+1. The air force is supposed to provide any long range refuelling requirement, since they are always going to be cheaper and better at that role given the bigger aircraft usually needed for that role in the strategic sense of the term.
But since the very purpose of carrier is to operate as close as possible from the enemy’s border, I don’t see such a requirement justifying its cost.

An Insight Into Why the IAF Picked the Rafale
Parvez Khokhar, Feb 5

[…]The Rafale will share some systems with the upgraded Mirage 2000s on order from Dassault.

The Mirage 2000 is an aircraft that served India very well during the Kargil hostilities, an aircraft that the IAF has been very happy with since its induction.

Not everyone is happy with Rafale’s selection, but the IAF is.

There are some reservations about the technical capabilities of the Rafale.

Air Cmde Parvez Khokhar (Retd.), a former IAF test pilot, addressed some of the skepticism in a mail addressed to a Yahoo Group of former Marut HF-24 pilots. I asked him if I could reproduce it on my blog and he consented.

I first met Air Cmde Khokhar when I was a young Marut pilot in Jodhpur in the late seventies. He was an ASTE (Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment) pilot at that time and would visit the Marut base periodically for compatibility trials of the aircraft with new weapons systems.

While in the IAF, Air Cmde Khokhar served in Iraq and Pakistan, commanded a fighter squadron and a forward fighter base.

He served as the Project Director of Flight Testing of the LCA before retiring in 2003. Since then he has served as an adviser to Boeing, Grob, Saab and a few other companies in the US and Europe.

The following is what Air Cmde Khokhar has to say about IAF’s choice of the Rafael, reproduced here with his permission.

I was the first pilot from the IAF to fly the Rafale in 2003. Having flown a number of the other competitors for the MMRCA deal, I can state with absolute conviction, that the IAF evaluation team has done a thoroughly professional job, which we should all be proud of.

I accompanied them for one of the evaluations. The short-listing of the EFA and Rafale also make total sense, since ether one of these ac would have added value to the IAF. Lets study the alternatives.

Unless we had a Single Engine fighter which we found suitable, shortlisting a SE with a twin engine would not require a rocket scientist to guess who the winner would have been.

The F-18 and the MiG-35, did not meet a large number of our QRs. But both are cheaper than the two ac finally listed. Adding them to the short list, would have ensured their entry into the IAF, through default.

The IAF’s short list was well considered. The L1 could have been either one, but the IAF’s selection was based only on professional criteria. Obviously, the IAF was not aware of the price tag at that time.

Kudos must also be given to the Govt for not interfering, politically, with the final selection and following a transparent selection procedure. I wish they would have done so for the selection of the Vth Gen fighter, as well.

The question that Air Cmde Khokhar raises about India decision to prematurely commit to the T-50/FGFA is worth noting.

At the end of the day it comes down to what one think is more credible. We’re all big enough to make up our own minds so, what else is there to be said.

UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Austria (could’ve easily gone the other way) and the UAE wanted a more capable version! :diablo:

Rafale was never evaluated by the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, SA and Austria. The UAE are still playing their cards and haven’t you heard the Typhoon has nil chance there. France is back in the negociations, the actual fleet of M2k are providing “multirole” capabilities including reco. They are the only country in the world to have bought a specialize version of the Mirage for that role. Last I heard reco for the Typhoon is only a “potential” and I don’t see the UAE selling their actual M2k (for which they would need France permission) then buying Typhoon when even the M2k is more… how would I put it… Versatile lol.

So let’s see they’ve dropped all their fanciful requirement and only complain on cost. Now what would they ask the Typhoon ? An operational AESA radar, integration of cruise missile, integration of anti ship missile, self reliance, longer range, reco, certainly a lower cost !

At the end of the day it comes down to facts… And even in the world of science one’s theory can be proven wrong :cool:.

PS: France wanted a more capable multi role aircraft capable to operate from their carrier, and yes I doubt Dassault who arguably think he can build the best aircraft in the world would have let the French govt. give away the leadership. So while the man certainly doesn’t lack ego, so far he did a decent job.

@ obligatory : “Everything else been equal”… And that exactly where we don’t have enough data. We can’t just look at the number of TRs and say well everything else been equal since they never are except maybe in a lab. What I know is what is publucly said, and what is publicly said is that the RBE AESA is above 1000 TRs, that it can fully employ the Meteor, and that it’s the only radar currently in operation allowing for real time generation of three-dimensional maps for terrain-following above uncharted terrain in blind conditions.

Now the science says that the AESA is supposed to offer greater range than mechanical array, and sources state the RDY-2 at about 160km. I’ll provide the link which was Air&Cosmos IIRC as soon as I find it saying that the nose of the Mirage 2000 B501 used as test bed along with a falcon had to be modified in order to fit the RBE.

So everyone can conclude whatever they want, I far as I’m concerned the Rafale may not have the longest radar’s range in the world but it’s in no way too short or suffering a serious disadvantage.

@ J-20 Hotdog : These are hardly state of the art Rafale and were not sold by Sarkozy. No western power have tried to sell fighters to China as far as I know. Beside the dauphin is just too sexy not to be exported even to China :D. There should be no embargo for beauty;).

Because the M2k isn’t a evolution of the Mirage IIIG perhaps ?:eek:
Anyway you don’t have to trust me.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir2k.html

France launched a program in the early 70s for the future combat aircraft where Dassault proposed its twin-engine Super Mirage. It was too costly and was cancelled in 1975 at which point Dassault proposed the Mirage 2000 which was a concept of “mini mirage” (whatever that mean) on which it had been working on after loosing quite a few European contract with its F1 to the F-16.

The Mirage 4000 has it flew was certainly closer to the Mirage 2000, but both were derived from the Super Mirage that itself was closer to the Mirage 4000 than the Mirage 2000 ever was.

What you forget is that if the French had bought the M-4000 the M-2000 would not have existed. The M-4000 was the original proposal of Dassault for the AdlA. Because of cost Dassault had to propose the less capable M-2000. If the AdlA had been able to afford the M-4000 I don’t think they would have gone for a full 5th gen in the 90s. Too costly. They would have gone for electronics upgrade all the way. Thales has only recently with the work done on the Rafale’s Spectra become top notch in fighter aircraft ESM. The UAE went for an Italian’s ESM suite on their M-2000-9… That would be unthinkable right now.

@Rii : It was a design choice to defeat missile with super manoevrability rather than some fancy electronics which were not very good at the time and even less so in the Soviet Union. Each one built on its strenght. If actual Russia can build the T50 (even with some Indian money) then I’m sure the Soviet Union could, but it was not deemed important until proved wrong in the First Gulf War. Which is why they started developing anti-stealth radar and techniques that allowed the Serbian to shoot down a F117.

@haavarla : I also agree with you on principle. I think we’re saying more or less the same but with different words and emphases.
I may miss something here but on a AESA radar, the TRs are each independant arrays. So the size of the antenna allow to put more TRs and as such get better performances. I agree there are physical limitation to the size and the number of TRs to be practically implemented on an antenna, but I would think the differences of TRs on similarly sized antenna is due to cost concern, software and processing performances, power output, miniaturisation of electronics (nanotechnology)etc.

So my point is to say, we don’t have enough data to know if an array with 1500 modules is necessarily superior to an array with 1200 modules. We don’t know what’s the impact on an fighter’s radar of 300 modules differential. Does it immediately translate in longer range or better reliability ? Better resolution or better maintenance ? Better to jamming or cost effective ?
For example Thales stress 7 to 10 years maintenance free, high resolution, multimodes etc. but is far less talkative about the range, while Selex stress a lot about great range and wide angle but less about cost, reliability, resolution etc.

As per my previous example ship’s radars vary a lot about the number of TRs and each have different capabilities, but we know that ships are less concerned about size, power output etc. Yet a lesser number of TRs isn’t necessarily a lesser radar.