May be this has something to do with it?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/panetta-believes-israel-could-strike-iran-this-spring/?hpt=hp_t1

My guess – US elections are near – the current bubs ain’t exactly popular, create a diversion. Nic might not be too far from the truth.

I’m not far from the truth at all. I’ll post a link to some 2009 docs that call for an Iranian attack on the US in order to be able to start the needed war. I have to find it though, might not be before tomorrow.

Nic

If not Iran I’d say Syria.

Nic

Iran is going to attack some US carrier soon, so it’s going to be war. Surprisingly the USS enterprise, on its last tour, and which is to be decommissionned soon is sailing near Iran, and we all know it will cost an arm & a leg to decommission because it carries 7 nuclear reactors. How convenient would it be that Iran attacks it to start the war that some in the US really really want?

You read it here first that a fake attack (a real attack but not launched by Iran) is going to sink USS enterprise.

Nic

It looks like Saab pushing the NG to the swedish government by making the upgrade of C/D models too expensive, despite Sweden not needing the NG version. It’s not like Sweden has any leftover A/B in storage right?

Nic

Definitely not SH, according to Brazil it cost more than Rafale to operate.
Fugly-16 b60 might have a chance but, IMO it’s between Gripen NG & F-35,
even LM won’t be trying to sell Fugly in India any more.

blk60 is out because it’s an outdated airframe, there’s absolutely no reason to add it when you can manufacture the Rafale locally for cheaper (because you either need to buy the blk60 US built of set up a manufacturing facility for just 80 airframes, which would cost more in the end than more Indian built Rafales).

F35 is a possibility as India may want a small fleet of dedicated stealth strikers to complement stealth UCAVs, or as a stop gap measure. As for Gripen NG I’d say it’s doubtful because I think it’ll be cheaper to manufacture 80 more Rafales in India than make an off the shelf buy or set up a manufacturing plant (same as with the blk60, except it’s definately not an outdated airframe). Gripen NG also has big US content, and little commonality wrt the weapons set.

Nic

That is precisely what worries me

You haven’t seen the last of it :p

The engine would nonetheless be more powerful and with the increased sized and thus weight of that proposed configuration in mind it would be worth it. What would be interesting to know is how much weight is really added by the cooling channel? Thus far I only see claims about the weight penalty per se, but no specific data at all. Sounds a bit like an excuse to me from those who like to do the data twisting in favour for their favourite fighter.

Well I didn’t try to justify anything. just increasing the size of the M88 to the specs of the EJ200 would bring pretty much the same TWR, and that’s not even mentioning the fact that the 90KN version of the M88 is available although the AdlA and MN chose more service life instead.

Then again you have many other variables like sfc and MTBO… and of course the fact that to accomodate the bigger engine you need a bigger airframe hence added weight. Considering the Rafale can carry more weight and bigger payloads (2000L tanks and Scalp fits more pylons), I don’t see any justification for a bigger/ heavier plane.

Basically I think it’s heresy to make a bigger Rafale to fit the EJ200, and I’m not sure there would be anything to gain at all.

Complexity has its drawbacks, but also its merits. A retractable refuelling probe isn’t permanently exposed to the external environment which may have implications on maintenance as well! It also increases drag and RCS, though the impact might be rather small. Every design solution has its pros/cons.

I disagree with you here. Complexity should be avoided anywhere it could be avoided.

My suggestion was to switch to an AESA from the beginning with the combined funds of the partner nations, otherwise a PESA solution may have been a good compromise. The radar is still the most important sensor on an aircraft due to its performance, versatility and overall accuracy. Always relying on external sources isn’t possible in every single scenario and when we add the benefits of greater resolution for SAR mapping for example, greater detection/tracking performance in the “sensor/shooter” model etc. I see benefits for a more powerful radar. It’s interesting that its only the Rafale supporters who don’t see the increased performance as an advantage and not as a drawback.

I don’t think any Rafale supporter denies that more power is an advantage, I’ve seen many of them say so and I’ll say it again here: more power is always better than less range. However, bigger radar has also got some drawbacks, for instance:

– Costlier (have to pay for those extra modules)
– Draggier (bigger nose)
– Heavier (and even more so if you need to add balast to the rear of the plane)
– Bigger electronic signature, so easier to detect from far away
– Bigger electrical consumption, so more drain on the engine power (which already have to compensate for the extra weight)

So all things considered, and since your radar isn’t your primary sensor anymore (for Rafale it is spectra and link 16), you may be more and more willing to sacrifice pure range and get rid of the drawbacks that I’ve just listed.

Nic