VnomadIIRC there is a 40 plane order outside the purview of the MRCA for the Strategic Forces Command in India, these planes will be dedicated to Nuclear Strike.
There is a worry that its covered under the 42 Su 30MKI ordered, but that is not confirmed.
If it is not, then I think the Rafale has a great chance of bagging that, France seems to care the least about Indian nuclear weapons programme.
Toss bombing is no longer a preferred means of nuclear payload delivery. And it doesn’t look like the ASMP-A is going to be available for export anytime soon. If you simply must have an air launched capability – a nuclear tipped Brahmos launched from the Su-30MKI still remains the only option for the foreseeable future.
VnomadMeaning that the Deutsche Luftwaffe waited until the Tornado could refuel
the Typhoon to compensate for short-legs to induct it? :dev2:
Its range on internal fuel is comparable to the Rafale. Its only in the rare case where you want carry two heavy weapons and external fuel that questions are raised. Until it gets CFTs anyway.
Once the Luftwaffe starts retiring their Tornados, they have the option of either junking their refueling pods or integrating them with their remaining fleet (of EFs). Interestingly, unless I’m mistaken the Tornados and Su-30MKIs share a refueling pod type.
VnomadLook, point is vs. the J20, the first look advantage is almost always going to be with the VLO fighter, irrespective of whether it faces the Rafale or Tiffy. Even if it has a radar that is gen 1 aesa, it should still detect a Tiffy with A2A missiles (1sqm?) at a good 140+ km (assuming current Bars type range). And while it may be that the Tiffy could detect it at somewhat better ranges than the JSF, (let us assume 75km), more than likely the J20 has already fired off a salvo in the direction of the EF by then.
If all that is true, that would imply the game’s up for fourth generation fighters and we might as well retire the entire lot.
That said you’ve assumed that the contest will be head-on (which the J-20 is presumably optimized for). Or that EFs wouldn’t show up on a very broad frontage so as to use scattered radiation to triangulate the J-20’s position. And that the J-20 will be able launch from 140km+ instead of being forced to close in to take a shot, giving the EF a fighting chance (if not to win, then at least enough warning to disengage).
But you seem to have decided that both aircraft are dead on arrival, and so may as well give up the ghost.
And then of course there are the Su-27s, Su-30s, J-11s and J-10s, where the EF’s greater radar range has obvious advantages.
Possibly not, but I am sure the pilot will try something – either use ECM or perhaps try to get lost in ground clutter, who knows.
I’m sure a prayer or two wouldn’t hurt either, but the chances are he’s going a big ball of flame unless he ejects.
Yeah, but what exactly is proven in this whole argument? And why would the IAF face meteors Amraam Ds?
:confused: We’re talking about the IAF employing the Meteors instead of the MICA-IR, not facing them.
Ya, but the rafale road map envisages a GaN based TRM soon – so what? This or that may happen in the future, but it is not as though a Rafale can’t evolve. In fact, the EF roadmap is hardly that clear.
:confused: So, the existence of a MAWS on the J-10 at least partially nullifies the MICA IR’s ‘silent’ approach.
Perhaps, but then why even bother? And surely it is not cut+paste job, there is scarce $$ resources and much research involved.
You bother because the MICA is still in production while the Meteor is around the corner, and you need a replacement for the Magic-II. You can import the ASRAAM or IRIS-T. Or you can sanction an altogether new program. Or you can simplify things by getting an IR seeker on the MICA.
Possibly, but then as said before, CFTs do have their disadvantages – can’t toss ’em in a desperate situation for example. Plus maneuverability is compromised for entire range of mission.
In general, CFTs will give you better range per litre of fuel thanks to lower drag. You’d also really value having two extra missiles in a desperate situation. The point was that CFTs will give the EF the same reach as the Rafale.
Three points here:
1) You know that the IAF could simply have some bases that can be shared by both MKI and Rafale, they have done that with other birds. IOWs, there are operational tactics that can certainly make such a thing possible thereby reducing the range advantage of the captor AESA. It is not like the IAf has a few, token MKI, there are a honking 270 of these birds planned.
What other birds have been sharing airbases with the Su-30MKI?
And yes while the IAF does intend to fly 270 MKIs, it will also operate over 300 MiGs, Mirages, Jaguars and Tejas’, all of which would appreciate being covered by the Sukhois. The IAF would be glad to a have a type that if not working as a mini-AEW&C itself, will at least not require babysitting.
2) IN terms of scrambling for incoming threats – it assumes that the IAF has detected them, and is possibly tracking them, which allows equal advantage to both the Rafale and EF to postion themselves for the best possible vector/positioning. I don’t see how having a massive radar helps in this situation. Cues are probly provided either by GCI or AWACs (it was no fluke that the Russians hardly felt the need for a radar on the fulcrum initially as they viewed its role mainly as that of point defence).
A scramble call doesn’t mean the IAF is tracking probable threats. The call could have come in from an Army unit besieged by CAS aircraft. Or from a forward or covert observation unit (say an SF team near an enemy FAB). Ground radars could have caught a fleeting glimpse of hostiles. Or maybe they did track the hostile before it disappeared into ground clutter. Or it could be something as innocuous as a UAV going offline.
And even if a radar did manage to get a solution, its not necessary that the EF or Rafale will be able to receive or use tracking data from the ground.
Both these points should make it clear that there will be some rather specific occasions when the range advantage of the Captor radar will come into play. I frankly cannot think of one, which cannot be countered without much difficulty by the Rafale.
Anytime the aircraft’s radar comes into play, while far from handicapped the Rafale is at a relative disadvantage vis-a-vis the Eurofighter. It would be … optimistic, to think the aircraft aren’t going to get a lot of use out of their radars in the event of a conflict.
3) in terms of buddy IFR, perhaps it might not be a common practice with other AFs that have huge tanker support available. Otoh, in case of the IAF, where tankers are still limited, it might become a more common procedure – at least it is an option.
Hang on!
Thank God for google.
On August 6th 2001 DA1 successfully carried out the first test of the German Air Force’s buddy-buddy refuelling pod, which was carried by a GAF Tornado. The flight lasted one hour and 41 minutes and was another milestone towards the introduction of the Typhoon into the GAF.
http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/development.html
In any case, my whole point was/is that there is v.little between the two birds in A2A, with a speculative possible advantage to the EF in certain roles/scenarios. Mind you, some might high level chaps from a professional force like the Adla have gone on record, which btw, has not been countered by any similar official, to suggest that the Rafale can outperform the EF A2A as well.
French claims, even those from ‘high level chaps’ should be treated with a degree of circumspection. Just as you would American claims about not being too concerned about the emergence of the PAK-FA and J-20. Or for that matter British claims about the EF being the best multi-role aircraft in service.
VnomadLots of assumptions there – how reduced is the RCS of a J11 going to be? If assuming all your assumptions hold, your conclusion that the Rafale’s superiority is not assured, is equally applicable to the EF! Or is the entire design philosophy behind Chinese jets simply to stay out of Rafale sights while ensuring that the EF can detect it?
How low is the RCS of the J-20 going to be? I don’t know. But that a VLO prototype exists would suggest that one shouldn’t assume at the outset that the EF or Rafale will retain a very significant RCS edge against PLAAF aircraft especially in a loaded configuration.
Whether either aircraft will be able achieve air superiority (against greater numerical odds) will depend on many factors (and is far from given). But point is the EF will retain a first-look advantage vis-a-vis the Rafale.
You could certainly at least start using ECM, maneuvers, etc
10-15 seconds of warning after the missile goes active is barely enough time for the pilot to identify the incoming tracks let alone outmaneuver it.
And the efficacy of ECM against the Meteor or Aim-120D in that time-slot is … lets say unproven.
Normally you’d require optical sensors – and I can’t think of any J10/J11 variant having 360 coverage, yet.
Today yes. But the J-10 will likely be in production till the next decade (maybe even further). The J-10B has a rear facing MAW for now, but judging from its dispersed ECM antennas, 360 degree doesn’t seem a long way off.
First, the latest variant of the R-73 has a min of about 1/3 less range than the Mica. Second, at long ranges, which it will probly never be used for – it has no datalinks for MCG. And third, the seeker on the R73 is not imaging, just IR. ACtually this clearly shows the great lengths Rafale designers have gone into making the Mica IIR.
Point was the range itself doesn’t determine its role.
With regard to the MICA’s design, I was given to understand that it was identical to the MICA EM with the seeker being the only difference. So ‘great lengths’ may be an overstating the case.
Point is, the Rafale is ahead in CFT integration as well – and the range edge will continue to remain with it so long as they can’t manage to plumb some more hps on the EF.
Yes the Rafale is ahead in CFT integration but no it will not retain its range edge once the EF is integrated with CFTs. Not unless the aircraft is required to fly an uber long range mission that requires both CFTs and EFTs.
So if you can use the Su-30s as refuellers, why can’t you use them as mini AWACS (my very first point) to increase the “sight” of the rafale’s radar? Esp. if you perceive that a threat from VLO bogies is imminent?
Because buddy refueling isn’t something you perform as a matter of course (as an exception I believed I mentioned Operation Opera). You have the luxury of planning out the logistics out on the ground. Its a different game when you detect ‘bandits’ while flying CAPs or are awaiting a scramble call on the tarmac. At that point you can scarcely afford to be phoning up the nearest Sukhoi squadron for support, or loitering in the air until a Su-30 enters your sector.
VnomadWith the IR versions of the R-27, Russian aircraft have had a long range IR capability for decades. Nothing new.
I’m aware of that. What I meant was that just because an IR missile has a BVR range doesn’t necessarily meant that’s how it will be employed.
VnomadVs. J10s and J11s, I don’t think the Rafale would have an issue. It is small enough and has a good enough radar to use the Meteor at max ranges. I was thinking more of the J20, for which the Pakfa is the best bet. I’d think that neither MRCA candidate is made to handle a VLO fighter but the EF’s radar advantage can be offset (if needed) with MKI.
We’ll if we’re willing to concede that China may field a VLO aircraft by the end of the decade, assuming that reduced RCS variants of the J-10 and J-11 will be in service as well, shouldn’t be a stretch. Rafale superiority against greater odds supported by AEW&C aircraft of their own, is far from assured. Kinematics aside, you do want as much power from your radar as you can get.
Apart from what Teer wrote, AFAIK, the Mica IIR allows the Rafale to take a shot at BVR ranges without ever turning on the radar. No radar emission means no warning via RWR. I believe the Spectra plays a part in this.
Point is, does having a couple of seconds of warning really help against active missiles? Especially if ripple fired, with only one unit going active and other homing on the jamming signal.
Also, while I’m not very familiar with Chinese aircraft and there systems, but dispersed sensors on systems like the DASS, SPECTRA and EODAS, should still be able to detect non-emitting threats.
Actually the very presence of the Mica IIR makes you think that the RAfale uses some unconventional means of engaging A2A threats.
The latest variants of the R-73 have ranges that can be classified as BVR (40km according to these folks). So the MICA-IR by itself doesn’t isn’t unique.
As far as role goes, the AdA is retiring its inventory of the R.550 Magic missiles leaving it with no equivalent SRAAMs like the IRIS-T and ASRAAM. If I had to guess I’d say the Rafale flies with a mix of 4 MICA-RF and 2 MICA-IRs for air to ground missions and a 8 MICA-RF and 4 MICA-IRs for air superiority missions. A familiar combination.
If and when the CFTs come, and they have downsides. Like you said, weapons are slowly coming online, the Rafale has already shown this ability. THere is little doubt that the Raffy is more versatile in this area – 9 ton payload, and mini tanker ability for eg. Also iirc, the Rafale is ahead in terms of CFT integration as well.
They have upsides as well – considerably lower drag and freeing up two or more pylons for other stores. Routine payloads on either aircraft aren’t likely to every approach MTOW limits.
As for buddy refueling, I can see the value for one-off special missions (like Israel’s bombing of the Osirak reactor for example), but as a matter of course why use the Rafale as a quasi-MAR aircraft when you have a fleet of flying fuel tanks i.e. the Su-30s.
VnomadIOWs, if a flight of Rafales need to see far, they can always do so by linking up with an MKI or two which can be embedded in the package. This would somewhat alleviate the one advantage that the Typhoon tends to have over the Rafale. So then there is really v.little/nothing between the two birds, at least A2A in the IAF context. Perhaps, the tables can now be turned, and the advantage might go to the Rafale, thanks to its work on being “discrete” – what with RCS measures, Spectra and the Mica IIR, a silent BVR option that the EF does not possess.
I don’t think the plan at the outset banks upon AEW&C support being a fact of life. The IAF can’t afford to have two lucky cruise missile strikes overturn half a decade of planning and procurement. You hope for the best, plan for the worst. And planning for the worst means assuming the MRCA will sent up against J-10s and J-11s without AEW&C coverage and without Flankers backing it up.
I’ve never understood the appeal of a MICA-IR. What exactly does silent kill mean? After all, if time fire-and-forget missiles like the Meteor or Aim-120 are in range when they go active in the terminal stage, the target is more or less toast. If a missile goes active 20km off an enemy aircraft, the pilot has 10-12 seconds to identify the threat, ascertain the direction, calculate an escape vector and the either outmaneuver a missile that can pull over 20Gs, outrun a missile that flies at Mach 4 or attempt to jam a missile that homes onto jamming. I don’t see how the MICA-IIR can do it any better.
ANd we all know that in terms of A2G, the Rafale definitely enjoys some advantages – range, payload, weapons integrated etc.
The range and payload advantages are a function of its hardpoint rather than anything else. CFTs on the EF will equalize it in those roles. Weapons are slowly coming online. By 2015, most of them should have been integrated including the Brimstone, Storm Shadow, Taurus with only the HOPE/HOSBO remaining an unknown.
VnomadWho might be very depressed each time they have to debrief an encounter with a M2000 :diablo:
The Jaguar was good enough to serve in the French Air Force for 32 years. The IAF in turn has been more than satisfied with the Jaguar. But of course as a ground strike aircraft no one expects it go head to head with the Mirage-2000.
Interestingly, the IAF’s current COAS ACM NAK Browne is a Jaguar pilot. He was among the first batch of IAF pilots that were sent to UK for operational conversion training. He also commanded a Jaguar squadron in later years.
VnomadAnother aspect that might be less “measurable” is that going for a traditionnal first teer fighter jet supplier like dassault might be percieved as more reassuring/ less risky, just in the continuity of the current supplier/customer relationship. If the offers are eventually close that can be the little “plus” that can make the deal tilit toward the rafale.
Never downplay these small but important reasons on top of that is purely measurable. Many of our clients prefer to stay with my firm not because we are cheaper but because they know how we work and we have good inter-personnal relationship with the management. Most of the deals are won thanks to net-working and reputation, more rarely on measurable criteria.
I wouldn’t read too much into such supposed superior interpersonal relations. Given the amount of scrutiny this contract is under, the media and comptroller general will scent blood at the slightest hint of a backroom nod-nod wink-wink.
After all many of those who are evaluating the offers/aircrafts have probably worked in a way or another with the mirage 2000 (aircraft or program). The M2K has a good reputation in the IAF and the good stories must be known by many.
Statistically, they may also be outnumbered by former Jaguar(procured directly from the UK) pilots. The MoD managed HAL in particular has license built Gnats and Jaguars in past and is currently building the Hawk AJTs. With the UK based Hawk production shutting down, it’s hoping to become a major BAE contractor for future deals.
Actually come to think of it, HAL has even manufactured Dornier (now a part of EADS) Do 228s in house and is manufacturing the fuselage, wings and tail unit for the Do 228 New Generation.
VnomadDon’t exaggerate. It’d take three squadrons to fully equip one carrier, & that’s not allowing for an OCU or spares.
I’m used to thinking of a squadron as having 18-20 aircraft. Given a 12 aircraft squadron, I suppose two to three squadrons is doable.
There’s no plan to have two carrier complements, though. One carrier at a time. The chances of getting enough to replace the Typhoon in RAF service are non-existent. We’re unlikely to get enough even to replace the Tornado. Barring the disbandment of the RAF, Typhoon is staying.
I assume the current squadrons will rotate between QE and PoW during refits (or is only the former being equipped with an EMALS?). Also while the govt. is currently engaged in extricate the country from the financial morass left by the last govt., the F-35 isn’t expected to enter service till 2018 at the earliest and that’s a long way off. Additional F-35s may become possible after 2020.
VnomadEven if the 5% figure is true, a finished plane which cost 5% less than a not finished plane doesn’t sounds too shoking to me.
Given the preconceived ideas floating around about the Rafale being vastly cheaper than the Eurofighter, it is very surprising yes.
In one case the co-development will be for new projects: conformal side AESA antenas, GaN AESA, sattelite data link, AESA wave forming, data link and jaming, carrier version, nuke, new comon missiles, etc.
When was this co-development offered? Eurofighter’s co-development offer has received a lot of attention recently, did I miss reading about a similar offer from France?
In the other case the co-development will be to finish the job left down unfinished by a bunch of Europeans who’ve already turned the Eurofighter page.
Turned the page in favor of what? Italy will be getting F-35s yes, but the EF will remain the backbone of the British and German fast jet fleets. The F-35 doesn’t look like its going get more than a squadron’s worth of orders (maybe two) from the UK. Enough to fully equip the QE carrier but that’s about it. Maybe if economic conditions improve in a decade the PoW could get an independent carrier complement as well. As things stand, for better or worse the UK and Germany are stuck with their EFs and will have to upgrade them to retain their potency.
It’s obvious that the Eurofighter fans are mostly motivated by business aim unlike the French who are more focused on a parnership to reinforce our independance model.
😀
Don’t tell me Eurofighter is paying its fans to hawk its wares on the internet.
The French haven’t offered India any partnership that I’m aware of. They appear to want to reinforce their independence from India as much as rest of Europe.
VnomadIMO, it is clear now that L1 should win. So, performance differences shouldn’t matter now.
Opinion alert 😉
I feel Rafale has an edge here due to its flyaway price.
Regarding meeting delivery schedules, I agree with what some members have said that if IAF wasn’t convinced about their ability to deliver on time, Eurofighter would not have been in the shortlist.
Having an offset proposal that’s acceptable is not an ‘either-or’ case. It impacts the aircraft’s financial bid. Take the recent C-17 order by India. It costed more than its sticker price just because of the offsets clause.
The offsets on the C-17 aircraft would cost India an additional 7-8% in the total amount on the purchase. The US had explained to the MoD that it would be paying more for Indian offsets than it could have got the same services and products from other sources.
http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=old&id=504
Boeing, BAE and EADS have more ambitious plans of expansion into India than Dassault or even Thales. In addition, the MRCA contract specifies a offset requirement of 50% by value, unlike the 30% in the C-17 purchase. It’ll certainly make a placing a competitive yet profitable financial bid easier.
Cross-posting from BR –
Regarding offsets –
DASSAULT –
India has set demanding requirements for industrial offsets in its fighter contest but Dassault is ready to negotiate on the deals, executive chairman Charles Edelstenne said June 17.
The Indian request for tender including offsets which were “very tough,” Edelstenne told journalists ahead of the Paris Air Show which opens June 20.Charles Edelstenne – Chairman of Dassault
EADS –
Off-sets are not an obstacle for us. Our will to invest in India is high and the off-set factor is not a big constraint. We want to invest in India because we feel it is one of the most promising markets in the world, whether for civil products or for military products. We have 250 people in India at the moment; we will have almost 700 people in 2012. To get access to the Indian market we have to invest, that’s clear. In India we find the technological resources we are looking for. We are extremely happy with Bangalore where we have not just a design office but a research centre now being developed and we will have a design office for Airbus and Cassidian, our defence division. More globally, EADS has to be built on three pillars — one in Europe, certainly because our roots are in Europe, one in the United States because half of the world defence market and 40 per cent of the aeroplanes flying are in the U.S., but the third pillar has to be in emerging countries. Growth and dynamism will be with the emerging countries in future and India is certainly one of the most promising. It’s a country where we can partner with local industry, where we could find technological resources, where we have one of our main partners for space. We are partners on helicopters, on Cassidian (defence projects) — for some products for the Eurofighter and certainly for Airbus. It means our four divisions can work in India and partner in India with Indian companies. The market is equal to the size of the country — huge.
Interview with Louis Gallois, CEO of EADS.
Point is, its not as simple as saying ‘offsets are out of the way, the Rafale now has the clear edge‘. The offsets requirement will make its presence felt when the final figure for bid is computed by both companies.
VnomadWhatever your comparison was unfair in the first place if you don’t know what the costs you were talking about include 😎
Nic
I phrased my first post as a question not as an irrefutable fact. And I did provide a link from Bloomberg as well, which I had no reason to disbelieve. So I don’t think I was being unfair when I brought it up.
Vnomad£37bn makes about $60bn
Assuming a Eurofighter order of 160 jets that’s 377 million a pop in program cost. And I doubt a carrier variant is included 😉Nic
That isn’t the acquisition cost. An effective comparison would require an actual breakdown of the €40 billion spent on the Rafale. The report does not seem to mention what period that amount is budgeted for (one would have to assume its the expenditure for orders placed so far). Or what heads it breaks down into.
Between 2005 and 2010 the quoted figure rose by almost a third. How is possible to budget for a future deliveries starting in 2018 (presumably), that AFAIK the state isn’t financially committed to buy?
VnomadLook again, you are mixing currency, 20,2 billion POUNDS are not 23 billion USD.
You’re right. My bad. Same price if Nicholas’s take on it is true.
Still wondering though, how the cost of the next 286-180=106 aircraft was estimated. Especially given that defence inflation usually runs independent (and usually in excess) of the CPI, which in itself is not predictable.
Sign In
