Italy buying AWACS is equally likely as Greece buying F-22 and Pak-Fa in the next 10 years.
Rafale’s compressor face is quite well blocked from the front as seen in this image..
More or less like Typhoon, as has been posted before.
Does the IAF specify LO/stealth technology as a criterion for MMRCA? Because it seems to me that between SPECTRA and the S-shaped ducts the Rafale has a distinct advantage over the Typhoon there.
I’ve read unconfirmed rumours of the Typhoon having a radar blocker in its air intakes, but I’m disinclined to believe them given it’s never been mentioned in any brochure or formal literature that I read.
EF has a stronger S-shape than Rafale.
Not necessarily, in India they knew they had a competition. They might have thought that they were onto a sure thing in UAE. presumablythey have now been disabused of that notion and will negotiate.
Nevertheless it would kind of fit with EF having dropped their price and so the prices were close, implying that Dassault had not dropped theris. It would also fit with the statement that was mentioned and then forgotten that implied Dassault would submit their bid and then look to negotiate Indian work-share etc. That would imply an immense arrogance in negotiations that i find hard to believ but everything is possible
They would be idiots if they believe that the Air Forces would not talk about the offers with each other. Does anybody believe that Switzerland, Brazil or the UAE have not yet called the Indian government to learn about the prices offered.
Talk of spidey sense, tea leaves etc makes me want to do a bit of palantir gazing myself (the dark lord be damned):
This is Rafale’s to lose. I think the delay in the M2k contract, the offering of Rafales (unsolicited) at the highest levels at critical junctures (which shows a tremendous level of communication bet. top echelons in the French/Indian defence establishments), the fact that the weapons/sensor package on the M2k upgrade has not been entirely finalized, and that the IAF has been constantly updated on Rafale developments all suggest that Dassault has it in the bag. And the IAF really wants this bird.
HOwever, the political will might just get the EF to come in, the leadership in India, to say the least, favors an Italian spice if you know what I mean. Refer the brazen statement by India’s ambassador to Ita not too long ago, and it did come true to a large extent.
Offsets advantage to EADs notwithstanding, I don’t think Dassault, Thales, MBDA, Snecma are too poorly placed in this area – they have a lot of JVs already with local firms – Samtel-Thales, Maitri LRSAM, GTRE/Snecma etc.
If Rafale is L1, even by a small margin, I wonder what reasoning GOI will provide for choosing the EF? Doubt it will be based on performance at all – I have a distinct feeling that the Rafale got more points in the tech eval from the IAF.
Again the bribes story. I wonder who bribed the UAE to not sign a Rafale contract yet. And even the M2k upgrade story, can be seen as a disadvantage to Dassault as well, as this contract did also not come easily.
That’s where we fundamentaly disagree. You don’t need to know everything of another aircraft to understand what are the main differences in terms of sensor fusion and design philosophy.
Professional judgment and discusion between pilots especially after being confronted after each other can give well enough information to understand where are the strenghts and weaknesses of your competitor.
I just don’t believe that Grandclaudon and captain Romain would be that ignorant about the typhoon especially after years of practising in different international exercises. Their assessment might seems a little too much enthusiastic on the importance of stealth for instance or might be misinterpreted when talking about the typhoon but the core analysis about sensor fusion is always brought as an explanation.
I am not saying anything else that this difference is important enough to be noticed by both pilots and A&C.
He knows Typhoon from one training exercise. But even if he guessed the capabilities presented during the exercise correctly, it does not mean that those presented were the full and final capabilities.
And naother point for the debate. India would get full partner status in the Eurofighter consortium, so they are free to up-grade and change as they fit. They are free to export the plane, although not in competition to other partners, but seriously who will have a production line after 2020, except India?
Point is, difficult or not, the Rafale it seems has this ability – it can detect, and get enough information from passive sensors to fire a Mica at BVR ranges. So far, nobody else has done so, irrespective of whether you think Pirate + Dass can do so.
I hardly think that IF the Rafale cannot do this at BVR ranges, it is worth a mention, I mean the fulcrum/flanker could do so at WVR ranges ages ago. And everything from a Hornet to the Gripen it seems, can fire Amraam types at BVR ranges without turning on their radars.
I hardly think that the EF consortium which has a rather active marketing dept. would lose the opportunity to show off such an ability.
If the ability is there with the EF, how comes nobody has heard a whisper?
USS.
Well how about thinking about the missile. Rafale has MICAIR, a passive MRM, EF has AMRAAM which is active. Launching an AMRAAM without turning the radar of the launch aircraft is nothing special, mabye that is the reason EF does not make a big fuss about it. I however can confirm, that it is standard procedure in air-to-air training to do just that in the Luftwaffe.
Accurate ranging would be very hard even for Rafale. Even harder with AESA radars which can modify their output power much more and so will make ranging based on emissions even harder. Against a fast moving target using controlled LPI emissions it should be very hard to pinpoint the location without data sharing between multiple planes. If you use an optical sensor to confirm the location, I would dare say that PIRATE should do this equally well. the only difference I see is the fact that MICA-IR allows a completely passive engagement, while AMRAAM means that the missile will go active and give a warning.
But considering MAWS systems it might no be such a big difference and finally it will depend on the missile, more than on the launch plattform.
With Link 16 it obviously has it.
It would be louder. But the question about the future of Reds is valid. The Hawk T.1 needs a replacement sooner or later and with the Reds maybe ending up as the sole operator of the type, the maintenance costs will increase, while the training value of those T.1 declines. Should the crash been caused by a technical fault that effects the whole fleet and cost money to fix, it might mean the end for the Reds.
The US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US. A few SAMs and ATGMs to theTaliban and Afghanistan will turn into a bloodbath for the NATO crusaders.
Any gap filler would increase the pressure on Pak-FA and Tejas MK2. If one of those is delayed or becomes a problem (technical or political reasons) the IAF would have some serious problems.
The European aircraft on the other hand offer many goodies:
– License production of current western fighters
– access to western weapons (Meteor, Storm Shadow, AASM, etc.)
– a capable gap filler if Pak-Fa or Tejas are delayed
If they would go all Russian all their eggs would be in one basket + Tejas. Some recent Russian arms deals were less than satisfactory, especially those in which any competition was lacking.
Just for the record, at Leh the Typhoon demonstrated the following while carrying a full air-to-air load of 8 AAMs and 3 tanks
1. single engine approach
2. single engine landing
3. single engine missed approach (which was the deal breaker for others)
Before demonstrating those it did a small display using both engines.
The current CAPTOR was also surprisingly good.
surely that is true of both sides?
surely the RAF (or any opposing force) will be operating at a reduced level as well?
surely that cancels all the whys and wherefores out?:confused:
I did not say which side I meant, because it is impossible to say as the most likely answer is both sides agreed on level playing field – like WVR starting at medium speed and using AIM9L-like capability. (pure example)
There is one thing to remember about WVR combat, it is first and foremost just a description of the engagement range, but it is often used in connection with training fights to describe a fight that is started within the range envelope and usually at medium speeds. However in reality there is no clear difference between BVR and WVR today as sensors like Pirate or OLS-30 have increased the effective visual range while weapons like R-73E and ASRAAM / IRIS-T have also increased the engagement range in such fights.
When talking about training fights one should never forget that they are meant to give the most effective training to the pilots and not show the capabilities of the airplane. In addition weapon capabilities are often decreased or leveled for simulated fights.