Know Your 'Rafale'

[BON PLAN]

Going forward once current urgent build up ends, all money needs to go towards Tejas only with accountable deadlines.

Tejas will only make the Mig21 replacement job. IAF need it, but not only.

 

[omaebakabaka]

Tejas will only make the Mig21 replacement job. IAF need it, but not only.

True but HAL and other partners should be acquiring enough experience to dare into twin engine medium fighters. With BVR missiles and uttam radar Tejas versions should be decent enough against PAF and save some money. Agree Tejas does not compete with likes of Rafales.

 

[FOXBAT ALOK]

i have a good comparison article on Rafale, EFT, and Gripen. Can I post here ?

 

[Flying Dagger]

Not requested for M2000 deal, and the dead line for Rafale deal offsets is 2022.

offsets may be different of ToT..... all deênds of what was agreed. You (and I) don't know what was inked.

For M 2000 deal there was requirement of 30% offset sir thats for every deal over 300 crores not just M2000

Who told you it wasn't part of it ?

The report has clarified it and 2022 deadline means nothing when the French companies have already refused to workout that's why GTRE wish to workout with RR instead.

The fault line is with Indian decision makers when after 2012 they diverted from the original agreed terms to workout with HAL we should have simply cancelled and moved on.

French are right on their part they don't have to fulfill the terms now. Similar happened with Scorpene. It's the Indian gov who needs to take a call now.

 

[Flying Dagger]

i have a good comparison article on Rafale, EFT, and Gripen. Can I post here ?

Feel free to do so .

 

[FOXBAT ALOK]

Rafale vs Gripen vs Eurofighter Typhoon : Which One Is Better (Part-1)

SOURCE :https://defenceview.in/rafale-vs-gripen-vs-eurofighter-typhoon-which-one-is-better-part-1/

It is very interesting to compare the machines created at about the same time. This task at present cannot be objectively accomplished with sufficient certainty due to the lack of exhaustive data due to the fact that, for obvious reasons, many TTHs are classified and those published are often of a promotional nature. However, curiosity does not diminish.

Read Part -2 :Rafale vs Gripen vs Eurofighter Typhoon : Which One Is Better (Part-2)

eurofighter typhoon
Currently, three European fighters of the “4” generation are looking for a place under the sun in the arms market: the French Rafale, a joint product of Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain – EF-2000 Eurofighter and Swedish JAS-39 “Gripen”.


Surely, many will notice that “Gripen” by mass is in a different category and the comparison of these aircraft is not quite correct. I’m fully aware of that. But these three fighters are equally competing with each other in tenders for the supply of combat vehicles and the potential buyer chooses from those that the Europeans can offer at present.

Also Read : Rafale Fighter Aircraft Will Completely Change The Indian Air Force’s Capabilities


Mass-size characteristics

When creating fighters in front of the designers set different goals. Eurofighter was originally conceived as a fighter of air superiority and as an interceptor. This purpose was zealously defended by Germany. It can be understood that it was in “front-line” positions regarding the Warsaw Pact countries. And it was necessary to oppose something to such magnificent air fighters as MiG-29 and Su-27. The task was to obtain high maneuverable characteristics at subsonic and super-vu speed. And the UK has traditionally paid a lot of attention to interceptors. Very often its Royal Air Force had to “intercept” Russian strategic bombers.

Dassult Rafale
The French also aimed to create a high-level aircraft. They did not have an urgent need for interceptors. Around allies ready to meet a potential common enemy. They needed a multifunctional fighter with high strike and reconnaissance capabilities, able to fend for themselves in air combat. France’s imperial ambitions have not disappeared since the collapse of the colonial empire. The Fifth Republic is zealous about its former colonies and tries not to let them out of its influence. These countries regularly supply France with natural resources. To control and possibly put pressure on their former colonies, the French need a “long hand” in the form of aircraft carriers (now in service the only one remained) and strike aircraft capable of reaching any corner of their “empire”.

The country’s budget could not afford to create several types of aircraft to carry out all tasks. Therefore, it was decided to create a single aircraft for the Air Force and Navy with a high degree of unification, capable of being based on an aircraft carrier. Accordingly, for the aircraft with priority on impact abilities considered unnecessary speeds above THE MJ1.8, which simplified the design of air intakes, which made unregulated. Great attention was paid to stealth technologies that increase the chances of survival when hitting ground targets and in air combat.

Saab Gripen
Sweden is a neutral country with highly developed industry, including military, all post-war years trying, as far as possible, to cope with their own forces in the supply of weapons for its own army. The country’s potential is much lower than that of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. The development and creation of modern aircraft is very expensive. After much debate, the Swedish Government decided to create a single multifunctional fighter capable of replacing the country’s interceptor fighters, fighter-bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The main idea of “Gripen” – the creation of an aircraft with maximum combat capabilities at a minimum cost. This allowed, in addition to reducing the cost of development, hopes for a good commercial success of “Gripen” , as most countries financial opportunities will not allow to operate expensive aircraft.

Two modifications, JAS 39C and JAS 39E, will be presented in the comparative analysis for Sweden. The main modification in service with the exploiting countries is JAS 39C. THE JAS 39E is a much improved version of the aircraft, the first flight of which took place in 2017. To date, there are two customers – the Swedish Air Force – 60 aircraft (with an option for another 10) and the Brazilian Air Force -36 aircraft.

Rafale vs Gripen vs Eurofighter Typhoon

From the table data, the first thing that throws the superiority of “Rafael” in the number of suspension points, the maximum combat load. The gap is quite noticeable. And on weight, he’s in the lead. How important is this in real combat use? The maximum possible suspension of weapons is generally not used. So it makes sense to consider the typical configurations of the combat load.

All 13 suspension points are used on the EF-2000

Note.1 – The British cite the armament of 18 SD Brimstone as a typical load. With a real combat flight, most likely, the load will be less.
All three aircraft have roughly equal capabilities in solving typical tasks. It is worth noting that Rafale can take more fuel to the PTB. Eurofighter has a greater focus on solving problems against air targets. Western sources point to much smaller JAS 39C capabilities, but as you can see from the table it looks quite decent compared to competitors and its fighting qualities are quite sufficient for most potential importing countries.

According to such characteristics as the range of Rafale and Eurofighter have good performance. Thus, when used on ground targets, the range of “Rafale” is:

• 4 UR MICA, 12 bombs weighing 250 kg and 2 PTB 2000 liters -1055 km;
• 2 SCALP EG, 2 UR MICA and 3 PTBs of 2,000 litres – 1,850 km.

Eurofighter:

• 2 KAB for 900 kg and 2 PTBs of 1000 liters on the profile of large-small-high height – 1300 km;
• 2 KAB by 900 kg, 2 PTBs for 1000 liters and 1 PTB 1500 liters on the profile of small-small-small height – 600 km.

If used as an interceptor, the range of Eurofighter is 1,390 km, Rafale has a range of 1,760 km (from 8 UR MICA, 3 PTBs to 2000 liters).

Eurofighter can carry three PTBs – two with a capacity of 1000 liters and one 1500 liters, Rafale is larger in number and capacity – up to 5 PTBs (theoretically the maximum possible option is one PTB 3000 liters, two by 2000 liters and two by 1250 liters, a real one-three PTB is used), which with approximately equal internal fuel supply gives the French aircraft a benefit.

The shortest range is JAS 39C – 800 km. This option meets the requirements of the Swedish Air Force, but for possible countries buyers it is not enough if there are strong competitors with higher performance. This flaw has been corrected by the JAS 39E modification, which has a range of 1,300 km. In particular, thanks to this Swedes were lucky in the tender for the supply of multifunctional fighters for Brazil, which won THE JAS 39E (the size of this country is quite large and the requirements for the duration of flight and flight range are appropriate).

Read Part -2 :Rafale vs Gripen vs Eurofighter Typhoon : Which One Is Better (Part-2)

 

[Flying Dagger]

Tejas will only make the Mig21 replacement job. IAF need it, but not only.

The MMRCA was for Mig 21 with Mirage 2k + Tejas as preferred replacement and for fifth gen requirement, FGFA Russia was chosen originally.

Rafale fits nowhere but was sold as a stop gap till FGFA comes and later FGFA was dropped .

 

[Dessert Storm]

That's done because French haven't provided any TOT or offset yet neither for Mirage upgrade deal nor Rafale.

It also states instead of offset if technology worth that amount is provided it is fine. Though we know thats not going to happen either.

It clearly looks like we have been twisted bad. If we had put that amount on Gripen or Indigenous projects things would have been much better.

Don't talk Gripen. Agree to indigenous. Gripen would kill Tejas, MWF. Tejas, MWF learnings and eco-system go into AMCA. Once our single engine fighters are in, it's goodbye to European 4, 4++, 4.5 gen fighter sales by late 20s.

 

[Dessert Storm]

True but HAL and other partners should be acquiring enough experience to dare into twin engine medium fighters. With BVR missiles and uttam radar Tejas versions should be decent enough against PAF and save some money. Agree Tejas does not compete with likes of Rafales.

TEDBF is a twin engine fighter. IAF would be waiting and watching. I think they ain't showing interest for fear of their 'aye' to ORCA, having an impact in their MCRA requirement. If IAF wants to hedge it's bet by not committing to ORCA program, I think it's fair enough for them cuz the downside for them would be too big if the project dosen't deliver.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Don't talk Gripen. Agree to indigenous. Gripen would kill Tejas, MWF. Tejas, MWF learnings and eco-system go into AMCA. Once our single engine fighters are in, it's goodbye to European 4, 4++, 4.5 gen fighter sales by late 20s.

That was the thinking which made sure that we end up being screwed. Gripen in 2010 around was a good option to go forward the only thing that can kill Tejas is incompetence on our part. Gripen would have only aided Tejas or twin engine version with TOT.

 

[Dessert Storm]

That was the thinking which made sure that we end up being screwed. Gripen in 2010 around was a good option to go forward the only thing that can kill Tejas is incompetence on our part. Gripen would have only aided Tejas or twin engine version with TOT.

Sure. But what makes you think that they would be any better than French. And please don't talk 2010. Mirage 2000 should have been selected to start with in MMRCA 1.0.
*Weapons of strategic importance too. No EF, no Gripen

 

[BON PLAN]

True but HAL and other partners should be acquiring enough experience to dare into twin engine medium fighters. With BVR missiles and uttam radar Tejas versions should be decent enough against PAF and save some money. Agree Tejas does not compete with likes of Rafales.

You're right.
Sole old indian problem : the time.
HAL hasn't a good track record in developpment time.

 

[BON PLAN]

For M 2000 deal there was requirement of 30% offset sir thats for every deal over 300 crores not just M2000

Who told you it wasn't part of it ?

M2000 were purchased in the 80's....

 

[omaebakabaka]

You're right.
Sole old indian problem : the time.
HAL hasn't a good track record in developpment time.

I am with you....with time most things in the tech world get obsolete. But I am optimistic as they have built few frames and commisioned, I think we will see breakthrus in a decade in design and few other things from India on fighters front, may not export level competetive but as long as it falls "somewhere quantity over quality" that should roll out aircraft building culture. Benefits are multidimensional....

 

[Flying Dagger]

Sure. But what makes you think that they would be any better than French. And please don't talk 2010. Mirage 2000 should have been selected to start with in MMRCA 1.0.
*Weapons of strategic importance too. No EF, no Gripen

Better at what ?

The cost of just upgrading Mirage 2k is 45-50 mn per piece and offset not completed.

Gripen E is much better than Mirage It's sort of a bridge in between Rafale and that.

TOT ? We could have it all depends on the bargaining power plus they were ready to manufacture here with HAL too. Remember Bofors Howitzer they passed on blue prints and all details even when the contract was cancelled midway. Dhanush is based on that.

Rest its not abt jumping in timeline but a mistake identified with French reluctance for TOT and offsets. You can jump in 80s instead when Jaguar were bought instead of Mirage that was a mistake too but not related to my original post which i replied to.

 

[omaebakabaka]

The MMRCA was for Mig 21 with Mirage 2k + Tejas as preferred replacement and for fifth gen requirement, FGFA Russia was chosen originally.

Rafale fits nowhere but was sold as a stop gap till FGFA comes and later FGFA was dropped .

I kinda disagree on the Rafale comment, it is a logical replacement for strategic delivery which previously was Mirage for IAF alogn with Jags and both of them are sorta ancient now.

 

[BON PLAN]

I am with you....with time most things in the tech world get obsolete. But I am optimistic as they have built few frames and commisioned, I think we will see breakthrus in a decade in design and few other things from India on fighters front, may not export level competetive but as long as it falls "somewhere quantity over quality" that should roll out aircraft building culture. Benefits are multidimensional....

A fighter jet is not only a frame....
The frame is the faster you can fine tune : see Dassault that built the Rafale A in less than 4 years.
The most difficult is the radar and the engine : it takes to the best no less than 10 years from the beginning.
And after that you have to fine tune all the components together, so as to create a weapons system. See F35 : 14 years after preserial flight, the bird isn't FOC, despite huge money putting in.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I kinda disagree on the Rafale comment, it is a logical replacement for strategic delivery which previously was Mirage for IAF alogn with Jags and both of them are sorta ancient now.

Mirage and Jags replacement is Tejas Mk2 /AMCA

 

[BON PLAN]

Gripen E is much better than Mirage It's sort of a bridge in between Rafale and that.

I hope for SAAB that a bird studied 30+ years after M2000 is better !

 

[BON PLAN]

I kinda disagree on the Rafale comment, it is a logical replacement for strategic delivery which previously was Mirage for IAF alogn with Jags and both of them are sorta ancient now.

Rafale will be the next deterrent plane of IAF.... after M2000.