The issue with Naval Typhoon with TVN and CFT is that it would be quite a risky design in the sense that there is not many experiences of operating such a config in a naval environment. That would be a first.

The concept might sound nice on paper but I bet that any development would encounter several hard points.

I would not feel very comfortable landing on a ship at post/pre-stall speed relying on FCS and TVC. You better have a very very reliable TVC because the slightest error would fatal.

Does such a config can withstand the harsh environment of an aircraft carrier in a salty atmosphere with repeated use without reliability/maintenance cost issues remains to be proven.

Following this TVC concept is certainly a risky, costly and unproven path that might appear to be incompatible with an operational use for safety or costs reason also the concept could work in theory.

Also usage of CFT would be recommended on a casual basis to have enough range which will affect Typhoon performance which was incidentally one of its main argument.

The 800H hot part service life is certainly inaccurate. First one would need actualized figures as a 2001 article is hardly relevant now 11 years latter, secondly EJ2000 and M88 are roughly of the same generation and technology, such a disparity is suspect. Thirdly those limits are rather arbitrary and can very as the engine mature and more knowledge is gained. So I will make the same remark as you did : we don’t have precise/recent figures.

As for the M88-4E is almost a complete new engine. It has underwent a full sery of flight test + ground based testing. It is not just a simple “optimization”. I understand that we don’t have precise figures just that you can reasonnably expect that in ten years some significant progress has been achieved regarding hot part life span.

Some times ago a engineer from Dassault was asked about the feasibility of navalizing the Typhoon in an intervie. Here is his answer :

Recently, a version of the Eurofighter navalized was raised. Is it possible you think because this aircraft was not designed for this in origin?

The Eurofighter is suffering from major handicaps for a navalisation: First large reinforcements of the structure (fuselage and wing) are needed to collect the shocks to the landing and catapult. The works, colossal, may need to rethink the entire architecture internal (cell development). Similarly, the landing gear must be strengthened … Having been completely redesigned because it is currently under sized (too small wheels), on short leg (low ground clearance) and poorly implemented (including nose wheel set in inlets, so in a hollow structure that does not resist the efforts of the catapult and landing). Moreover, the approach speed of the Eurofighter is high. Finally, visibility to the impact of landing is low because of the “canards” on the nose.
After that, we can always say that everything is possible: it’s a question of price …. For information, Dassault Aviation had made a theoretical study on a navalisation Mirage 2000, a few years ago: the conclusion was to change 80% of the aircraft

each aircraft has a different design philosophy/emphasis : multirole vs air superiority.

almost 30 years after preliminary studies what is the conclusion when you look at what type of conflict were actually fought ?

As far as I am concerned the answer is pretty clear : the rafale was the right choice as it brings much more bang and capabilities in all those regional type of conflicts. The rafale has already had more impact than the typhoon in this decade conflicts and the capability (multirole) gap is unlikely to shrunk significantly before 2018. That’s already almost 15-20 years of superiority for the rafale vs the typhoon in their respective operational career.

Unless there is a new “battle of england”/WW3 with massive BVR duels with an hypothetical enemy with equal training/technology/facilities/economical strength, the entire point with the typhoon is irrelevant. a salvo of tomahawk, storm shadows and other stand-off weapons will take care of the vulnerable airfields quickly. I can’t see a situation where the type of capability brought by the Typhoon would actually be used, especially for the NATO partner nations.

The bigger engines/nose faster etc is fine for a male population having an issue with their sexuality(:D) but the more balanced set of capability brought by the rafale is much more useful/relevant. If you leave the dreamland of fighter jet fan boys for a second and assess the actual threat and capabilities required in a conflict the rafale is the better choice.

putting aside ATLC, Corsica, Swiss evaluation and others which more than cast a doubt over typhoon alleged superiority in the AtA arena, going with a more balance platform like the rafale, SH or gripen as far as 4th gen are concerned makes more sense.

The picture can be slightly different for some export customer but for NATO nations I don’t see any realistic enemy that would need such an emphasis on BVR especially in the light of what a rafale already brings to the fight with kinetic performances only marginally under the Typhoon. I mean they are still roughly in the same league and any difference can be balanced by other qualities (sensor fusion, SA, EW lower RCS etc…)

anyway that’s my opinion and that hasn’t changed for years.

Majority of air to ground missions consist of PGM and dumb bomb delivery.

Also, while some European air forces might find ‘strategic reach’ an immediate requirement, the IAF will have a fleet of 200+ long range Sukhois before the first MRCA is delivered, just like the RAF and Luftwaffe have their Tornados.

Like them, it can afford to wait till the second half of the decade for CFTs, for long ranged cruise missile delivery.

The first two squadrons for example will be deployed at Ambala, which is approximately 175km from both international borders with China and Pakistan. That’s five minutes flight time with some use of afterburners.

That’s only your opinion and I doubt that India is keen investing 20 billion $ in an aircraft that can still not hit sensitive targets without being at risk due to SAM.

Besides you could make the argument that with a bigger nose than the Typhoon the SU-30 mki is a more potent BVR platform…And following your logic BVR missiles use are not the majority of the missions so the IAF does not need an “immediate BVR” platform…

Your reasoning does not make any sense.

India is ready to invest around 20 billion for a new jet why would they not value strategic reach or BVR capability? Especially when the rafale is certainly much more survivable and capable in deep strike missions than a SU-30 with its integrated multi-sensor suite, Spectra EW and stand-off weapons…A salvo of 6 AASM fired outside SAM envelop is formidable standoff firepower which comes at a much more affordable price than cruise missiles.

Fact is with no clear roadmap toward full multirole capability and AESA radar the Typhoon option seems less credible than the rafale. And as for the Captor-E I repeat that India might have done some credit to the program so that the Typhoon could be shortlisted but that was provided the Captor-E development would not stay at the same point than a year ago! That’s why I believe time is playing against it as it is more and more obvious that partner nation are waiting India for the funding.

I’ll repeat what I said before. There is no naval angle to this deal.

The Indian Navy doesn’t see itself as subservient to the IAF’s interests or choices. For its primary fleet defence fighter to 2045, it is inevitable that it will look for a fifth generation aircraft.

UK and Germany have nuclear technology and ELINT assets as well, but you’re not likely see any sharing to be done there. Or else, the US would have run away with deal – its electronic data-banks are in all likelihood, unparalleled in the world.

I’ll also repeat what I’ve said before: a rafale choice opens realistic strategic opportunities of operating the same aircraft than the IN. The RFI was not innocent nor the fact that rafale competitors came with navalized variant of their aircrafts.

As for nuclear partnership only France as such a facility like Megajoul which will allow india to keep a credible nuclear deterrence in the year to come without having to test underground nuclear bombs. Even the UK will test their nuclear arsenal in this facility after the defense treaty between the two countries. Beside If I am not mistaken UK military technology is mostly US.

As for Ellint asset if you don’t have Elint satellites to map and update Pakistani or Chinese SAM sites and radars you will not be very helpful. France and India have signed a defense treaty and I see no valuable reasons that would endanger France national security if they share these Pakistanis and Chinese datas with India.

The point about the fiasco in the UAE, and what made it a fiasco for Rafale is that the customer made it clear that it needed extra capabilities, and was then mocked for doing so, and then found that in order to get these capabilities (many of which were pretty basic and core), it would have to pay the entire bill itself. As if that were not enough, pretty well the most francophile senior Royal in the GCC turned around and labelled the deal unworkable and uncompetitive.

The day that EF GmbH turn around and tell Oman that they will have to fund the integration of a helmet, and to get sufficient thrust, etc., and the day that Qaboos turns around and publicly labels the deal “unworkable and uncompetitive”, then you can compare the Omani Typhoon saga with the UAE Rafale fiasco.

I know some recent fiasco for the Typhoon…

-It lost to the rafale in switzerland in the technical evaluation even in the AtA role. That alone totally contradicts your spin. Normally according to you the Typhoon should have been head and shoulders above the rafale…And if we literally follow your logic the rafale should not have even been shortlisted in India. Two facts that are a real slap across the face of your spin.

-Then I know one country that did not believe Typhoon marketing spin about its ability to defeat effectively stealth: Japan who recognized F35 “overwhelming advantage” of stealth.

-I know two Middle East countries that thought that buying more F16 and more F15 were a priority over the Typhoon…If it was such a game changer why would they wait ?

There is no question that Typhoon bigger radar and TW ratio are good assets for the Typhoon but that’s not the entire picture. The fact that Typhoon fails to establish any supremacy (exercises, technical evaluations) in its intended role is a good indicator.

And according to you there is always an excuse for the typhoon while you are quick to criticize the rafale.

Anyway the technical evaluation is already done in India so this debate is beside the point in the MMRCA thread…So your arguments are not only contradicted by facts they are of little value at this stage of the competition.

As far as “risks” are concerned:

Fact is with not a single CAPTOR AESA prototype being tested and no clear go-ahead was given a part a very thin financial envelop. Anyone with some critical sense will normally call into question the 2015 time line. IAF might have done some credit due to the CAESAR experience but now time is clearly playing against the Typhoon. The more we wait the more conspicuous this lack of funding is.

Full multirole development is also very worrying…neither a single significant milestone achieved nor a clear roadmap to reach that capability have been awarded. It will need more than gravity bombs to be able to tackle the full range of tactical missions and justify its price. CFTs are also mandatory to gain any strategic reach which is a minimum given Typhoon size and price.

Then Partner nations are rushing to diminish their own commitments and Germany is even eager to sell its own aircrafts. Not a very appealing partnership to join especially when there are already four partners.

So clearly the Typhoon is a more risky option than the rafale.

Besides the rafale being a smaller aircraft with smaller newer engines, a smaller fixed radar, a fixed probe, fixed intakes and no dorsal break the rafale should be normally cheaper to operate over its operational life.

Add the synergies with the mirage 2000 upgraded fleet; the potential option to operate a common aircraft with the Indian Navy and the rafale offer seems clearly to have an edge. Not to mention nuclear cooperation (Megajoul facility and Elint cooperation thanks to France spy satellites).

On politics France is more “readable” than a consortium of nations especially with a good record of supplying Indian armed forces during the Kargil conflict.

But there is one area where I rekon the Typhoon should have an edge: offsets as EADS and BAE have more “reach” than the rafale team. In my opinion it is Typhoon best card to play.

Not really. Remember when India selected the engine for the Tejas? So many thought the Super Hornet was going to be the winner for the MMRCA. No way it was going to lose now (then)…

Indeed, nobody say that the rafale will win for sure. As far as I am concerned I am reasonably confident (not in excess) but I will not dare to say I am certain the rafale will win. But at this stage of the mirage 2000 upgrade deal and weapon deal is a “plus” on cannot discount. Especially when approved by Indian Prime minister.

Besides I don’t remeber if I already posted the info I read in A&C about the mirage 2000 upgrade :

-It will share many common electronics with the rafale starting with the same main processor and gyro-navigation systems.

-It will have an ICMS mk4 EW suite the most advanced in service with any mirage 2000

-It will have an RDY-3 radar even more capable than the UAE one. It seems that the RDY-3 does not refer to the smaller variant of the RDY-2 marketed but an updated RDY-2.

I am used to your usual spin,

If it was deemed unsuited in terms of raw performance TW ratio or radar size then it would not have made the downselect : as simple as that. It would also not be so high ranked in the swiss evaluation especially for the AtA role if it were real issues. I firmly believe that those alleged weaknesses are “myth”…certainly the Typhoon is better in these specific aeras but that does not make the rafale “lacking” in those aeras.

talk about risk ?

-There is not a single CAPTOR-E prototype flying nor being tested in lab and we are in 2012…
-I can’t see any meaningfull milestones achieved or a firm/signed commitment toward a full multirole Typhoon
-I can see that partner nations are rushing to diminish their commitments thanks to exports and that some are willing to sell their own aircrafts
-Without CFT the Typhoon will not even have the proper range to achieve strategic mission with heavy loads.

With the Typhoon partnership it is : “come pay the upgrades that I am unwilling to pay and buy us aircrafts so that we can cut our orders” Not a very appealing partnership.

As for the rafale further required developments should come with just the fraction of the required huge investment necessary for the Typhoon.

AASM & Brimstones

AASM vs Brimstone : two great weapons but from a completely different category and purpose. AASM was just as worthy as the brimstone if not more.

Brimstone good for low value targets : tanks, pick-ups truck…
AASM good for high value targets : SAM sites, munition depot, strategic facilities etc..

ideal is to have both, but as you have perhaps noticed the AASM is under consideration for India…Not the brimstone…At least for the moment. The point was it is another incentive for the rafale.

As for dealing with Dassault in India :

Well a source close to idrw.org from Indian air force ,puts some thought into the whole upgrade dilemma which Indian air force had to go through ,it all begun at the start of the decade when Indian air force and French air force were having air exercise over Gwalior ,where IAF pitched their Mirage-2000H against French Mirage-2000-V .

Air exercise led to discovery of short fall of the BVR (Beyond visual range) limitation on the current fleet of Mirage 2000’s operated by the Indian air force against highly upgraded French Mirage 2000-V fleet .

Process and recommendation for advancing and upgrading Mirage-2000H fleet was taken. French price was too high and still is, Israel Aircraft Industries which had made illegal copies of Mirage-V jets known has “Kfir “ ,had proposed a Israeli avionics upgrade package ,which IAF found not much to their interest .

Source told idrw.org, that good serviceability of the aircraft and high mission availability of the Mirage-2000 in IAF fleet has lead to go with the French upgrade package, Mirage 2000 in last two decade in IAF fleet was the best weapons delivery aircraft and had an enviable safety record, and even Su-30MKI doesn’t have such a distinguished record.

Mirage-2000H was the best aircraft in the IAF Fleet, when Kargil War happened , even do IAF had a small fleet of Su-30K at that time , but it was not used in high Mountain warfare in Kargil ,since Su-30K were more of a air superiority fighter aircraft ,based on Su-27 airframe which lacked Ground attack capability ,until Su-30MKI joined IAF in 2001 .

Dassault Aviation which is the OEM of the Mirage-2000 was not able to reduce the cost, since the production line for the Mirage-2000 had already been closed, and all the upgrade packages for converting Mirage-2000 to Dash V standard, had all ready been carried out by French air force by the time negotiation for IAF fleet came out.

Other factors which might have worked in favour for the French aircraft manufacture. Dassault Aviation was superior after sales support and good supply chain of spares for the fleet in IAF, which when compared to Russian jets was far better. IAF also wanted to keep one of its most trusted fighter aircraft in good shape to meet future challenges ,which IAF might have to face in future conflicts