Vnomad1) Better to have the additional option included to use the missile seeker as auxiliaries IRST than not no matter its real utility which you and I don’t know but apparently AdA does.
If your primary IRST sensor is absent or indisposed, sure.
2) Since when does the ASRAAM have more manoeuvrability than a MICA ? The IRIS-T might although I don’t know for sure.
For that matter there isn’t any publicly available data to prove the MICA is more maneuverable than the Meteor. Any statement therefore can only have an empirical basis. Like the Aim-9 and R-73, the ASRAAM is slower, lighter
and for the same G-limit will exhibit a greater turn rate.
3) Current tactics of the AdA call for two missiles with different seekers to be fired at one target to increase Pk. DGA is rumoured to be looking at an IR METEOR development… Meanwhile, METEOR or MICA EM + MICA IR is a asset no other western country can talk about…
Reminds of the Russian tactics while employing the R-27. But where the F-15 and Phantoms of the era might have had trouble coping with the twin threat, self protection suites of fighters in the future should be able to comfortably employ DIRCM and AESA jamming simultaneously.
VnomadApparently Thales disagrees.
Likely to be available within the next several years, the new T/R modules would enable Thales to reduce the depth of the antenna on the Rafale’s RBE2 active electronically scanned array radar. Within a period of 10-12 years, it could also allow additional sensors to be embedded elsewhere within an aircraft’s structure to enhance its overall sensor coverage.
Thales doesn’t say anything of the sort. The sensors cued by SPECTRA already provide 360 deg coverage. Replace the GaAs TR modules with GaN replacements and you will get an improved overall sensor coverage – by virtue of its greater emitted power.
Reducing the depth of the antenna can hardly be touted as the primary reason to switch to GaN.
VnomadExcept that the RWR component of SPECTRA is accurate enough to create a proper track and generate a firing solution (only the F-22, F-35 and F/A-18E/F also have this ability).
Only and only for an emitting target. Also that’s only for detection, tracking AESA emissions is easier said than done.
Nope, link 16 is far from hard to detect unless the distance between the communicating planes is very small.
If the second plane is half-way between the radar emitting Typhoon and the incoming Rafale, then the Rafale will receive the same power from the “hiding” Typhoon datalink than the radar-emitting plane is receiving. Pretty hard to miss.
Detecting is one thing, tracking is another. Its far from established that the MIDS LVT system can be tracked by fighter ELINT systems.
VnomadNowadays, the focus is on “quiet” methods of attack. The Rafale won’t turn its radar on unless it depends on it. Most the attack will be done by the SPECTRA NG/INCAS type suites (whatever is bought by the IAF) and the OSF ( expect the OSF to be gradually built to the OSF-NG standard with a dedicated laser matrix IRST -there was some talk of developing an IRST in India as part of the offsets).
If its flying silent, its effectively blind. The IRST has a limited practical range, a relatively narrow field of view and given that it requires a laser rangefinder for target acquisition, isn’t truly silent.
Its especially unsuitable for air superiority missions, where the objective is to dominate a particular zone or theatre. You’re presuming the engagement is head on – what if you’re outside the hostile radar’s FoV (say at 3 o’clock to him)?
The Typhoon would be spotted by the SPECTRA/INCAS EW system which can figure out the direction of attack, especially if they use triangulation methods via multiple Rafales. The Typhoon’s emitter…it’s blessed radar…will chime in such a way that it would make the Typhoon easy to detect.
Only the emitting Eurofighter is prone to detection (not tracking though, not for an AESA). Other aircraft datalinked to it are for all purposes invisible, especially since the opposition is choosing not to employ its radars.
The Typhoon’s CAPTOR-E would certainly enjoy a distinct edge in range and azimuth – but it is also a “inefficent” range advantage because the Meteor missile won’t be able to use probably 100 KM of the track range anyhow. All that the Typhoon pilot can do is plot an attack – use strategies, deception, perhaps send information to other fighter assets via datalink.
There’s nothing unconventional about the use of a datalink anymore. Every aircraft can expect to be keyed into a common information sharing grid. Which means the EF doesn’t have to be within missile range to strike a target. Or rather, an EF within missile range doesn’t have to illuminate the target.
The problem is actually a lot worst when you consider the *overall system* of fighting.
– In the Indian case the Phalcon AWACS radar system on the IL-76 jet is designed to detect large targets at up to ~800 KM.
If you can count on AEW&C support always being at hand then you needn’t bother with even a Rafale – the Tejas/Mirage/Mig-29 will do just fine.
In areas like agility, the Typhoon’s advantages are more at high altitude and not lower flight levels…which is common fighting ground.
Why is lower flight levels, common fighting ground? The EF pilot will prefer sit as high as possible and be as fast as possible prior to launch, so as to impart maximum kinetic energy to the missile.
Assuming that all the Meteors are exhausted by the time the adversaries get into the “merge”…the MICA IR would offer an immediate firing solution because of the French ingenuity to have a combined BVR/WVR weapon. At super visual ranges the Typhoon’s “edge” may be marginal – while moving in on the merge its ASRAAMs may be rather less capable.
The MICA-IR certainly gives the Rafale options, in the event of its Meteor complement getting exhausted, as long as the target acquisition is performed by radar or IRST (the missile seekers is utility at BVR is questionable, to put it mildly).
The ASRAAM and IRIS-T have limited range but make up for that with a greater FoV and higher maneuverability for WVR combat.
VnomadI have read somewhere that one factor that is often ignored is that large AESA arrays offer another advantage over smaller ones — they are (all other thing being equal) more sensitive than smaller ones.
More sensitive? You mean while functioning as a RWR? Possibly, I don’t know.
A higher T/R count certainly makes for greater resolution especially during multimode operation (assuming the TR modules are broadly speaking comparable).
VnomadYeah yeah, smaller than SH, yet the SH technologies were considered outdated… Smaller than ET but I’m yet to see where it’s proved an disadvantage.
Who’s says the technologies are outdated? The AN/APG-79 entered full production in mid-2007. Suddenly five years later its outdated!
Really ?! You’re really trying to compare air defence destroyer with fighter aircraft ? Should Rafale, ET, F-22 have two different set of radars ? Should they be able to detect any threat with 360 degree coverage over ~400km ?
I’m amaze at the length you’ll go to try and prove your point.
What are on about?
I’m sure every (aside from you obviously) understood the point I was making viz. its ridiculous to confine the role of the radar to missile guidance and forget the role it was originally developed for – early warning of hostile aircraft.
That’s it primarily role on a fighter aircraft. The fact that a radar is said to be able to fully exploit the missile envelop doesn’t mean the radar can only see as far as the missile can go. It mean the radar is capable to detect, ID and then launch the missile within its envelop. Do you see the nuance ?
I have made no reference to the absolute range of the radar. So that clarification is unnecessary.
Fact is – greater radar range is always a good thing to have, regardless of the armament’s range.
Well the enemy aircraft can only attack you at long BVR ranges by emitting. No matter how powerful the radar is, new compact ELINT/SIGNIT system like spectra will always have first warning way before the emitting aircraft detect the Rafale. The longer the range, the easier the jamming/decoying, the more power hungry your radar is, the less effective your coordinates are especially with a M-Scan radar vs modern counter measure technologies.
Unless you have a datalinked aircraft flying radar silent ahead of the emitting aircraft. I used the phrase mini-AWACS quite deliberately – like most AEW&C aircraft its expected to be capable of handing off targetting data to missile platforms.
The current PESA is largely enough to use the full envelop of the MICA missile which is ~> 100km and the AESA will be more than enough for METEOR. That’s what you call effectiveness and resource management.
100km huh?
GaN will improve range, but that is not its first merit. Less heat, better conductivity mean less complex and expansive electrical construction, better reliability, better for electronic attack and jamming (more energy can be focused for longer period of time with less heating) etc
.
The most important factor is power output (which is also the primary reason behind striving for a larger array). All the rest is ancillary.
VnomadDoesn’t JF-17 use composites extensively?
Please refer the to great findouter.
If this thread is a parody or something, I confess I don’t get it.
VnomadGood point. JF-17 has a more technologically advanced airframe. Don’t forget that JF-17 is the world’s first plane that incorporates DSI, both in the prototype stage and in the operational stage.
Umm…. you realise you’re comparing an all metal airframe to one featuring extensive use of composites?
VnomadUndersized radar aperture like other allegedly undersized engines or undersized imagination is a matter of legend, false claim and propaganda that ET fanboys have been telling for years without any substance.
Undersized is a matter of perspective. That said radome is smaller than the SH, and EF even though the range is considered adequate.
The AESA is capable to fully use the meteor envelop and that is the only thing that matter.
Huh? Should RN, MN ship radars be limited by the range of the Aster 30 too?
The only way one arrives at that conclusion is if you decide that the radar’s sole purpose is to enable the platform to launch a missile.
What if the aircraft is required to operate as a mini-AWACS for other aircraft? What if you’re target is a LO/VLO aircraft? By rejecting the utility of a longer range, you’re restricting the crew’s situational awareness. The IRST and TV units have range and FoV limitations while ELINT systems require the target to emit EM radiation.
For that matter, no longer ranged successor to the Meteor has been conceived let entered development – yet that hasn’t stopped Thales from working on GaN technologies, has it? Lets not be too hasty while dismissing the merits of a longer range sensor.
VnomadIt depends how low you set the limit.
The typhoon is multirole (it can drop gravity laser bombs) but to be trully regarded as a multirole aircraft it will need much more to compete on international markets.
Well if one assumes the Tornado is the gold standard for multirole performance, the EF is already successfully multirole.
The typhoon arguably brings very good AtA raw performance but brings nothing special at all in the AtG arena which usually represents 99,99999% of missions.
99.99999% of air to ground missions call for the delivery of LGBs/PGMs rather than cruise missiles.
As far as I can see, all the Luftwaffe needs to do is integrate LJDAMs to its Eurofighter fleet and it’ll have all the ‘multirole’ it needs. Somewhere down the road it’ll have to integrate the Taurus and CFTs as well but that’s not a pressing concern right now.
Also the argument of the tornado being complementary with the typhoon is fine for UK or Germany but try to explain that to export customers…
Most export customers are like Oman, Malaysia or Switzerland – they’d like a good aircraft but have no real requirement for long range cruise missile delivery. The real problem with the Eurofighter was that when critical competitions were ongoing (the Singaporeans for example seemed very interested in the EF), it had negligible ground attack capability repeatedly disqualifying if from being shortlisted. Today it has the capability but the export market has dried up.
When in 2006 it was decided to launch the rafale roadmap in france it was a clear move for export markets and not for the french air force who did not needed this standard urgently. So you can perfectly have capabilities that you do not need right now but still invest to remain competitive for the export market. It is just a matter of will.
I agree there. Had the Eurofighter consortium been more proactive before the economic crisis hit and their budgets dried up, they’d have more successes under their belt.
Over the long term I believe Anglo-French cooperation is a very good idea. Both countries have similar sized militaries, similar levels of training, similar equipment and most importantly, broadly speaking, similar philosophies while formulating foreign policy. Had the Eurofighter been a Anglo-French program with the remainder of Europe excluded, it would have taken a huge chunk out of the F-16 and F-15E market.
VnomadWrong again. Nobody has established the fly away cost was similar for both aircraft except you.
Check the news reports from the first week of December. The flyaway cost for both aircraft was determined to be less than $5 million disallowing an outright award of the contract to Rafale.
We do not have numbers about the life-cycle cost differences although Indian officials have reported that Rafale was significantly cheaper.
Question is what defines significant – $5 million is enough to lose the Indian contract, but not enough to paint the Eurofighter as a failed project (as many have done).
I don’t know how credible the source is, but I do know for sure that Rafale was selected has L1 :cool:.
Yes it was L1 but no the source doesn’t have a record of accurate or insightful reporting. So I’d be loath to take the ‘beat it hollow’ claim without a pinch of salt.
VnomadThe flyaway cost was said to be about 5 m cheaper per aircraft while the life-cycle cost + ToT + offset was between 17% to 25% cheaper. I don’t know where you get your numbers, but check them again. I’ve already posted Jane’s link as well as other article about MoD sources. We do not have the exact number, but so far I’ve never seen the life-cycle cost was 5m cheaper.
The lifecycle cost was inclusive of the flyaway price and the cost to company of ToT and offsets was factored.
SOURCES IN THE MoD INDICATE THAT RAFALE HAS WON THE MMRCA CONTRACT. THE FRENCH FIGHTER HAS EMERGED SOME $5 MILLION PER AIRCRAFT CHEAPER THAN THE EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/01/rafale-wins-mmrca-contract.html
French aviation firm Dassault Rafale has bagged a $10.4 billion deal to supply 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircrafts (MMRCA) to the Indian Air Force.
The deal however will not be signed before this fiscal ending in March, defence minister AK Antony said.
Sources told Times Now that the Rafale deal was significantly lower than the Eurofighter deal and the final signing of contarct may likely take 6 months.
The source said each Rafale was $4 million to $5 million cheaper than its rival and the plane was preferred by the Air Force.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5799591#page=2
India’s choice of the Rafale has now reversed the dismal prospects for this plane as the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy grows tired of sustaining an apparently unsale-able product.
Indian officials insist the choice of the Rafale was made entirely on cost considerations after a run-off comparison with the Typhoon Eurofighter. The Indian media have quoted official sources as saying the Rafale came in at $5 million cheaper per plane than the Typhoon.
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=6107115&sponsor=
France’s Dassault Rafale wins IAF’s biggest fighter jet deal
One defence ministry source with knowledge of the negotiations said the life-time cost of the tender including training and maintenance may reach $15 billion.
Previous estimates put the cost around $11 billion.
The Defence Ministry source said each Rafale was $4 million to $5 million cheaper than its rival and the plane was preferred by the Air Force.
A French navy Rafale manufactured by France’s Dassault Aviation. The Rafale beat out the Eurofighter, made by a consortium of German, British, Italian and Spanish aerospace firms, to win the $20-billion (U.S.) contract to supply 126 combat aircraft for the Indian air force.
Defence officials say that once the two models passed technical trials, the deciding factor was always going to be which was offered at the lowest price. They say the choice of Rafale, which some say came in $5-million cheaper per aircraft, was one of the cleanest decisions in India’s arms procurement history, with the minimum of political interference.
Vnomad@ Vnomad
You talk about economies of scale, but for the typhoon they are nonexistent for a very simple reason: instead of optimising the production chain, every partner nation’s politicians wanted to have a final assembly chain at home, therefore reducing greatly (if not nullifying) the economy of scale that was possible to achieve.
Assembly lines are a different issue. The bulk of the Indian order is to assembled by HAL. That only contributes to fly-away cost (which we’ve already established was similar for both aircraft). Here we’re talking about lifecycle cost – parts, spares, basically stuff that is consumed with use, which is where larger economies of scale will kick in. At least enough to offset a supposedly more efficient Rafale consumption pattern.
If they get some more export markets, they may add a few here and there, but compared to dassaults almost 300 rafales planned (180 already ordered) for the french forces alone, plus a small bunch for India, the economy of scale already seems to be more promising for the rafale, even with less units sold, overall.
I was under the impression it was about 270 planned, not 300. Lets wait and see how much of the balance materializes before calling ball on it.
VnomadThe reports so far quote 5% difference per fly away cost and even jane quote ~17% on the overall deal. When buying 126 aircraft such difference isn’t negligible. Indian officials also stated that Typhoon is far more expansive on life cycle cost. The only part of the Typhoon that has less complex part and as such a chance of been cheaper are the engines. But so far not even that seems to be the case.
According to Ajai Shukla its the lifecycle cost that was determined to be $5 million cheaper (the flyaway cost difference too was determined to be less than $5 million).
Let’s see if they can terminate with developing the aircraft then we will talk about MLU. About the spares part let’s see if they can get their hand on some :p , then we will talk about their prices.
I’d much rather see them talk about the MLU now, rather than await the bloodletting when the time comes to negotiate with Dassault.
VnomadRight back at you.
Tornado missions : interdiction, strike (ground, anti-ship and nuclear), electronic combat, reconnaissance, buddy refuelling, self defence with AIM-9 or ASRAM and two 27 mm cannon.
The Jaguar can perform most of that – no one claims that its a true multirole aircraft.
BTW is self defence a combat mission type?
An avionic upgrade could see longer ranged AAM used. So yeah all in all the Tornado is more multi-role and versatile.
If any when that avionic upgrade takes place, the Tornado will become multi-role. Until then its a strike aircraft.
Sign In
