Know Your 'Rafale'

[sandeepdg]

Meanwhile, I don't think the SFC will get the Rafale for its needs, considering it is so expensive. Its more likely that some numbers of an aircraft already in service or to be inducted will be branched off serving the SFC requirements. It may have been the Rafale, if we had had been acquiring it in large nos, and that can only happen if it wins the MMRCA.

 

[pmaitra]

I think 300 kms is hardly a good enough range for a nuke-tipped missile ! You can hardly make a deep strike inside hostile territory with this range, it needs to be atleast 800-1000 kms.

That is very true. Especially since most of Pakistan's nuclear facilities are to the east of Pakistan except one at Balochistan, it will require the Sukhois to penerate into Pakistani airspace and then strike without significant difficulty, although it will have to deal with Pakistani air defenses. It will be a significant problem in case of China.

Below is a map of Pakistan's nuclear facilities:

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

What do you mean by this "The Prithvis and the Agnis do not have the reliability that is required when you are shooting something like a N-bomb across the border". Do you say that the prithvi's and agni's are just junk missiles and are useless. Neo 29 must be out of his mind by making or giving this line in the post. If he is correct then our missile program is a failure. He says that the agni is not reliable to hit karachi.
:emot154:

Now what does neo 29 mean by this.

 

[pmaitra]

What do you mean by this "The Prithvis and the Agnis do not have the reliability that is required when you are shooting something like a N-bomb across the border". Do you say that the prithvi's and agni's are just junk missiles and are useless. Neo 29 must be out of his mind by making or giving this line in the post. If he is correct then our missile program is a failure. He says that the agni is not reliable to hit karachi.
:emot154:

Now what does neo 29 mean by this.

The Prithvis and Agnis are quite reliable. The Prithvis have accuracy but do not have the range. The Agnis, on the other hand, cannot be moved easily and are vulnerable to disabling due to initial strikes, although with a CEP of 40 metres, the Agni II is arguably the best of it's class in the world. We do not have a Transporter-Erector-Launcer like the MAZ-7912/MAZ-7917. Our sea-based nuclear missile launch system is not yet ready. That is the reason why need an alternative to the missile based launching platform, regardless of what neo29 says correctly or incorrectly about our missile systems.

 

[Tshering22]

My understanding is that Rafales will be considered only if MMRCA is won by them. Considering that this can be included in their overall contract to supply these additional 40 fighters, I think that MOD will not specifically ask for "40 nuclear capable fighters for SFC" since that will raise a lot of eyebrows in the international community and we'd be expecting a load of vocal garbage from neighbourhood about "destabilizing south asia". The 40 jets are mainly going to be something that IAF already or is planning to operate. Creating additional infrastructure for just 40 fighters will be crazy and needlessly costly which we want to avoid.

And if at all it is going to be something "slightly" different from the regular IAF fighters, I would seriously consider Su-35BMs. Those things are lethal, very similar to MKI therefore requiring less training, maintenance infrastructure needs slight changes only and BMs can carry more payload and more fuel compared to Rafale. Not to mention, they've AESA (from Russia's MiG-35 plan), state of the art weapons, 3D TVC and extended range. Mixing 40 single seater Su-35BMs with the 2 seater MKIs would be a great idea and since SFC and not IAF is managing this, it won't create much hassles.

 

[ahmedsid]

My understanding is that Rafales will be considered only if MMRCA is won by them. Considering that this can be included in their overall contract to supply these additional 40 fighters, I think that MOD will not specifically ask for "40 nuclear capable fighters for SFC" since that will raise a lot of eyebrows in the international community and we'd be expecting a load of vocal garbage from neighbourhood about "destabilizing south asia". The 40 jets are mainly going to be something that IAF already or is planning to operate. Creating additional infrastructure for just 40 fighters will be crazy and needlessly costly which we want to avoid.

And if at all it is going to be something "slightly" different from the regular IAF fighters, I would seriously consider Su-35BMs. Those things are lethal, very similar to MKI therefore requiring less training, maintenance infrastructure needs slight changes only and BMs can carry more payload and more fuel compared to Rafale. Not to mention, they've AESA (from Russia's MiG-35 plan), state of the art weapons, 3D TVC and extended range. Mixing 40 single seater Su-35BMs with the 2 seater MKIs would be a great idea and since SFC and not IAF is managing this, it won't create much hassles.

If you are hinting at Su35 being used for nuke carrying/bombing role, then AFAIK, its an Air Superiority Fighter. You might need a souped up Su34 for that role.

 

[Tshering22]

^^ Ahmed, the RAC promotes Su-35BMs as "swing role" fighter jets, meaning that they're fully multirole for both air and land operations. Their prime role is air superiority but due to modern battlefield requirements, they can carry both air and ground based ordinance. Su-34 is a plain ground attack fighter which means that it will need a fighter escort of some sort to keep the enemy air threats at bay. Su-35s on the other hand can carry nuclear weapons at the same time carry standoff AAMs to make sure that nothing obstructs their objective.

 

[sayareakd]

I dont have any trouble with rafale, but we need to think practically it has advantages and dis advantages, any other fighter means it needs to be hidden from other fighter, needs extra support and training among other things, advantage is can super cruise, plus low radar signature compare to MKI.

range is 3700km and cost Rafale M: €70 million, US$90.5 million (flyaway cost, 2008) plus add some more millions if you want to custom made to suit the requirement of SFC

 

[Tshering22]

I think 300 kms is hardly a good enough range for a nuke-tipped missile ! You can hardly make a deep strike inside hostile territory with this range, it needs to be atleast 800-1000 kms.

Dude, Pakistan isn't exactly China for us to take that sort of distance into consideration. The Jamnagar base in Gujarat for example can wield these fighters and launch hell via Karachi and Gwadar which would mean a death blow to their supply line and also crumbling their financial capital with nuclear strikes. anything to do with 800-1,000 KM distance with Pakistan means that there's no need to use fighters at all and simply resort to missiles.

 

[Tshering22]

I dont have any trouble with rafale, but we need to think practically it has advantages and dis advantages, any other fighter means it needs to be hidden from other fighter, needs extra support and training among other things, advantage is can super cruise, plus low radar signature compare to MKI.

range is 3700km and cost Rafale M: €70 million, US$90.5 million (flyaway cost, 2008) plus add some more millions if you want to custom made to suit the requirement of SFC

Agreed but 44 is just too less and makes our aerial component a zoo of different fighters. Therefore it has to be something similar to MMRCA or the MKIs that we have and the closest we can get for that is the SU-35s being similar to MKI.

One thing about the bold part you said wrong was that Rafale cannot supercruise; its engines are not powerful enough to even generate a Mach 2 speed-- forget supercruise. Only Typhoon, Gripen and Raptor can SC at the moment if we don't count PAKFA/FGFA and AMCA in it.

 

[sayareakd]

One thing about the bold part you said wrong was that Rafale cannot supercruise; its engines are not powerful enough to even generate a Mach 2 speed-- forget supercruise. Only Typhoon, Gripen and Raptor can SC at the moment if we don't count PAKFA/FGFA and AMCA in it.

I dont know much about fighters but here is where i read it can super cruise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_jet_fighter

It is also known that the Dassault Rafale is similarly able supercruise while carrying significant external stores.

 

[sayareakd]

another site claim

Though current Rafale variants are claimed to be capable of supercruise, the aircraft was unable to demonstrate this during the Singapore evaluation, and many sources suggest that the aircraft is only marginally capable of supercruise, with light weapons loads and under certain atmospheric conditions, though a planned engine upgrade should, according to some sources , remove this limitation and allow the Rafale to supercruise with more realistic loads at around Mach 1.4.

http://www.electronicaviation.com/aircraft/Dassault_Rafale/807

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

if the sfc wants 40 nuclear delivery platform then it should go for heavy supersonic tu-160 blackjack bomber each of which can carry 44 tons of ordnance ,an equivalent of 7-8 rafaels.

 

[mattster]

I just dont get this thread.

In this day and age, I cant imagine that any country with nuclear weapons is going to want to load a heavy bomb on a fighter and try to penetrate hundreds/thousands of miles enemy air defenses to deliver a nuke. If that is a strategic doctrine...thats just nuts !

If your strategic nuclear deterrence cannot depend on its ballistic missiles or SLBMs, then I would suggest that you really dont have one.
I mean we are not talking about 1945 anymore. if the Agnis and the Prithvis cant do the job reliably; then I think India's position is very weak.

 

[ahmedsid]

^^ Ahmed, the RAC promotes Su-35BMs as "swing role" fighter jets, meaning that they're fully multirole for both air and land operations. Their prime role is air superiority but due to modern battlefield requirements, they can carry both air and ground based ordinance. Su-34 is a plain ground attack fighter which means that it will need a fighter escort of some sort to keep the enemy air threats at bay. Su-35s on the other hand can carry nuclear weapons at the same time carry standoff AAMs to make sure that nothing obstructs their objective.

I know, Its Multirole, even our MKI does the same kinda stuff. But you would need a dedicated fighter with more bomber characterstics, than fighter! And, Mirages on bombing runs are escorted by Migs. I dont expect bombers to go alone, there has to be a safety net.

Lastly, the chance of using planes as nuke trucks is not that much needed. Missiles are there! They are safer!

 

[slenke]

I'd spend the money on improving the Agnis and Prithvis, if they indeed are "unreliable".

 

[Tshering22]

^^ I think that this is simply a eye-wash for something secretive that IAF has in its mind. Like a secret squadron of dedicated fighters. I might sound all James Bond-ish but I am sure that ACM Naik knows more than very well that IRBMS and SRBMs can easily squash Pakistan out of this map. Then why would additional fighters be needed and under what pretext when already IAF is equipping itself?

There's more to it than shown guys.

 

[ahmedsid]

^^ I think that this is simply a eye-wash for something secretive that IAF has in its mind. Like a secret squadron of dedicated fighters. I might sound all James Bond-ish but I am sure that ACM Naik knows more than very well that IRBMS and SRBMs can easily squash Pakistan out of this map. Then why would additional fighters be needed and under what pretext when already IAF is equipping itself?

There's more to it than shown guys.

Actually a 300KM Nuclear Cruise Missile carried on a Fighter Jet (Like Brahmos) can be used to used to deliver a battlefield nuke. The French have such a missile which is 300KM and is carried on the Rafale and Mirages. Its not for flattening cities, but for telling the enemy, the Nuclear Thresh hold has been breached, and this is a Warning shot, we have the big boys fueled up, so buzz off!

 

[slenke]

Actually a 300KM Nuclear Cruise Missile carried on a Fighter Jet (Like Brahmos) can be used to used to deliver a battlefield nuke. The French have such a missile which is 300KM and is carried on the Rafale and Mirages. Its not for flattening cities, but for telling the enemy, the Nuclear Thresh hold has been breached, and this is a Warning shot, we have the big boys fueled up, so buzz off!

But that only works with an enemy that lacks nukes. Try to give China a" warning shot" and see what happens..

Anyway, you could just as well use a ballistic missile to giva a "warning shot".

 

[Vladimir79]

I think 300 kms is hardly a good enough range for a nuke-tipped missile ! You can hardly make a deep strike inside hostile territory with this range, it needs to be atleast 800-1000 kms.

Good enough to blast the Three Gorges. You don't need to nuke any more than that.