Well then lets do it.

Why I think that the Rafale might be the better fit for the IAF

Note:
This reflects my view only, I don’t declare anything to be fact here!

Well here is my opinion, why Typhoon could be the better choice.

When we look at the planes that need to be replaced quickly within the IAF, the type that is in dire need of replacement is the MiG-21. he Bisons are primarily used as interceptors in the air defence role and while Tejas is coming in to replace them, it questionable if Tejas will ever be strong enough to combat modern SU-27 variants or J-10. On the strike and attack side the IAf is well equipped. Only the MiG-27 are getting old, the Jaguar has a long life ahead of it and the SU-30MKI as well as the upgraded M2000 will be able to cover all current and medium term strike needs perfectly well. This time can be used to bring the Typhoon up to full multi-role standard with AESA radar in co-operation with the other partner nations, which will also mean that a huge array of weapons will be available for Typhoon in the future. One can be sure that apart from European weapons, the RAF and the other European users will also integrate many US weapon systems into the plane, which means India has more freedom in deciding which systems to buy.Competition means lower prices.
Typhoon offers full partner status, so that India will have a big influence on future up-grades. The full transfer of know-how will be a huge gain for the aerospace industry and the off set deals could be interesting if you think about EADS and what it could offer. The British have shown to be reliable partners, which the Jaguar license production running for decades and with the Hawk trainer also doing quite well.

So based on current needs and past experience, I think Typhoon is the better plane for the IAF and the Indian aerospace industry. (*)

* well one could say so, although I have doubts about it

Doing the math again it does not even work in a best case scenario.

We know both can detect a 5m² target at 150km.
If we go by available data for EF you come to a RCS of 0,3-0,5m² while Rafale could be in 0,1-0,3m2.
So compared to the 5m² the RCS reduction ratio for EF is 0,5/5=0,1. take it to the diagram in the pdf I linked it means a detection range reduction by factor 0,55= 82,5km.
Rafale would have a ration of 0,1/5= 0,02. this gives a factor for the detection range by 0,35 = 52,5 km. Which means roughly 30km difference.

I personally believe that the 40km difference is based on a slightly lower RCS and better jammers, as the required jamming power reduces in a linear fashion with a reduced RCS.

Say we calculate EF with 0,5m² (0,1) and Rafale with 0,2m² (0,04) the difference in burn through range and reduced range due to RCS nicely adds up to 50km.

So I think this shows that Rafale is not that much more stealthy, but it is that much better then EF as you claim.

And all this is based on the assumption, that the Rafale radar is able to output as much energy as the Typhoon radar, which seems unlikely.

So you mean sawtooth are so efficient that they can negate the refuelling probe? Or is it possible that RCS reduction measures are more visible on Rafale.

No. He meant what he said.
We’re not on a 25% difference. The gap is actually *much* larger but nobody would believe it, so discussing this matter is just a waste of time.

BTW the semi-recessed carriage of the AMRAAM is peanuts as far as the overall RCS is concerned.

Well have you looked at the pdf? A 25% difference in detection range already means a reduction of the RCS by 70%. 50% diffrence means a reduction by 90%.

So if Typhoon would be 1m², Rafale would need to be <0,1m². :rolleyes:

There is a bit more to it on the Typhoon.

The FCS and DASS are tied together so that when a threat emitter is detected the Typhoon can fly a flight profile that keeps the ‘best’ RCS reduced facet pointing at the emitter (or hides the worst facet if you prefer).

Which has the smaller RCS?, while this is very complicated (Anglefrequencythresholds) the most likely result IMHO is the Rafale has a better bow tie RCS reduction, where as the Typhoon is better front on.

I think that should keep both sides happy;-)

Cheers

My guess would be that Rafale is better than EF when the emitter is above the plane, while EF could have an advantage when the emitter is below the plane.

Lindermyer :

Very interestingly , you are right on both accounts AFAIK .
Wrt 2) , the OSF is the probable culprit .

Now , regarding the overall RCS , if we take into account what we have on the subject , one should notice straight away that there are more arguments , papers , official reports and so on in favor of the Rafale . In fact , I defy anyone to find any papers of official reports from a Nation not involved in the Typhoon or the Rafale programs who say that the Typhoon has a RCS on the par with Rafale .
India just had to set up a small trial where a SU-MK1 try to detect a Typhoon or a Rafale sharing many different loads and see which one is detected first . I can assure you that they did and probably more in depth than we think .
I have no doubts about the result .

Some should just accept the fact and move on . The Typhoon has other means .
Now , the RCS difference is probably not that big , but big enough to make a 40-50km difference in detection range with an AtoA load , which is a big advantage in most scenarios . If both aircraft have an heavy AtoG load , the difference should be much smaller .
.

You mean something like 5-10km and not 40-50. Especially considering the semi-recessed carriage of the radar guided missiles on the EF.

http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/Navy%20handbook/4.11%20Radar%20Cross-Section%20%28RCS%29.pdf

A reduction of the RCS by 25% typically just means a detection range reduction by something like 7-10%. If you want to reduce the detection range to 1/2 you need to reduce the RCS by over 90%. I doubt that the difference is so big between Rafale and Typhoon.

@Seahawk,
the fixed refuelling probe is certainly counter productive to the RCS reduction efforts, but the overall shape is more important and in this area the Rafale scores some points due its more favourable wing/fuselage blending, generally smoother angles, the better optimised canopy shape (albeit the second frame does no good to the RCS), some saw tooth profiles and of course the probably more comprehensive use of RAM coatings.
There are certainly more visible and non-visible features which may have a stronger or lesser impact on the RCS. The lack of blended/conformal antennas, gaps between the panels, visible rivet heads and other protrusions from the airframes.

Well, I would say the answer is not that easy. Both aircraft have design marks of a reduced frontal RCS design, but I would say a it hard to say which might have lower RCS and by how much.

And while you listed the advantages of Rafale, do not forget what Typhoon has.

RAM on the leading edges of the canards
RAM / RAM coatings around the S-shaped engine inlet and inside
RAM coatings on the taifin
the FCS is programmed to keep the control surface aligned, to reduce the RCS
internal refueling probe
conformal mounts for the AIM-120s
FSS randome

In the end and without official data I would tend to beleive that it will be more or less a draw between Rafale and Typhoon.

This is indeed interesting, but maybe the spaculation going to far.

What we can see that it has a different tailrotor, a different tailboom and seems to have bben painted in that silver IR reflecting paint.

I would not bet on the idea that the Navy and the Air Force want a common plane. And eve if they want, from an industrial point of view, developing the Naval Typhoon is probably more interesting for the Indian aerospace industry, than buying / producing Rafale as is.
For me it comes down to a fight between the plane that offers more instant capability and the plane which offers more possibilities for the Indian aerospace industry. And ot be honest the full partner status in the EF program must be tempting, when you think about future up-grades, as India gets a direct say in what is done and has a decent chance that costs are shared with other partners.