But Rafale induced more stress on the pilot neck lieke all jets with the beach chair . Arm pain and g-force is not thema with the Libelle.
Then stand G fore the gravitional constant and not for g-force!

Well on TMor’s website it says that the Rafale’s seat was inclined 32°, for better G resistance, BUT that it was then reduced to 28° because of the very issues you mentionned and the experience of the F16 pilots who often had long term neck problems. Is it possible that you are talking about the 32° layout?

Nic

Thanks for the link, I am looking at it right now. Regarding the RCS and IR reduction for Rafale, I have to admit some of the info I was basing my claims on came from some of the contributors from SP — I agree there is a lot of noise and outragous claims however I had the impression that some of the contributors actually know what they are talking about, but I may have been wrong in that assumption.

My apologies, I was too much in a hurry and I missed that part. Also, contributors on SP claimed otherwise…

That’s got to tell you how you can trust strategypage… this site is just plaine of bull**** and it’s impossible to make out the truth and the bull****.

The Rafale F1 standard didn’t have the MPDU yet, but it was just a “preserie” of 10 planes for the navy in order to replace the crusader in a hurry. Those planes aren’t even in service anymore and they have been cocooned in storage, and may be upgraded in the future to F3 standard.

See half truths like that mean you just just can’t trust that site.

Anyway, to add to some of the stories and anectodes around Gripen; I have heard that in some of the training with Norwegian F16, the F16s had problems detecting the Gripen; similar to the red flag pilot that said the Bison went undetected until the merge, it seems Gripen of today can do the same. Whether this is due to just the low RCS of Gripen or a combination of low RCS and EWS I do not know for sure.

I’m quite sure that older gen planes that are going to meet the Gripen, even in C/D version, are in for a nasty surprise. Small size and affordability are a quality on their own. And performance-wise the Gripen is way good enough to be discounted. The concept is very well thought out and will more than match the needs of many countries.

I’d still go with a Rafale any day though 😀

Nic

OK then please tell us what is the RCS of the Rafale?

No idea, my point was that you can’t say the Gripen NG enjoys an advantage there because we both don’t know the exact data and won’t know for many years. Suffice to say that the Rafale had low RCS and IR signature incorporated from the beginning of the design phase, which leads me to believe it is not necessarily worse than the Gripen as you made it to be.

I suggest you visit Strategypage. GF0012aust, a person that actually knows something about this, because he is a professional with access to classified info, has several times pointed out that Sweden has a lead on the rest of Europe in the field of IRST and optics. Strategypage contains some very interesting info on the Rafale, BTW…

I ceased to visit strategypage as it is a very bad place to get decent information from. I also noticed much anti french prejudice there, and saw a lot of false or clearly misleading stuff, even in the main articles.

A good place to look to get info on the Rafale would be there. http://www.vectorsite.net/avrafa.html
You will find articles about many other planes there, including the Gripen.

Gripen NG will use COTS parts like those used by F-35, I don’t have time now but can provide links later.

So what hardware is Rafale running on and what is the upgrade path?

Well the Rafale already uses COTS as I just said in my previous post :confused:

Towed decoys are extremely helpful in particular for 4. gen fighters…

So is the interferometry technique, AESA jammers, etc etc. Do the Gripen have any of those?

Rafale is two-engine, bigger, heavier and uses more fuel. Most likely it will have a substantially higher cost per flying hour. If you know, why don’t you tell us?

Single/two engines is only part of the story.
1/ The Mirage 2000 is single engine and yet the Rafale needs 30% less personnel for maintenance.
2/ The Mirage 2000 engine can be replaced in 3 hours while BOTH the Rafale’s engine can be replaced in 1 hour 45 minutes.
3/ The Mirage 2000 engines needed to be revised every 75 hours while the Rafale’s engine was intended to be revised every 150, but has shown since then that it could hold 500 hours between revision! According to materials used, this could even be extended to 800 or 1000 hours.

Besides, there is no overhaul during the whole life of the plane. Only components are replaced without the need for re-calibrating (same for the engine parts which can be replaced without re-calibrating). All parts are interchangeable from one plane to another, the comuters LRUs are replaceable independantly etc etc.

There are few movable areas, no variable intakes, no airbrakes, no retractable refueling probe -> less maintenance.

Test systems are made inside the planes with a very comprehensive diagnostic tool which can detect 95% of all failures. You don’t need engine testbeds on the tracks, no oxygen bottles to replace as the oxygen is generated aboard, onboard cooling is provided for electrical parts while the engine is off thanks to its own APU.

It can be refueled with the engines still running…

I have not seen the Rafale MTBF however I have seen several reports of Rafales availability in differenet excercises, and that was not very impressive to say the least. So what is the MTBF for Rafale?

No idea, but if you don’t know, you can’t compare can you? I suppose that you are refering to the red flag experiment, but keep in mind the Rafale is new and that operational deployments were also new. Some said here that the french didn’t bring enough spares, or something similar. Yeah it’s not always just about the plane itself.

Indeed the Mirage 2000 is a very capable a/c. For range, in a2a config Gripen NG can do a 1800 km mission. As I said
before the really big advantage of Rafale over Gripen NG will be for long range and/or high payload a2g missions.

Which is quite an advantage actually, but I think you are not giving enough credit to the Spectra suite and the discretion incorporated in the design. For instance the Rafale can fly at 600 kt at 30m of altitude and 5,5g discretely thanks to the INS/GPS and the digitalised 3d map covering 300000km², and in very difficult and/or unknown terrain the Radar has a terrain following mode which can be interleaved with AtoA and AtoG modes. Add the low RCS/IR, and the capabilities of the Spectra to detect and jam emissions with pinpoint accuracy and discretion and you should start do understand the Rafale’s capabilities.

Nic

In a2a the two may be on almost the same level, but with a clear advantage to the NG; the F414 in combination with increased internal fuel means higher TWR and lower drag (since it reduces the need for drop tanks), however, more importantly the low RCS, IR signature reduction, low visual signature, world class IRST, HMD, and excellent data link will give the NG an edge over Rafale in a2a. The combination of the latest AMRAAM and Sidewinder seems better than the MICA (which has too low range); of course when both get Meteor, this advantage will be reduced.

What the hell are you on about? Even your basic Rafale has 50% more power than your 100KN Gripen NG, and if you add the extra weight the power to weight ratio should remain higher for the Rafale, because the Rafale is no more than 50% heavier. And with the same payload the ratio will increase in favor of the Rafale!

Low RCS and IR reduction were features that were incorporated in the Rafale from the start, as well as the IRST, for which a new gen is already in the pipe. HMD hasn’t been ordered by the AdlA because of lack of money but it’s still a possibility should anyone order the plane, just like DVI, which already has 300 words or so. And I seriously doubt the AMRAAM holds much advantage over the Mica, not to mention that the IR/EM combo allows you MUCH more versatility and tactical flexibility than the AMRAAM/Sidewinder combo.

There is little info on the AESA radars of either Rafale or the Gripen NG, so we don’t know how that will impact things; most likely their radars will be in the same class (with around 1000 modules).

Here lies theonly advantage of the NG lies… if the radar is, as proposed, mounted on a mobile arm to reach a 200° coverage.

In a2g the Rafale still has some advantages due to it’s longer range and more payload, although the gap will be reduced significantly with the NG. And the NG will probably have a better survivability, due to the combination of it’s world class EWS, low RCS, low IR signature, towed decoys, and low visual signature.

What exactly allows you to say this? Isn’t spectra a world class EWS? The Rafale has a low RCS and low IR signature as those were already incorporated not only in the design of the plane but also in the design of the M88! The only thing lacking in the Rafale’s defensive suite is the towed decoy. But anyday I will bet on the spectra vs the Gripen’s EWS. Could the gripen locate a radar emitter with less than 1° precision et give an idea of it’s range? Because the spectra can thanks to interferometry techniques. That done, it can either use those info to target the radar’s source, OR use AESA jamming antennas to jam that radar with pinpoint accuracy (hence very low probability of being intercepted).

In terms of costs, Gripen NG wins of course; both in fly-away but also more importantly in life cycle costs.

Numbers please…

Rafale has an advantage in that it contains mainly French (non-US) parts.

Which turns out to being a disadvantge if you think those are more expensive. Basically you get what your pay for.

Now, will we finally see a Rafale vs Gripen thread that will compete with the Rafale vs Typhoon threads of the past?

Sorry but the Gripen isn’t in the same league as both others, which is why the comparisons aren’t nearly as interesting.

Nic

Could the bad comments about Dassault and the Rafale offer be leaked by the indians to get a offer from Dassault to try put their act together?

Nic

I don’t know for sure, but i i suppose you ‘re not bound to make the mid course update. I mean, let’s say you don’t. Most likely the missile will keep flying towards the original coordinates and eventually turn on its own seeker. What’s it going to do, send you back a message “Hey, what about me! I was expecting your phone, you didn’t call!” 🙂

Most AtoA kills occur with the target not knowing he was targeted until it was to late. It’s the 1st rule of AtoA.

And most of the time the fight won’t be pure fighters combat, but a fighter intercepting a plane which has its own mission. Most likely strike.

Nic

This is LM motto. It’s the standard campaign argument. They say the same to us. “Buy once more the F16 now and the F35 in the next order. It’s the most natural thing in the world to do”.

Then get the F35 directly and don’t waste the $$$ on the viper… it’s old news.

India doesn’t need ALL the availble US weapons. But what would like, it’s up to IAF… It depends on how many aircrafts the IAF wants to dedicate to each role in case of war, what type of targets they want to strike and how much $ they are willing to spend for payload for each type of target, according to its importance and defence. It’s very complicated to say.

As you say it’s hard to say. The Rafale being the only plane in the AdlA and MN… surely it has all the weapons they think they would need. Same with the Gripen. Typhoon is another matter as most customers are on the JSF boat so visibility of T3 is quite blurred.

This is true, but, they still need approval of the missile vendor, don’t they? For example, if they buy Rafale and they want to integrate HARM on it, can they do it, without the consensus of USA?

Maybe but not necessarily true. A few years down the road I doubt they would bark at the opportunity to sell a juicy weapons package… I really doubt it.
Besides a Rafale with ALARMS would sure look good.

Nic

Yes. If the target doesn’t change speed and you can get very accurate range by stadimetric-like processing, you can get accurate speed (Velocity= Space covered at constant speed/Time). But i am not so sure if you can get so precise ranging. And what if the enemy is accelerating or he is manouvering so his speed is going up and down.

Well it would be counterproductive to change speed up and down… what a waste of energy. The plane will not change speed unless changing attack profile, or upon noticing he is targeted, which isn’t happening unless he sees you on radar or on his optronics. Accelerating and braking will consume way too much fuel.

Besides, you can keep making “snapshots” even after the Mica has been launched, and you could send a mid course update only if the target data changes… which wouldn’t compromise you unless he has noticed something.

But his speed doesn’t count all that much if you know his range. If he is well inside the envelope of the MICA, you can even assume he is going with Mach 2 in the worst case. Even if he sees the MICA and tries to turn around, he won’t be able to do it, if you have fired with in mind that he may be at Mach 2 (he can’t go Mach 3). If he has even lower speed, then the problem doesn’t exist.

Speed doesn’t count if he’s going right at you or right away from you. If you are going to send a missile 50 km away at a speed going 90° from you, you have to send your missile towards the place he is going to be, and not in his direction. You won’t know where he’s going to be if you don’t have an idea of his speed.

In any case, you need to send an uplink to the MICA to update the tracking data. So if you are able to update the course of the MICA from time to time to the correct heading and updated range and the MICA’s IIR seeker gets activated , then speed isn’t an issue anymore. The MICA’s IIR seeker will have homed into the exhaust and speed becomes irrelevant. All you need is basically have the MICA with a good enough heading, to allow the enemy to still be inside the MICA’s FOV when the MICA will go autonomous.

I’m no expert but the way I see it there are two drawbacks of using update link as opposed to sending our missile in the right place.

1, updating course will waste energy and hence have a hit on the max range of your missile (energy loss in the manoeuver + eventually the longer distance to the target).
2, the mid course update could be detected by the target and give away the fact that he’s being attacked.

So if the target doesn’t change course or speed drastically it’s better to not send mid course update if your track data were accurate enough.

Nic