What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is something lacking in the SH that makes IAF not want it? I mean by facts SH is more reliable, capable, and overall better aircraft than EF. And i seriously doubt the yanks will sanction us again. ToT should not be concerned because IAF does not expect 100% ToT from any contender. Just enough so that we get experience and so that the offset match our needs. GE F414 will be perfect fot Mk 2 tejas. SH can do more than just replace our mig-27s and JAGUARS. If needed we couls turn few of them into air superiority fighters. Su-30MKI+ F/A-18 e/f will insure that any threat from j-10, j-11, F-16 will be dealt with.
 
EF was designed to be an air superiority fighter and it is known to be excellent in this field, but people often mistake the better multi role capabilities of Rafale, with beeing inferior in A2A, which is not the case like exercises against the EF showed as well.
Rafale offers exactly what we need, a versatile multi role fighter with a balanced A2A and A2G performance between MKI and LCA.

Oke i have a simple question.. which is tough? A fighter with A2A or A2G ?.... I guess being a air superiority is very vital... if we attain air superiority then A2G can be taken care with EW-POD or LITENING targeting pod ... Yeah it takes off one precious hard point... As far SAM or SEAD operation .. i am not sure MMRCA will be employed into that role... because MKI will do the job better.... with MKI capable of doing all the roles effectively .... i dont think we need an MMRCA ... it currently lacks some good thrust and an AESA... not sure what is there in super upgrade.... but the current upgrade is making it all rounder....

Novotar , Brahmos , Kh, Astra, Nirbhay .. name a weapon type it can be loaded on MKI...

with MKI in good numbers and need for projecting MMRCA ... i think we should go for less cost effective solution ... May be NG or Mig - 35 .. i think that will be able to do defend the enemies effectively... as airforce havent rejected any player so far... may be try NG with full ToT ....


this MMRCA drama has become like a soap serial... dont know whether they will finish this year ... MoD select one god damn aircraft...


b.t.w please explaing wing loading?? is it the load w.r.t to hard point?
 
put it infront of MIG-35...

also the carnegie report didn't consider mig-35, was that delibrate ...

I took only those fighters that really has a chance to win this competition. It does, page 79 onwards however, I don't pay too much attention on the analysis of the fighters, because that part of the report is not very accurate. When you compare the part of the operational requirements, it's should be obvious why where the Mig does not fit.


Is something lacking in the SH that makes IAF not want it? I mean by facts SH is more reliable, capable, and overall better aircraft than EF. And i seriously doubt the yanks will sanction us again. ToT should not be concerned because IAF does not expect 100% ToT from any contender. Just enough so that we get experience and so that the offset match our needs. GE F414 will be perfect fot Mk 2 tejas. SH can do more than just replace our mig-27s and JAGUARS. If needed we couls turn few of them into air superiority fighters. Su-30MKI+ F/A-18 e/f will insure that any threat from j-10, j-11, F-16 will be dealt with.


There is no official report about a preference of IAF, however in A2A the EF is clearly superior to the F18SH and offers higher ToT and even a partnership. In the A2G area instead, the SH is clearly superior again. Both are exactly on the opposite sites in terms of capabilities, while Rafale fits perfectly in between.
 
Last edited:
Oke i have a simple question.. which is tough? A fighter with A2A or A2G ?

Not sure what exactly you mean by that? :undecided:

Please try to understand that's it's not the unit costs that counts in this competitions, but the cheapest costs for the most suited fighter, the most beneficial ToT, as much offsets and strategic, or political advantages. Both, the Mig and the Gripen are not the right choices here, but at least the latter might have some chances to be shortlisted though.


b.t.w please explaing wing loading?? is it the load w.r.t to hard point?

In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing.[1] The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading. Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability...

Wing loading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Oke i have a simple question.. which is tough? A fighter with A2A or A2G ?....

To understand that we have to have to get to mission requirements. Aircraft fight in formations. In a deep strike role airsuperiority aircrafts and accompanied by ground attack aircrafts.

While the airsuperiority fighters will defend the ground attack aircrafts from enemey fighters, and ground attack will bomb the targets.

Both are equally important, but again it depends on mission requirements.

However some aircrafts are good in airsuperiority and some in ground attack. So means to say they are not versatile. As of now EF/F-18 are not a very versatile aircraft.

So for one mission you have to send two different aircrafts. This is a challenge too.
 
The are some here that have a juvenile fascination with TWR (thrust to weight ratio) and make repeated erroneous claims and assumption based on just one measure.

Four forces act upon an aircraft in flight these are:
1. Lift
2. Weight
3. Thrust
4. Drag

Depending on an aircraft's orientation in flight relative to ground these forces interact to influence the aircraft’s aerodynamic efficiency. Under cruise conditions or straight level flight the lift produced by the wing is equal to weight and thrust is equal to drag. Simplified, this mean that the weight of the aircraft has little influence on the aircrafts ability to accelerate. Acceleration then largely depends on the engine generating enough thrust to overcome drag.

ldrat.gif


Because lift and drag are both aerodynamic forces, the ratio of lift to drag is an indication of the aerodynamic efficiency of the airplane. Aerodynamicists call the lift to drag ratio the L/D ratio, pronounced "L over D ratio." An airplane has a high L/D ratio if it produces a large amount of lift or a small amount of drag. Under cruise conditions lift is equal to weight. A high lift aircraft can carry a large payload. Under cruise conditions thrust is equal to drag. A low drag aircraft requires low thrust. Thrust is produced by burning a fuel and a low thrust aircraft requires small amounts of fuel be burned. As discussed on the maximum flight time page, low fuel usage allows an aircraft to stay aloft for a long time, and that means the aircraft can fly long range missions. So an aircraft with a high L/D ratio can carry a large payload, for a long time, over a long distance. For glider aircraft with no engines, a high L/D ratio again produces a long range aircraft by reducing the steady state glide angle at which the glider descends.

This is why the L over D ratio (lift over drag) is a better measure of an aircraft’s aerodynamic efficiency than thrust to weight ratio, thrust to weight ratio (TWR ) greater than ONE implies the aircraft is able to overcome gravity in a vertical climb perpendicular to ground. Of course, any aircraft that attempts to go vertical at zero air speed will end up on the ground a$$ first, the aircraft will likely need the TWR of a rocket typically 100 times its own weight to perform such a fete.

L/D Ratio

The F/A-18 E/F has the best L/D ratio of all the aircrafts in US inventory it even surpasses the F-22 Raptor. Does this exceptional L/D score make the F/A-18 E/F the king of the hill? No! but the folks that are fixated on thrust to weight ratio and make claims of superior aerodynamic performance based on TWR >1 have no understanding of the basic principles of flight.

Here is video showing some of the substantial contribution that NASA has made to the F/A-18 program. When approached to help with a wing stall problem NASA came up with an ingenious solution - the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW). The AAW wing not only reduces aerodynamic drag but it substantial increase control authority through the flight envelope.

ASTT Annual Progress Report
The Navy asked an independent group of experts to review efforts to resolve the F/A-18E/F wing drop problem. Based on the group's recommendations, Langley has proposed a project intended to rectify this national shortcoming in understanding, predicting, and alleviating the abrupt wing stall at transonic maneuver conditions. This research will be applicable to the F/A-18E/F configuration, as well as to other high-performance military aircraft concepts.



A solution to the "wing drop" phenomenon permitted the Navy to authorize a low-rate initial production of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft


Twisting Wings for Better Performance



The F-18 wing was modified (inset) to increase its flexibility for control of the wing shape during flight.

Dryden's Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) program, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio and Boeing Phantom Works in St. Louis, Missouri, is researching technology that uses active leading-edge and trailing-edge control surfaces to warp an aircraft's wing. A preliminary design of AAW wing modifications and flight control software and hardware have been completed.

The program's goal is to harness wing deformation to provide large control forces at high speeds. The wing deformation is done by blending structures and flight controls technologies, using traditional aircraft control surfaces such as ailerons and leading-edge flaps.

The benefits of implementing AAW technologies will be to increase roll control at high speeds and increase wing life by controlling the loads. This will result in a significant reduction in wing structural weight without reducing the wing's strength.

Dryden's F/A-18 840 will be used as the testbed for demonstrating the AAW technologies. The AAW flight research program will change the design paradigm for wing structures by making wings that are lighter and more aerodynamically efficient. As a result, aircraft designs will change toward configurations with longer, thinner wings and without horizontal tails, dramatically reducing drag and improving maneuvering performance.
YouTube - Time lapsed film of Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Wing Loads Test
 
Last edited:
So for one mission you have to send two different aircrafts. This is a challenge too.

I guess that is far more better that having one aircraft which is jack of all trades... During war it wont be efficiency that matters.. but to succeed the mission at any cost... other wise the loss in the mission is going to be multiple times more worst than mission cost... If you have master in the specific area it is always an advantage...

As far Kargil this is how we have fought.. I believe dividing the work will be more better than burdening a single one... i believe that is how it is still exist in all superpower inventory.. (e.g.) F-22 control the sky and F-35 take over latter..
 
Not sure what exactly you mean by that? :undecided:

A just casual question.. Taking an air target is tough or moving ground targets?... i guess air target is more tough... So attaining Air superiority is the most vital part... For ground attacks we have bigger bombs and nuclear payloads ... so ground attacks is of easy as per my understanding...

Please try to understand that's it's not the unit costs that counts in this competitions, but the cheapest costs for the most suited fighter, the most beneficial ToT, as much offsets and strategic, or political advantages. Both, the Mig and the Gripen are not the right choices here, but at least the latter might have some chances to be shortlisted though.

Mig is fine.. but i am suprised by NG ... though NG is yet to be developed.. but it solves all the above cost...In fact they are giving 100% ToT ... so only place it lacks is the manufacturing the components... we might even set up our industry in future and will produce those components.. so the remaining thing pending is Engine... if Kaveri-eco is ready then that problem is also solved because it follows the design of GE...

Yeah accepted it is not developed.. but it is the new fighter compared to others and cost less then others... Operation cost is also less.. There are news which states that we can customize any weapon according to our needs.. which no one except Mig provides.. because weapons are equally or more important than the fighter..

Though i am not a NG supporter.. but seeing lot of twin engine fighters coming on board like AMCA, FGFA and we are retiring Mig 27 i think we should go for Single engine one because in peace time this will add more value to the inventory... Yes during war time they are more deadly with there weapons ...... dont you think NG make sense here for MMRCA.... If NG comes with conformal tanks and a good AESA (if Israel where there :P) forget it that would have been IAF choice .. that is why US pressurized Israel
 
I took only those fighters that really has a chance to win this competition. It does, page 79 onwards however, I don't pay too much attention on the analysis of the fighters, because that part of the report is not very accurate. When you compare the part of the operational requirements, it's should be obvious why where the Mig does not fit.
.

does these amarican/western ever appreciated russian systems...never.

but on the other hand , they always found making their new system to compite with the russian's...

it's only b/w advertisment and reality when comes to campare the two...

and if MoD decided to buy mig-35 , all of these people will cameup to say only that india buys russian coz it was cheap...

isn't that funny..

i am not a fan of mig-35 , but all i like is to see/read a fair camparision without baised ..
 
Last edited:
The F/A-18 E/F has the best L/D ratio of all the aircrafts in US inventory it even surpasses the F-22 Raptor. Does this exceptional L/D score make the F/A-18 E/F the king of the hill? No! but the folks that are fixated on thrust to weight ratio and make claims of superior aerodynamic performance based on TWR >1 have no understanding of the basic principles of flight.

Here is video showing some of the substantial contribution that NASA has made to the F/A-18 program. When approached to help with a wing stall problem NASA came up with an ingenious solution - the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW). The AAW wing not only reduces aerodynamic drag but it substantial increase control authority through the flight envelope.

it don't matte what F-18/16 are capable of , but what has been offered..

Sources said the modified bids would allow the U.S. jets to offer better radar range and electronic-warfare performance. U.S. contractors are prohibited from promising any more capabilities than what the government allows them to release.

Indian officials, however, realize U.S. systems have greater capabilities than what is being officially offered, and want the bar raised.
in contrast, European MMRCA competitors have pledged to fully share their technologies with Indian industry

U.S. May Sweeten Indian Jet Bid - Defense News
 
Mig is fine.. but i am suprised by NG ... though NG is yet to be developed.. but it solves all the above cost...In fact they are giving 100% ToT ... so only place it lacks is the manufacturing the components... we might even set up our industry in future and will produce those components.. so the remaining thing pending is Engine... if Kaveri-eco is ready then that problem is also solved because it follows the design of GE...

Yeah accepted it is not developed.. but it is the new fighter compared to others and cost less then others... Operation cost is also less.. There are news which states that we can customize any weapon according to our needs.. which no one except Mig provides.. because weapons are equally or more important than the fighter..

Though i am not a NG supporter.. but seeing lot of twin engine fighters coming on board like AMCA, FGFA and we are retiring Mig 27 i think we should go for Single engine one because in peace time this will add more value to the inventory... Yes during war time they are more deadly with there weapons ...... dont you think NG make sense here for MMRCA.... If NG comes with conformal tanks and a good AESA (if Israel where there :P) forget it that would have been IAF choice .. that is why US pressurized Israel

considerig the fact the next 4-5 years , DRDO will be developing a new engine and AESA radar in JV , Gripen looks good ,
but the problum is , what next..?
i mean does SAAB has the capabilities to keep upgrading the systems to meet new chalanges as developing such new tech would requied a huge investment ......
 
Last edited:
considerig the fact the next 4-5 years , DRDO will be developing a new engine and AESA radar in JV , Gripen looks good ,
but the problum is , what next..?
i mean does SAAB has the capabilities to keep upgrading the systems to meet new chalanges as developing such new tech would requied a huge investment ......

If we get 100% ToT, is it not possible for us to do the upgradation with the help of SAAB?... If we assume what is "next" ? every European contenders will face the same problem ... because the next technology they have to opt for is stealth while the current technology like IRST,AESA, FBL, changes to EW and engines are the major one where they can work... and which European has the capability right now or in another decade or two will work futuristic technologies or stealth?... So only hope is US.... else we should be take over.... hopefully our economy performs the same way for next 2 decades....

i seriously doubt dassault capabilities after Rafael ... It will take more than 1/2 a century for them to come up with a new aircraft.. and i seriously doubt they will be able to do any major upgrades after F3 ... may be one or 2 upgrades like engine,AESA improvement and EW and that will be end of the program until they find a good customer... any customization will have the same fate as UAE....
 
A just casual question.. Taking an air target is tough or moving ground targets?... i guess air target is more tough... So attaining Air superiority is the most vital part... For ground attacks we have bigger bombs and nuclear payloads ... so ground attacks is of easy as per my understanding...


IC, now I get it, but that depends on the situation I would say as well on the capabilities of the fighter. For example, we already have a good ammount of air superiority over PAF, because of more capable fighters in higher numbers, but can we do a preemptive strikes? No, because our ground attack fighters proved even to be less usfull in such a limited conflict like Kargil. They also have very limited self defense capabilities and always needs escorts, while real multi role fighters can defend themself, even during a strike mission.
In this case the only option would be, like you pointed out, trying to get air superiority first, but even against PAF with increasing capabilities and AWACS support that won't be easy anymore and MMRCAs are meant against PLAAF. We can defend ourselfs against them, but it's doubtful that we would achieve air superiority to safely do strike missions as well and that's the point in MMRCA, when we talk about the operational capabilities.
MKI will remain the main air superiority fighter and MMRCA needs to serve alongside of it in air defense roles, but more important will be the strike component of them, because that is the field where IAF has the main problems now and needs new capabilities.


dont you think NG make sense here for MMRCA.... If NG comes with conformal tanks and a good AESA (if Israel where there :P) forget it that would have been IAF choice .. that is why US pressurized Israel

First of all, it won't get CFTs, because they purposly went with a redesign of the airframe to increase the internal fuel instead of adding CFTs.
Secondly no it's not a good choice for India, if strikes, ToT, offsets and strategic/political advantages are the keys in MMRCA, because in all these fiellds the Gripen/Saab/Sweden can't offer us what we want.
Gripen is a good fighter and cheap, but that's exactly why we have LCA for, so no need for another similar fighter. Regarding single engine, I often stated that we made a mistake by going for a light single engine fighter like LCA, instead of going for an light to medium single engine fighter like F16/J10. However, that's the reality now and the only comparable single engine fighter in MMRCA is the F16IN and that is obviously not a good choice anymore.


does these amarican/western ever appreciated russian systems...never...

...i am not a fan of mig-35 , but all i like is to see/read a fair camparision without baised ..

That's why I told you not to take the analysis of the fighters itself as reliable, the more interesting part are the possible operational requirements and you just need to look at the following part to see that the Mig is not a good choice anymore.

The operational context in Southern Asia elaborated above suggests that the MMRCA candidate selected by the IAF will have to be an utterly versatile platform that earns the title of “multi-role” precisely because that attribute will be at a premium in future subcontinental conflicts. It must be able to flexibly shift from air combat to ground attack operations during the day, night, or adverse weather because such dexterity will be essential for success in the counterair mission alone. In this context, the ideal aircraft would be one that possesses a low radar cross-section, deploys advanced sensors and self-protection suites, carries a heavy weapons load consisting of both long-range AAMs and diverse precision anti-surface weaponry, and possesses superior agility, endurance, and combat effectiveness. Since the air-to-ground role thus becomes virtually conjoint with the air-to-air requirement where the MMRCA is concerned, the six contenders should be evaluated according to their effectiveness in both missions


The Mig is a designed for A2A and has just some added A2G capabilities, just look at the difference between Mig 29SMT and Mig 35 and you will see that with AESA radar, TVC, more thrust they again added mainly A2A features. They did increased the numbers of weapon station, payload and range too, but in these fields the Mig remains to be one of the least capable in the competition (besides several other issues). That's how the Russians like it (Su 35 and Su 34), but we want multi role fighters in between (MKI, FGFA, MMRCA) and that's why the Mig is not a good choice for IAF anymore.
 
it don't matte what F-18/16 are capable of , but what has been offered..

Sources said the modified bids would allow the U.S. jets to offer better radar range and electronic-warfare performance. U.S. contractors are prohibited from promising any more capabilities than what the government allows them to release.

Indian officials, however, realize U.S. systems have greater capabilities than what is being officially offered, and want the bar raised.
in contrast, European MMRCA competitors have pledged to fully share their technologies with Indian industry

U.S. May Sweeten Indian Jet Bid - Defense News

If the US government and vendors consider the MMRCA deal strategic enough to make an exceptional offer then we will raise the bar far enough to make the Europeans irrelevant. If this does not happen then we can only assume India isn't important to the US.
 
Why the Rafale is the best suiting MMRCA fighter, according to the operational requirements pointed out in the carnegie report (post #3998):


So according to the analysis of IAF operational requirements, the wining MMRCA has to be a multi role aircraft, ...

- that is equally good in A2A and A2G roles

The aircraft took part in two missions every day. The morning mission was a fairly classic air defense exercise, while the afternoon flight involved around 30 aircraft in a Composite Air Operation (Comao) - an attack against land-based or naval targets.
In a clear demonstration of the Rafale’s multi-role capabilities, both aircraft and their crews switched easily from the attack role (simulating the use of AASM missiles) to the air defense role (with Mica missiles).

Rafale tames the tigers


- that is highly versatile to fulfill a wide range of missions
When the RAFALE programme was launched, the Armée de l’Air and the Marine Nationale (the French Air Force and the French Navy) published a joint requirement for a balanced multirole aircraft that would be able to replace seven types of combat aircraft then in use.

The new aircraft would have to be able to carry out an extremely wide range of missions:

- Air-defence / air-superiority,
- Reconnaissance,
- Close air support,
- Precision strike / interdiction with conventional weapons
(air-to-ground and anti-ship attacks),
- Nuclear strikes.

These needs were taken into account from the start of the RAFALE’s development; thus it enabled the engineers, using all the new technologies, to conceive an aircraft which goes beyond the objectives of each mission.

Versatile and better in everything, the RAFALE is truly effects multiplying.

Omnirole by design


- that has a low RCS, high maximum speed, long range sensor and weapons, as well as a sophisticated EWS for C-AISR missions

Except of the high maximum speed (which could be changed with the integration of Kaveri - Snecma engine), Rafale fulfills that all with one of the lowest RCS, long range AESA, IRST, TV and ESM sensors, Damocles and Reco NG pods, METEOR and Scalp, the longest range A2A and A2G weapons in the competition (with Taurus), as well as the SPECTRA EWS


- that will takeover the main strike role in IAF from older ground attack fighters

Rafale replaces Jaguars from French forces as well and could form an excellent combo in A2G with the MKI, similar to the Jaguar / Mig 27 combo now. The one low flying, terrain avoiding, deep penetration strikes, the other high speed and altitude long distance strikes.


- that offers advanced radars with A2G modes, LDPs, superior EWS that enable the fighter to enter the an airspace with a dense SAM threat and is able to fulfill the strike attack in the first pass over
The RBE2 air-to-ground modes include: Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) mapping; SAR mapping; Fixed Target Track (FTT); Sea Surface Search and Track While Scan; Ground Moving Target Identification and Track (GMTI/T); target acquisition and air-to-ground ranging. Terrain following and avoidance modes can be combined to generate 3-D radar maps, thus enabling full automatic terrain following flights using the radar only.

Avionics Magazine :: Serious Squall

The Rafale B309 carrying the Damocles LDP and Raffaut triple pylones seen last week at St Dizier air base.
This configuration will be used in Afghanistan during the next deployment of the French Air Force Rafale in a few month.

Rafale News: Rafale pictures of the day : Damocles and Cruzex V

The French detachment participated in at least one day strike and one night strike daily, for a period of ten days, confirming the aircraft’s complete range of capabilities and its multirole design. Operating in a dense, hostile environment, the aircraft’s systems provided pilots with a clear, precise view of the tactical situation. The multi-sensor data fusion system (RBE2 radar, Front Sector Optronic (FSO), Spectra self defense suite, Link 16 datalink) worked perfectly. Thanks to this system, the Rafale amply proved its self-defense capabilities. It experienced no losses due to air defense systems, and was often able to eliminate these threats.

http://www./first-operational-exercise-in-the-united-states-for-rafale-fighter-15885/

Source DSI n°59 (May 2010) :

Jean-Louis Promé (the French journalist who once dared to write that Typhoon was superior to Rafale in A2A) has new informations about ATLC and trainings...

Rafale flew 220 hours in 148 flights. During all the missions, they shot down 61 "enemy" fighters.
When a single Rafale launched 3 Mica and 6 AASM in 66 seconds, 2 Mica hit their targets, while all the AASM hit.
There is another missions during which 2 Rafale taking part to a SAR mission have shot down 10 enemy fighters and 6 ground targets without leaving the CAP hippodrome.


- that offers highly capable direct attack and standoff weapons, for deep penetration strike missions, but not neccesarily dedicated SEAD weapons

Paveway LGBs, AASM GPS/INS, IR and Laser PGMs (up to 50Km range, CEP 10, or even 1 m), Scalp cruise missile (up to 290Km).


- that still offers the high maneuverability that IAF requires for the A2A role

Discussed here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1454743-post4008.html


- that can offer a maritime attack capability for the future (this is also important in regard to the IN MMRCA competition)

Up to 3 x Exocet missiles, or Scalp cruise missiles, an operational carrier version is available, that is able to do the tanker role as well.


Rafale clearly fulfills all the requirements, offers the advantage of already available logistics, maintenance and supply routes, ease of training, commonality of weapons and techs to upg Mirage 2000, or even some Russian fighters, high availability and reliability, customisations, radar source codes, as well as no restrictions.
Be it IAF, IN, or even SFC, there should be no doubt about which fighter is the obvious choice for our needs!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom