for its Rafale. This is a major blow for the other major contender, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the product of a consortium of the major aerospace companies of four partner nations: Germany, UK, Italy, and Spain. The Eurofighter group had been convinced that they were offering the technically superior aircraft, and the Typhoon certainly performed better in competitive trials in 2010. But as everyone who follows defence sales knows, selling fighter planes is not necessarily about having the better product.
Indian analyses have focused on explaining the latest decision largely on the basis of costs. It is true that concerns over its price tag have dogged the expensive Eurofighter Typhoon from the outset. But this explanation is a little too convenient in the complex world of arms sales, where other issues including technology transfers, the possibility of joint production, and political partnerships all play a role in influencing the decision-making process. Providing they are not too far apart (and the bids submitted by Dassault and Eurofighter would not have been), costs can be altered to suit a strategic choice. Small adjustments to factors such as payloads carried and distances flown on hypothetical sorties can make a big difference. And taking total life-cycle costs into account has proved a complicated, difficult and possibly contestable process.

If not simply cost, a further explanation is required for India's choice. Dassault may have shown more flexibility over matters of technological transfer than Cassidian, the EADS subsidiary that led on the Eurofighter bid. But Cassidian certainly tried its best to suggest otherwise, opening the first foreign-operated defence-oriented engineering centre in India last year. Another criterion may have been greater political benefits. But it is unclear whether a single partner is more attractive than several European partners who have combined to make Eurofighter the continent's largest collaborative military programme.

In part, the decision could have related to lobbying, although not of the sinister kind being whispered about in many Delhi salons. Simply speaking, the French government was more politically active, particularly when compared to the more low-key approach of Germany, which acted as the lead nation of the Eurofighter bid. Germany's defence industries have never enjoyed the level of political support experienced by their French counterparts. In Germany, a "war room" — like that assembled by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to coordinate his defence, finance, and foreign ministries in support of Dassault's search for its first foreign buyer — would have been unimaginable. While lobbying may not have made a difference in this particular case, greater political support for a major defence contract generally translates into a more flexible approach in linking it to other incentives in the defence or non-defence realms.

Keeping the debate focused on the aircraft' costs does, however, play to India's advantage as negotiations now enter a new, exclusive, phase. After all, as both suppliers know, this is not a final decision. Protracted negotiations between Dassault and the MoD can be expected over the coming months. India will want to extract the maximum concessions possible and hinting periodically that Eurofighter are not entirely out of the running will do it no harm. Meanwhile, Dassault knows only too well from prior experience that exclusive negotiations can always break down and decisions can be reversed. Only late last year, the UAE stepped back from its exclusive talks on buying the Rafale to ask the Eurofighter consortium to make a counter offer.

The latest decision is an important one for India. But it is also an important one for France. If this deal goes ahead, the Rafale's future, which had been in question, looks assured. The multi-billion dollar deal also offers the prospect of a vital economic boost for French President Nicolas Sarkozy as he prepares for a difficult re-election campaign. Now that the French are the frontrunners, they cannot afford to lose this tender. New Delhi will know this, and will be hoping to use it to its advantage.

Sarah Raine is a non-resident fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) in Berlin and a consulting research fellow with IISS. Dhruva Jaishankar is programme officer for Asia at GMF in Washington

The forces behind Dassault's coup | idrw.org

 

[Godless-Kafir]

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.

When we are paying 12 billion, we want the best. We are not buying a Stealth Aircraft so your argument is mute, we are buying an 4.5gen aircraft and demanding supercruise is essential. To have it is better than not to have it.

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.

This is redicilious justification and your not justfying the technology but merely dismissing it based on what we just bought. This sounds more and more like those grapes are sour. You will be defending super cruise if the Rafael did have it. So your points are mute and have no valadity.

Raff is not a small or medium fighter, it is an heavy fighter and it costs as much as the F/A-18 super hornet and its performance is comparable to it to.

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.

All your facts are wrong, F/A-18 super hornet does super cruise on a regular bases, so does EF-2000.

All those ranges you specified are without AB, if the pilot uses AB then the range reduces dramatically and haveing super cruise means you get there at nearly the same speed as an AB fighter but with more fuel.

If that does not sound as an advantage you are just justifying what we bought and not being honest.

Like aircraft war doctrines also evolve, once people thought cannons on board will not be necessary any more but soon they changed. Super cruise is essential in modern combat and most other advanced contenders like the F/A-18 have it.

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.

When an argument becomes dishonest as the point you made above it better to stop. What has G got to do with high altitude cruise? Boreing..END.

 

[Yusuf]

again off topic and since seniors here are discussing ind-us realtionship i want to know what they think of present relationship of us-turkey. since present gov of turkey has done lots of things which i donot think us gov likes eg hardening position viz isreal. inviting chinese for war games , join production of militrary hardware with chinese

Turkeys case is different with the govt going more "Islamic" and trying to get back it's erstwhile "thekedari" of Islam.

 

[H.A.]

This "mother" of all defence deals will later become the "granny", as reported by TOI earlier, since India will in all probability go in for another 63 fighters after the first 126 jets.

IAF is looking at these 126 new jets, apart from the ongoing progressive induction of 272 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion, to stem its fast-eroding combat edge against Pakistan and China. IAF has already identified Ambala and Jodhpur airbases in the western sector, followed by Hashimara in the eastern sector, to house the first MMRCA squadrons.

India is now finalizing details of the stealth Indo-Russian FGFA (fifth-generation fighter aircraft) to be built in the coming decades. IAF hopes to begin inducting the first lot of the 250 to 300 FGFA from 2020 onwards, which rough calculations show will eventually cost India around $35 billion.

The Times of India on Mobile

I believe The Indian Airforce will become the biggest Armed Force recruiter with probably the best place to work.!!!

 

[p2prada]

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.

Of course. The first 18 Su-30 achieved the same purpose in IAF. The MKI version was operationalized only in 2004, 2 years later.

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!

PAKFA is as of today a paper airplane with developing capabilities. Even the first version will be a basic version, like the Su-27. To top it off the IAF version will be more advanced and will come much later. So, the first PAKFA's capabilities depends highly on what Russia wants first.

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!

In technical specs, I am sure the EF would have beaten the Rafale in pretty much every aspect when it comes to air to air. Even with limited or negligible A2G capability, the EF has given a good fight in other competitions, perhaps solely on it's air to air capability. So, we can say the EF may end up surpassing Rafale's capabilities by 2018. But, the current stage of the competition is at a point where only money matters.

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

Not even a paper plane as of today. We will see what happens in July. The project is yet to take off and will go on for 16 years. It is meant for inductions after 2025.

 

[p2prada]

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.

Japan is worse and their defence industry is nonexistent. But Britain will sell to anybody who toes American lines. That's a problem for us.

 

[p2prada]

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.

There is quite a difference between their flanker and our flanker. Their current best aircraft all fly Mig-29smt, Mirage-2000-5 and F-16 block 52 level radars. Mirage-2000 has a strike role in IAF. During Kargil war, the Mirage-2000s primary role was strike. Our Flankers are better than the American F-15Cs in specs and flight controls.

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.

Come on. I already said EF's capabilities in air superiority isn't what IAF is looking for. They want a mud mover. The problem is we don't actually have a strike aircraft replacement until 2030(AMCA). It is quite imperative that we get one. Typhoons will be inducted at the same time as PAKFA and China's J-20. I honestly believe the Typhoon won't last against such a threat by itself.

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...

Yes. It is possible PAKFA may be delayed. But there is also a possibility the Typhoon's most advanced configuration may be delayed as well.

As for Russia's development of aircraft, the duration between first flight and induction was 6 years for Mig-25, 7 years for Mig-31, 6 years for Mig-29. So, a 6 year time line for PAKFA is quite achievable if we go by past history. Only Flanker took 7 years because the first prototype had to be extensively modified. The modified prototype's first flight and induction took only 3 years.

The first aircraft that could super cruise was the English Electric Lightning. Introduced in 1959.

I did not touch this topic only because it was not designed for it.

 

[arundo]

In technical specs, I am sure the EF would have beaten the Rafale in pretty much every aspect when it comes to air to air. E

Hello p2prada,

considering that Rafale performed much better than EF in the Swiss evaluation in Air 2 Air (btw it was not a slight difference), we have to assume that this supposed EF Air 2 Air dominance is

1) much in the future. As of 2012, the Rafale has the better radar (and btw lower rcs) and would probably detect first. Aesa Captor E has not been introduced yet and needs additional funds.
2) probably limited to BvR

I think we cannot completely ignore the Swiss conclusions, even if they are based on WvR (which is not confirmed). Btw we should not forget, that the India contract will open new opportunities to develop further upgrades - at least concerning the radar.

 

[H.A.]

This deal would have cemented Indo US relations and the past would not have repeated. I that is the reason, we should not have bought the Hercules, Poseidon and the C17.

Hercules, Poseidon and C-17 are not priority aircraft they are support aircrafts. In the event of US imposing sanction we can easily replace them without affecting the air superiority of IAF

 

[p2prada]

Exactly my thoughts from day one of the tender. Even while the flight testing and evaluation was going on, I thought somehow they would go for the F18 by FMS. For me the deal remains a strategic blunder (provided France and India ink the deal)

I prefer this actually. The French don't make too much noise and we have two awesome P-5 backups when shit hits the fan. The Americans make the right noises, but things happening on the ground are too slow.

Half the stuff worth buying from the US come attached with intrusive agreements and treaties. Come now, with a few transport aircraft and maritime aircraft we can have American inspectors visit a facility like Gwalior or Bangalore air base or Hansa naval base and they can inspect the aircraft to their hearts content. Buying 200 odd aircraft would mean opening our frontline bases to the American's prying eyes in critical areas like the North East and Western airbases. We don't want that. As an offensive weapon, the SH will come with peace time and wartime clauses as well.

It is different if they make India specific clauses, but the bumbama govt won't do it. bush would have, but not this one. He is too busy bringing about "change" in America.

The French don't give a damn if you plan on deploying Nukes on their aircraft. The Russians won't give a damn if we use the nukes let alone deploy. The Americans will be jumping up and down our throats if we say the word nukes.

This article perfectly demonstrates what is wrong with the Indian media. With the cream of talent being absorbed into IITs, Engineering and Medical Colleges, or moving into finance (MBA) or scientific research, many dregs like this author foray into journalism.

Talk about having a pea sized brain coupled with an narcissistic tendency to churn out verbose rubbish. Nowadays every wet behind the ears journo thinks him/herself to be the next Chanakya and believes scattering a few references to "strategic interests" is akin to composing arthashaastra

- No mention of PAK-FA and the nuclear submarine lease, Vikramaditya, increased orders for MKIs, Mig-29Ks, Mi-17s, frigates for IN
- No mention of nearly $10 billion worth of purchases of military systems (C-130J, C-17, P8i, possibly 22 Apaches) etc. from the US

These not strategic enough for the author? Since when are strategic interests solely defined by purchasing combat aircraft?

I could go on and on, but then that would be akin to bhains ke aage been bajaana

I liked your article right after the second para. I am yet to read the rest.

 

[p2prada]

Wrong premise. The way thing ls are, US will more than encourage India to go to war or if attacked help India give china a drubbing.

If we ever get into a situation like this, no country will bail us out. Not even the US. Diplomatic support isn't pro active military support. The American citizens will be screaming for a ceasefire and the administration will respond. Same with Europe.

The Americans are willing to give us weapons only so there is NO war between India and China.

 

[methos]

Hello p2prda,

considering that Rafale performed much better than EF in the Swiss evaluation in Air 2 Air (btw it was not a slight difference), we have to assume that this supposed EF Air 2 Air dominance is

1) much in the future. As of 2012, the Rafale has the better radar (and btw lower rcs) and would probably detect first. Aesa Captor E has not been introduced yet and needs additional funds.
2) probably limited to BvR

I think we cannot completely ignore the Swiss conclusions, even if they are based on WvR (which is a speculation). Btw we should not forget, that the India contract will open new opportunities to develop further upgrades - at least concerning the radar.

Lower RCS? That would be something new.
Regarding air-to-air capacities: Could you please provide your sources? What I have read in other forums (incl. German-language ones) the offical test-results and the tested scenarios are not public available. Biased EADS claims are that 18 EF can do the same A2A what 22.5 Rafales can do (atm both aircrafts don't have AESA).
The only claimed resultsI have seen come from the Baseler Zeitung - without any descriptions of the conditions, the taks and the equipment.

 

[pankaj nema]

This deal would have cemented Indo US relations and the past would not have repeated. I that is the reason, we should not have bought the Hercules, Poseidon and the C17.

Several " tomes " have been written so far on why we should not buy F 16 and F18
and this issue was settled when we kicked out BOTH F 16 and F 18 in the first round itself

 

[weg]

But Britain will sell to anybody who toes American lines. That's a problem for us.

But not China or Pakistan, unlike the French.

I did not touch this topic only because it was not designed for it.

Thats was the point of argument wasn't it, whetehr being designed for matters rather than being capable. Intercepting nuclear bombers as fast as possible was the Lightning's design requirement.

 

[p2prada]

When we are paying 12 billion, we want the best. We are not buying a Stealth Aircraft so your argument is mute, we are buying an 4.5gen aircraft and demanding supercruise is essential. To have it is better than not to have it.

Sure. We don't live in a perfect world. But asking for supercruise from aircraft which cannot supercruise is like betting on the winning horse when camels are racing.

This is redicilious justification and your not justfying the technology but merely dismissing it based on what we just bought. This sounds more and more like those grapes are sour. You will be defending super cruise if the Rafael did have it. So your points are mute and have no valadity.

ROFL. Rafale does supercruise. But it is useless, even more so than EF. Neither aircraft have the range for supercruise to take effect. Sticking drop tanks for extra range would kill it's ability to supercruise. Supercruise is when you do mach 1.8 with a 2+ ton payload. It has to be any payload, be it missiles or bombs.

The problem is you know nothing even if it is in order to understand something so trivial.

Raff is not a small or medium fighter, it is an heavy fighter and it costs as much as the F/A-18 super hornet and its performance is comparable to it to.

Rafale, when loaded, weighs 15 tons. The MKI's empty empty weight alone is 18.5 tons. Now do you understand the difference between the two. While MKI forms the heavy component for IAF, the Rafale will be the light component. It is a LCA or Mig-29 equivalent for IAF. It is simply more advanced and hence is better. Bring in the F-35, with it's crappy speed, low payload, equivalent or crappy range compared to Rafale is enough for it to beat the Rafale/EF a 100 times over.

The MKI is cheaper than both Rafale and SH, but it's capabilities are higher. Don't bring money into the discussion. There is no point because the industries backing the wholly different aircraft are different.

All your facts are wrong, F/A-18 super hornet does super cruise on a regular bases, so does EF-2000.

Wow, and I wonder why I even discuss military matters with you? I am better off ignoring your posts. Actually I have always done that. Dunno why I started again.

All those ranges you specified are without AB, if the pilot uses AB then the range reduces dramatically and haveing super cruise means you get there at nearly the same speed as an AB fighter but with more fuel.

Saying supercruise allows same speeds as AB is completely, utterly and hopelessly wrong if you are talking about EF. Mach 1.2 isn't the same as Mach 2. And you were the one trying to teach the difference between Mach 0.9 and Mach 1.2. EF will never use supercruise if it wants to go supersonic.

AB ranges are determined by the amount of time you can go at mach 2. Currently Mig-31(14 tons of internal fuel) tops the list followed by Su-35(11.5 tons of internal fuel), followed by Su-27(10 tons), then MKI(9.5 tons), F-35(8.3 tons) F-22(8.2 tons), Eagle C(6.5 tons), EF(5 tons) and Rafale(4.5 tons).

If you halve all their fuel loads for air to air configuration you will get at best around 5 tons for Flankers while you get 2-3 tons for EF/Rafale. Bring in drag due to external stores and you have more fuel burning. Realistically, if EF and Rafale want to utilize supercruise then they will be outranged by LCA(2.5 tons) or even Mig-21(2 tons) at full fuel loads.

There is a reason why Pogosyon said the Mig-29(4.5 tons) will face stiff competition from JF-17(2.3 tons). This story about Rafale being medium and LCA forming the light end of IAF is just pure BS. They are just playing to the media so they don't come under fire for neglecting the LCA program. Had LCA been a success from the day it started, the MRCA program would never have happened in the first place.

Like aircraft war doctrines also evolve, once people thought cannons on board will not be necessary any more but soon they changed. Super cruise is essential in modern combat and most other advanced contenders like the F/A-18 have it.

Stealth is essential, supercruise is an added advantage but not as important.

As of today only F-22 has supercruise. Please get that right.

When an argument becomes dishonest as the point you made above it better to stop. What has G got to do with high altitude cruise? Boreing..END.

It is unfortunate that there is no cure for stupidity. And weren't you the one saying I should have the "attitude" to accept my errors. The preacher doesnot practice.

I gave Gs example as a reason so you understand that not everything an aircraft can do is good for the pilot. The Mirage-2000 can do rolls at 11G, very bad for pilot health. The Mig-25 can do 75-80000 feet, very bad for pilot health.

 

[p2prada]

Hello p2prada,

considering that Rafale performed much better than EF in the Swiss evaluation in Air 2 Air (btw it was not a slight difference), we have to assume that this supposed EF Air 2 Air dominance is

1) much in the future. As of 2012, the Rafale has the better radar (and btw lower rcs) and would probably detect first. Aesa Captor E has not been introduced yet and needs additional funds.
2) probably limited to BvR

I think we cannot completely ignore the Swiss conclusions, even if they are based on WvR (which is not confirmed). Btw we should not forget, that the India contract will open new opportunities to develop further upgrades - at least concerning the radar.

Nobody knows what happened in most of these exercises. So, let's not jump to conclusions. Official literature on Rafale and EF talk about RCS being lower on EF rather than Rafale. Of course, the electronics on Rafale are more developed while EF is yet to get equivalent ECM equipment.

With the India deal, Dassault will get much larger orders from ALA and MN and perhaps from other parts of the world too. This would allow them to compete more favourably and have access to better funding from partner nations. India alone has a requirement for 300-350 Rafale type aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

But not China or Pakistan, unlike the French.

Now that's a major advantage to us. France will not sell Rafale's to China after India deal while US, UK and Germany don't sell to China for political reasons. So, we killed two birds with one stone.

Had we chosen the EF, France may have been open to sell to China. It is a totally different factor that they would probably build 50 odd aircraft and reverse engineer the rest.

PAF reviewed the EF and settled for F-16s a long time ago. The EF was offered to PAF.

Thats was the point of argument wasn't it, whetehr being designed for matters rather than being capable. Intercepting nuclear bombers as fast as possible was the Lightning's design requirement.

If the Lightning was meant to intercept bombers, then trust me, they won't even think about supercruise. AB all the way.

English Electric termed the supercruise on Lightning to be extremely limited. It did Mach 1.4 when empty.

 

[anoop_mig25]

Turkeys case is different with the govt going more "Islamic" and trying to get back it's erstwhile "thekedari" of Islam.

may different case but would america sell it advance weapons to non-nato major ally considering all those stuff which at present is begin employed by the government of turkey

 

[Cola]

"The fact is that the cost deferential between Typhoon and Rafale was very high... it would cost India around 22% to 25% more if the former had been selected. No government can agree to so much extra," the source said.

French managed to reinvent the term Pyrrhic victory.