uss noviceDidn’t the US offer this bird to India long ages ago? As a sort of LCA in lieu of the current LCA? The specs on this bird are rather impressive actually:
V. light, excellent twr, very good internal fuel capacity/fuel fraction, decent payload ~ 4000kg.
I don’t particularly care for the smallish wingsize and paltry 5 hardpoints though.
Definitely no match for a Mirage 2000 though, which was much larger, and certainly prettier. But excellent follow on to a MiG-21.
uss noviceSome of the terminology seem confusing.
Detection , identification and Acquisition are functions of the radar and IFF and Rafale is better.
Yes, I think this is a clear case where – first look = first kill.
Otoh engagement – Typhoon is better because Amraam > Mica i suppose.
Good observation, the MIca is shorter legged.
Aerodynamic performance of Typhoon is unmatched and pilot workload is lower..but again it says sensor fusion is weak which can mean that the pilot is not getting adequate data or that workload is lower when the pilot is working only with radar data:confused:
ACtually, I think the pilot workload bit corroborates what the French themselves said once – there is so much infor coming through all the fused sensors that it can actually overload the pilots. They were even looking to have more twin seaters for this reason iirc.
But adequate training and acclimitization might have overcome this issue. JMT
USS
uss noviceThis isn’t necessarily only the PESA. It’s more probably a combination of all sensors.
.
Which is why I mentioned the SPECTRA. Very interesting to note though that the EF was evaluated considerably higher in the aircraft performance section, and supercruise @ M1.4 – time for the M88 9 ton engines? Sort of gives credibility to the UAE desiring a more powerful Rafale.
uss noviceSens are you saying that the SWISS AF were biased in favor of the Rafale without any reason? And the govt. went ahead and bought the Gripen instead?
uss noviceWhat is truly AMAZING is that they put the Rafale PESA ahead of the Captor M in terms of detection and acquisition! What was that about the Rafale’s nose being too small? EFritter PR brigade should be ashamed! Again, they mention the Spectra suite as an outstanding system – my guess: ACTIVE CANCELLATION!
The Rafale designers knew what they were doing afterall. Of course, this is assuming the report is authentic (it looks it fer shore).
uss novicehttp://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm
See the data about that. 18,55 tons NTW and 24,5 tons MTW. Internal fuel is ~4,56 tons and max ext./weapons-load is ~6 tons. That gives an empty equipped of ~ 14 tons or a big + for the 12500+ kg claimed. 😉
The new 29M is 17,5 tons NTW and by a similar internal fuel it gives an empty equipped of ~13 tons. Even when we distract the typical 800 kg AAM-load for NTOW we will have 13,2 tons for the new K and 12,2 tons for the new M.
The internal fuel weight that you use there is from the old MiG-29K (9.31?). I have seen this value as high as 5000kg in some publications. Weaponload is stated at 6500kg in the rosboro catalog. The Point is, why would they use all those composites if there was to be no weight gain over the original – just waste time in changing structures? Plus add all the digital instrumentation as well.
So,
MiG-29K
MTOW: 24500kg
Fuel: 5000kg
Weapon load: 6500kg
Empty Equipped: (fluids + Pilot + Pylons?): 24500-11500 = 13000kg.
Empty: ~ 12600kg.
MiG-35 is about 800kg lighter so my guess is 11800kg tops. MiG-29M might be even lighter considering it won’t carry the AESA.
uss noviceRe. the weight of fulcrum variants:
It is quite clear that the Russians have achieved some weight loss for the miG-29K, M and 35. This is based on the current advertised weight of the MiG-29K as 12500+kg, and iirc, the MiG-29M/35 is about 800kgs lighter than the K. So my guess is about 11500kg for the M/35.
uss noviceBecause the engine is the least important part of the propulsion system at supersonic speeds.
At subsonic speed ~12 % of thrust is generated by the inlet, ~82% by the engine and ~6% by the outlet for a given aircraft.
At high supersonic speed it is ~75% of thrust is generated by the inlet, ~8% by the engine and ~29% by the outlet.
AND this:
When 90% of the flight-time of a fighter is at subsonic speeds at low to medium level the modern Tf has an edge by the installed thrust – going faster or higher it is no longer so and it makes not much sense to push a modern fighter behind Mach 1,6.
Sort of just reiterates the point I made earlier – installed thrust is a decent indicator of fighter performance, in which case, the Rafale has a rather clear lead over both the F-16-50 and the J10.
IOWs, both at slower speeds/subsonic, the Rafale is more powerful thanks to the twin M88s and probly has much better turn rates – the low wingloading + lex should certainly help in generating lift vs. j10 or f-16.
As if to confirm this, a recent report reg. the MRCA flight evals shows that the F-16 did not make the cut for the IAF in terms of STR.
At the same time, the Rafale has already demonstrated a robust capability at transonic/supersonic speeds thanks to its ability to supercruise, which neither the J10 nor the F-16 have shown.
All in all, I stand by what I wrote earlier – the Rafale should perform better than both its competitors in the Indian context at pretty much every stage in the flight envelope (unless you are talking m2 speed).
And then there is a clear lead when it comes to avionics/sensors as well.
uss noviceThe Point is Su-35 becomes Multirole thats why it gained weight over original one. not to mention increase in interanal fuel capacity by 20%.
If it was simple airdefence fighter. The possiblity of weight gain
is not there.
We know that FC-1 weighs 6500kg with 249m/sec climb rate as it was in the charts presented. It is safe to assume J-10 will better than this figures.
ASSUME – that is the keyword here. Based on what?
Rafale top ceiling and top speed is not much impressive and without CFT. The internal fuel is not impressive either.
:eek::eek: – not impressive? The Rafale’s fuel load is impressive in every aspect – it has a better fuel fraction than F-16, F-18, MiG-29/35, EF-2000. Ya, I’d like to see more impressive figures for the J10, only the Gripen NG is more impressive.
J-10 has alot of growth potential interms of advance manufacturing and uprated engines. Like AL-31FM2 or WS-10 updates. There is no such thing for Rafale.
Yes, that is why they have a clear, publicly available roadmap for the Rafale’s evolution. Engines? M88.4 or even Kaveri.
Thales is good in Civillian Avionics which requires constant 24/7 operations with 60,000 flight cycles in an aircraft. For fighter aircraft with 6000 or so ariframe life and at most 200 hr per year use. these manufacturing qualities are not that much important.
Are you serious? Thales is a leader in electronic/radio/comm tech components and has a share in SPectra, RBE, you name it. Jeez.
uss noviceI doubt J-10 has larger wing area than M2K. The point i am making is that Chinese are not using J-10 as bomb truck unlike F-16C.
J-10 dont have IRST/Electronic scanning radar.
so why should a simply airdefence fighters weigh so much. Idealy it should not weigh more than F-16A. which is 1970s manufacturing and avionics.
FC-1 weighs 6500kg. and it has demonstrated quite similar payload to J-10.
Dassualt put Rafale in 10 ton class. If Chinese introduce same level of composites in J-10. J-10 weight will be even further reduced in future versions. J-10 has alot of growth potential.
I thought the J10B we are using as a comparison will have an ESA, IRST etc? As far as composites go, it all depends on how much metal the J10 has in the first place. IIRC, the flanker was almost all metallic, and hence weight savings became possible with composites, not to mention smaller/lighter electronics/digital components compared to analog instruments. In any case, IIRC, the original Su-27 was rather light – about 16 tons iirc so the Su-35 has not really gotten that much lighter.
In the case of the J10 however, how do we know how much composites it has used in the first place? What sort of weight savings can take place via sensor suite changes?
uss noviceThe J-10 is a newer design then the Rafale albeit its airframe is less sophisticated.
INdeed! I was forgeting that chronologically the J10 is newer.
It is not that easy. Installed thrust has nothing to do with real thrust from the propulsion system. The weight-thrust ratio is a yardstick from former times when all fighters had a similar Tj engine and comparable drag ratio. By that you got a best climb/acceleration value with minimum fuel for a limited idea about a raw performance envelope. A short comparision of the Gripen/Tejas shows that the Gripen similar to the Rafale have an excellent thrust/drag ratio by design with all the related gains from that. All air-combat will be well below Mach 1,5 and at low to medium height at first. A fighter-bomber is limited to 600 kt with a modest weapon-load. All fighters of this topic are powerfull enough by flight performance alone and just their avionic-suit will make some difference. If the scope of that will add some extra weight will change nothing. Air warfare is no longer the former “dragster race” to reach gun-range or please the crowd by aerobatics. Air-power means to exercise fire-power on ground targets at first.
Can you please advise why installed thrust is not the same as propulsion thrust when we are looking at all three fighters from the same perspective? IOWs, if thrust degrades in real time for the Rafale, it should be so for the J10/F16 as well thereby maintaining the excess power advantage available to the Rafale.
It is interesting that you state the TWR is not so important considering how many times Tiffy folks have reiterated the Typhoon’s marginal thrust advantage over the Rafale.
NObody is saying air warfare is a “dragster race”, it is a given that better sensors/avionics are important. However, it is noteworthy that the IAF still finds it rather important to practice guns only WVR even in expensive DACT with other countries. Those who feel that basic fighter characteristics such as turn rates, climb rates etc are passe need to rethink a bit – the F22 otherwise, could’ve been just as lethargic as the F117 but NO, it was rather important to stuff it with ultra powerful engines and a superb aerodynamic profile. Ditto with the Pakfa.
In any case, in terms of the sensor fit/fusion etc, the Rafale again holds a rather clear edge over the Blk 50, and probably the J10 as well seeing how we really don’t know what the J10B is all about. Importantly, what Chinese aero company has the kind of experience that Thales offers when it comes to manufacturing top quality sensors/equipment?
I think there can hardly be any doubt as to the superiority of the Rafale as a stand alone system vs. the other two – be it aerodynamic features, avionics or sensors.
uss noviceThe Rafale empty equipped is ~10 tons. The J-10 empty equipped is ~9,5 tons and the F-16 is ~9 tons.
From open sources such as FAS, the F-16 block 50 is about 19200lbs empty (not empty equipped) i.e. 8800kg, empty equipped it will be around 9000kg indeed. But then the F-16 blk 60 is around 10tons empty! The J-10 looks bigger than the F-16, and I’d think its weight would be very close to 10 tons.
The Rafale is said to be 9.5 tons empty, and about 10 tons empty equipped. When it comes to TWR, the Rafale will be easily ahead of both J10, and F-16 assuming they carry a similar load. It is a no brainer really, the Rafale just about weighs the same, but has 2 engines that produce much more thrust than either the AL31 or the PW/GE series.
Coupled with a modern delta-canard design with some use of lerx, and low wingloading, the Rafale is aerodynamically a real marvel – exceptional at slow speeds and very good at high speeds. And then the Rafale has a better fuel fraction as well, which means better endurance, not to mention v.economical M88 engines. The abililty to supercruise is a testament to its superb design and transonic acceleration.
Overall, I’d expect the Rafale to be better than the Viper or J10 at every turn, altitude and speed. It is simply a newer design. JMT
uss noviceSecond MiG-29M2 for Syria
IS it just me, or has the composite %age increased over the past 4-5 years. I recall the early MiG-29K models (circa 2008), and they did not seem to have as much grey area on the airframe. I believe the grey is composite, right? I wonder how much weight they have managed to shed off the MiG-29M. It was not too heavy to begin with – if they can manage to get it around 11 tons, it’d be awesome with the RD 33MK engines.
Damn the syrians are getting a good bird – wish the IAF had gone for the 35! But hey, Rafale is beautiful, no?
uss noviceWell TwB,many PSus have not made any difference for decades now ..
anyway ,
Seems like ADA is having it from allsides..now from the current CNS! 😮
Navy chief says ADA let it down on LCA fronthttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2860886.ece
Well here is what happened :
After a recent joint acmi exercise between between the navy and the af which was watched by the respective chiefs:
CNS: The days of our Harriers vs your manouevrable Mig 29s is gone mate! Our Mig 29Ks kicked your guys’ butts! Ha!
After the rafale deal has been announced:
ACM ringing the CNS office : Now what would you say to another joint ex. mate :diablo:
CNS : Okay Okay ..stuff the LCA Navy now..(We want rafale M too!)
🙂Jokes aside , will the LCA-N be ready before commissioning of the IAC?
I just pray that the ADA guys have the last laugh on all of this!:o
Yes, sounds like a pitch for the Rafale to me too! As far as getting the NLCA on time, I have my doubts – it ain’t coming by 2015, but that is not to say that it won’t be in time for the IAC.
The LCA is taking its time – I doubt the NLCA will be ready before 2017. The biggest concern is power imvho. The current weight stands at around 6500kg, with beefier landing gear for carrier ops, i’d imagine an increase by at least 500kg. At 7 tons and 10000kg of thrust, it will be a close call – a bit short on power to take off from the IAC/Vikad perhaps. They better consider more powerful engines as early as possible and design accordingly, perhaps the 12.5 ton EPE engines are on call? JMT of course.
uss noviceI agree with you here. It’s not only about capabilities, Bisons generally lack range to operate over foreign territory. They would most likely be used for point defense, to take care of the fodder that might have fallen through the Flanker/Vajra net.
Just a couple of nitpicks – the Mig-21 I think is also tasked with tactical strike to some extent, and does have the ability to carry the KAB TV guided bomb. Btw, I think the jammer it uses is the EL-8222. But yes, it is primarily a point defence fighter.
I am not sure it has IRST, can anyone confirm?
Hotdog, the Tejas is well worth waiting for – apart from helping indigneous industry, it will do the job much better and will certainly be a greater problem for the F-16blk50.
Sign In
