Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[SQ8]

...The key factor here is maneuverability, not acceleration[/COLOR][/B]. .

Maneuverability will only get you so far, the current crop of 5th gen heatseekers ensures that even a quick snapshot gets a kill.
The need to come to 6'0'clock is gone.
Most engagements of the future will be slash and dash.. fire a missile.. and get out of there before somebody else takes a shot at you.

 

[SpArK]

 

[SpArK]

AESA of the F-16IN..

A nice informational video of AESA radars in general.​

YouTube - AESA Radar Capabilities

 

[rockstarIN]

j) It is reportedly the only aircraft to have cleared the Leh trails..

Any further news about it?

 

[SpArK]

j) It is reportedly the only aircraft to have cleared the Leh trails..

Any further news about it?

Livefist - Indian Defence & Aerospace: FLASH! Gripen Demo Clears Leh Trials!

Livefist - Indian Defence & Aerospace: Four MMRCA Contenders Fail Leh Trials!

 

[Dash]

Guys, we are all forgetting one thing here...Not you Sancho-).

the competition is named medium "Multirole" combat aircraft.

Let me stress on that multirole part....you will come to know what is the base requirement of IAF.

1.An aircraft which will perform all roles of a fighter.
2.A fighter which will eliminate buying and maintain several different types of aircraft in our inventory, like interceptors, point defence fighters, deep strike fighters and bombers.

My analysis on this and a small reason for myself to see which fighter would be running at the front.
To point number 1 - Lets see which are the multirole fighters we have in MRCA
a. Rafale (design itself is multirole)
b. F-18 (designed as a carrier fighter and largly an A2G fighter)
c. EFT - "Designed" as Air superiority fighter
d. F-16- Multirole fighter and a good one but aging, 80s airframe design and "Operated by adversaries"
e. Gripen - good multirole fighter, common understanding is its a cheap fighter but not a very cheap fighter compared to f-18,f-16 too....but good multirole fighter.

So we have here multirole fighters left out from the above analysis is Rafale and Gripen and not F-18.
Now let me remind you..is GE-F414 engine has given F-18 a better chance to win this ccompetition, equal chances are also for Gripen, and its a better multirole fighter than F-18, with better T/W, supercruise, which the F-18 doesnt have, and Meteor....supercruise and meteor are 2 big plus points. mostly supercruise coz that saves a "LOT" of fuel giving more time to pilots and airforce to TRAIN and OPERATE and do survellience.

So I would say, Gripen could be ahead of F-18 in this competion.

Coming to Rafale - It has good A2A capability, good A2G with Spectra EWS and some reports suggest that Rafale supercruises but not yet officialy acknowledged. However this is a fighter where upgrades are lined up. though a little underpowered by 2 75 ton engines but it has maintained better T/W ratio, so being underpowred doesnt matter.

On top of that, IAF has ruled out any linkage of LCA's engine selection to MRCA so Rafale could be running itself.

Now for an example if buying Fighter A, whicch couldd be expensive, but we can replacee all of our fighters, where we spend $billions every year on maintainance, parts problems, flight hours with pilot deaths, gives a logical reason to IAF and MOD to buy fighter A.

and lets say by buying Fighter B, if IAF can only replace 50% of its current fleet, then even though its cheap its not ideal. and Eurofighter does just that IAF!!!.

and Rafale and Gripen.........they just do the opposite to what EFT does. though one is expensive and other one is cheap, but they can replace all the fighters we have now except Sukhois and Mirages, by being multirole.

 

[foxbat]

^ and dont forget that Rafale is the next gen of Mirage 2000, which was the original choice of the IAF for which this MRCA deal was initiated..

 

[luckyyy]

...................................................................................................

 

[Dash]

Luckyy - I dont understand as to where this theory is coming from and why the website has written something like this...

before I could post my comments...

Is there anyone here who belives this?

IAF looking for an aircratf which can act as a anti missile battery situated in air to kill the incoming cruse missiles ...

Anyone who has some info on this?

 

[soaringphnx]

You've ignored an important element of flight and that is lift. The below graphic explains the basic principles of flight.

For the sake of simplicity lets assume straight level flight. Four forces act upon an aircraft in flight, thrust is balanced by drag and weight by lift produced by the wing. The aircraft will move in the direction of greater imbalance. If weight is greater than the lift produced by the wings the aircraft will descend, if drag is greater than thrust the aircraft will not move forward as a consequence the wing will cease to provide lift and the aircraft will descend.


In the vertical (the aircraft is climbing vertically) the aircraft becomes a rocket the wing does not produce lift, so both the weight and drag must be overcome by engine thrust. Here thrust to weight ratio > 1 will allow the engine to propel the aircraft by overcoming the force of gravity and drag.

It's true I forgot to mention drag, but all aircraft are affected (though not equally) by this. However, I fail to understand why you are deviating the discussion to lift. So your point is the F-18SH can go up like a rocket and the Rafale can't??

 

[indushek]

Luckyy - I dont understand as to where this theory is coming from and why the website has written something like this...

before I could post my comments...

Is there anyone here who belives this?



Anyone who has some info on this?

May be luckky has posted an over hyped assessment but i think he has a point there u know. Aesa radar is something we would love to get our hands on. I know the discussions about American strings etc but i think may be the Americans can get this u know. May be i could be wrong. Who knows??

 

[soaringphnx]

Maneuverability will only get you so far, the current crop of 5th gen heatseekers ensures that even a quick snapshot gets a kill.
The need to come to 6'0'clock is gone.
Most engagements of the future will be slash and dash.. fire a missile.. and get out of there before somebody else takes a shot at you.

I was not referring to air-to-air engagements in general. I only posted that because DBC said thrust-to-weight weight ratio was not important in a dogfight and acceleration is the deciding factor in "all dogfights". I just said maneuverability is a key factor in turning fights - I didn't even say all dogfights because there are other ways to dogfight like a rolling scissors, a climbing fight, in fact there are almost limitless dogfight scenarios. Moreover, MRCA will not be 5th gen, so there is no need of mentioning them here.

 

[kish]

You've ignored an important element of flight and that is lift. The below graphic explains the basic principles of flight.

For the sake of simplicity lets assume straight level flight. Four forces act upon an aircraft in flight, thrust is balanced by drag and weight by lift produced by the wing. The aircraft will move in the direction of greater imbalance. If weight is greater than the lift produced by the wings the aircraft will descend, if drag is greater than thrust the aircraft will not move forward as a consequence the wing will cease to provide lift and the aircraft will descend.


In the vertical (the aircraft is climbing vertically) the aircraft becomes a rocket the wing does not produce lift, so both the weight and drag must be overcome by engine thrust. Here thrust to weight ratio > 1 will allow the engine to propel the aircraft by overcoming the force of gravity and drag.

i dont know much about aerodynamic
but these are 4 forces


weight - > lower will be better
thrust - > more will be better

now i will count lift and drag
does it is a natural force, [here i mean it depend on other forces]
if i m not wrong ... lift depend on these factor
1- design of aircraft - (like canard, wing design and other aerodynamics factor)


2- thrust - more will be better ...( now for two same aircraft more thrust more lift also more resistance)


3 weight - lower will be better .. lower the weigh better lift and other resistive force will b


now here we see again aircraft performance depend on

design
thrust
weight

by d way DBC .. ur link a bout NASA was very informative

not much on lift and drag (as these factor exist and depend only on these three factor)


avionics is a other important part and no one cant neglect it .. can any one compare rafale and SH and Growler

 

[softtec]

Hi Sancho..Thanks for such a big effort and research u made.

A very good analysis.I have actually knew and agreed almost everything in specifications u mentioned.But u missed some of my basic points fully.I have not compare both spec by spec.But what will be the perfect for indian MMRCA selection(looking for the money and time constraint also).

I would like to say I like Rafale so much(because its really good in all areas).Given a chance I would like Rafale for MMRCA with SH upgraded radars and engines!!

Here are my comments :

1)As u also mentioned in A to G SH is the best and proven and Rafale is the nearest.As u also know IAF looking to use MMRCA for more of strike fighter role.Leaving aside PAK-FA and mki to A to A role.So it should be the most important factor for MMRCA selection.

2) Rafale with its greater TW ratio has greater aero-dynamic performance.It will have advantage in wvr over SH surely.But look ..IAF not facing Rafale or typhoon.Let the mki and pak-fa handle it.

3)For VBR SH will have (at least for coming decade) advantage over Rafale.why? I dont know from where u got SH RCS figure. Everywhere I read, SH has lesser RCS.It will be very hard to say who has lesser RCS Rafale or SH(F16 has bigger RCS).Even if Rafale has lesser RCS then how much?..It will be very close to ignore.But with upgraded features SH will catch or surpass Rafale surely.

Now see..How much advantage the upgraded SH radar over Rafale radar.I think its much. Here comes the catch..u have almost near RCS figure but big difference in radar capability.You know who will be winning(we can use logic rather than looking for publicity articles).

4) Now as u know SH is cheaper with limited(as much IAF wants) TOT.The already costlier Rafale will cost more with source codes. Do we need source code??Do you know why would IAF need source code spending extra money?

IAF not looking for source code to develop its own radar.Neither france will give us anything core codes to replicate.Parallel process going on for this.

Unlike costlier Rafale armaments, IAF will get all types of arms from US itself.Why they would want HAL to master the complex codes and makes mistakes instead of asking the Boeing itself?

Now this is more important:
5)We need to make it sure all MMRCA should be delivered in time(by 2020) and in the same price.Unfortunately for me France has lost the credibility for handling big orders for both of these terms.Who will take responsibility if we have to pay more for already costlier Rafale ? What about time?Boeing and all US vendors with their work experience of handling huge orders smoothly will be miles ahead(I mean it) of already low credibility france vendors handling limited Rafale production.This is the most crucial.

And IAF wouldn't like next upgrade of MMRCA would cost more than its 5th gen fighters.

I think for all these big advantages we can select SH for MMRCA and let Rafale stay superior in certain A to A areas.For me SH is more than sufficient in asian environment.Now let them come faster...

 

[rockstarIN]

The only and most critical disadvantage of SH is it is American.

Are we big enough to make this dis advantage to an advantage in the coming "Asia century"?