uss noviceYou’re welcome bgnewf. You’ll notice in the pic posted by rayrubik that the Tejas is no bigger than a Sea Harrier !
Actually it looks smaller to me, at least length wise. If the Mig-21 bison can cause problems because of a small radar sig, this bird could cause some serious problems what with a full internal EW suite to boot. A2A, BVR, this one will sting something fierce.
USS
uss noviceFrankly, a stealth bomber of its own seems a possibility only in dreams. The Tu-22M now, is more in the realm of possibility. The basics on the bird are more than enough for INdia’s needs – combat radius of 4000km+ and payload of 20tons. What India should do is maintain at least a sqd worth of Tu-22Ms suitably modified:
1) Rotary launcher for 3-6 Brahmos/Nirbhay
2) Due application of RCS reduction measures
3) Terprom and nap of earth flight at supersonic speeds
4) State of the art self defence and EW suite
5) Possible engine upg. for better range/speed characteristics
6) Setup of infallible supply chain for maintenance and upkeep of the fleet
7) Glass cockpit, better MMI, and crew comfort
THis can be a very quick answer to all its potential threat perceptions. Probably will be expensive, but still it’ll be worth it considering other options are totally beyond its needs/budget.
uss noviceOverview of Rafale, Gripen and ET by the Swiss MoD.
http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/25029.pdf
Can’t read the language, but an interesting point that caught my eye was that the Rafale showed the fastest climb rate 250m/s (I assume thats what it is).
uss novice900×700 mm, 1522 TRMs
Waah, I want at least 2000 trms. Even the Tiffy has 1400+ TRMs. 🙁
uss noviceAll this compface discussion with elaborate pics and diagrams remind me or Otaku Vs. the bloke who had made it his life’s mission to prove that the comp face is visible (forget his monicker). Where the devil is Otaku anyway? – probly got taken by the KGB blokes – too much snooping ain’t healthy!
USS
uss noviceC’mon, my first post clearly talked about energy maneuverability!
Totally missed that 😮
ANyways, I was always refering to slower speeds considering the restricted Swiss airspace coupled with mountainous terrain. The low drag delta designs are probably going to lose their primary advantage once it gets up close and slow.
There is probably a good reason why the Swiss are not harping on high speed, and BVR capability. Even their latest HOrnet upgrade, which could easily have a better radar stuck in there, instead opts for the HMS/high offboresight missile.
JMT
uss noviceBtw, can anyone guess the # of TRMs on this beast? Count?
uss noviceConstruction tecniques in the T-50 seems to be more advanced than the F-22 ones, since, at least in the nose, it assembing requires less riveting.
I can’t find high resolution pictures of the Raptors wings to do a comparation.
One interesting detail is that the radome is not tilted backwards, seems the russians have a great confidence on their first operative AESA, lets see.
That ain’t their first; iirc, the Zhuk AE probly was the first operative fighter AESA.
uss novice^ true – the straightish wing on the Hornet sucks. But still, I think it’ll make life miserable for a Gripen. Slow speed maneuverability helps it seems, I recall the late BHarry mentioned that the much fatter/slower Su-30MKI often got the better of the sprightly MiG-29 in WVR.
In slower turning matches, nose pointing authority might win over ability to retain energy and accelerate. Thing about the Gripen (not unlike the M2k) is that in a turning fight it may have to engage ABs more than the Hornet thereby losing out on endurance as well.
Just throwing out possibilities that might explain the evaluation scores. Look at it like this for example:
GripenC loaded with 50% fuel + 6 AAMs and GE 414 will have TWR of
8000kgf/6800kg + 1500kg? + 1000kg + pilot weight/fluids (9300kg), well below 1.0 (0.86)
Gripen NG: 10000kgf/7100kg + 1700kg + 1000kg + pilot weight/fluids (10000kg), barely 1.0 TWR
HOrnet with same loadout will have TWR as foll:
16000kgf/10400 + 2500kg + 1000kg + pilot weight/fluids (~14100kg), TWR well above 1.10
Such a marked difference in TWR should make some difference in performance? Or not?
uss noviceI have real difficulty believing the data within that link.
Energy maneuverability is the cornerstone of modern ACM doctrine. It is well accepted that the YF-17, F/A-18 A-C and F/A-18 E/F are not good at maintaining energy levels (which they somewhat compensate for with excellent point-ability at high AoA). However, pointability is no substitute for maneuverability, if you’ve no KE (and cannot quickly generate it), then you will have real issues trying to out maneuvre any incoming missiles.
My guess is that the F-18 upg25 for Swiss AF has overcome some of the limitations you suggest above. The F-18 should have pretty decent acceleration, perhaps better than the Gripen considering it has a much better TWR. It will probly bleed energy faster, but the ability to turn at high AOA and also regain energy quicker should compensate.
It reminds me a lot of the Mirage 2000 vs. MiG-29:
The Gripen is v.similar to the Mirage 2000 in terms of TWR, and is also a delta design. The F-18 otoh, is much closer in terms of design and power to the MiG-29. Thing is, the Mirage 2000 in IAF service almost always had an uphill battle vs. IAF fulcrums, which can be compared to SwAF F-18s. In fact, the F-18s might have a better TWR than the fulcrum.
The Gripen has a helmet mounted sight, as does the Eurofighter (here). So both can aim off-bore weapons just as well as any F/A-18 and both have better kinematic performance to evade any counter shots.
POssibly, but then the F-18 might get into position better and therefore achieve first look/shot. And dodging modern AAMs such as the Aim 9x would be rather hard, no matter how much energy these birds have. Around and below 350kts, I think the F-18 will rule, esp. vs. the Gripen.
As pointed out before, the Swiss, considering the topography involved, probly emphasize WVR more than BVR, where the EF might lose some advantage, and the Gripen, especially so. WVR and a slower, turning fight might have been the great equalizer here.
In my mind, I can see the F-18 get the better of a Gripen in both WVR and possibly BVR; however, it would be hardpressed vs. the EF in the BVR arena, and possibly even the WVR arena. I think the SwAF evaluation is a clear reflection of this whereby the Gripen came out short vs. the Hornet, and the EF only achieved a marginal victory (probly a 50-50 chance WVR, and clear edge in BVR). JMT
USS
uss noviceIt should be noted that both the Gripen and Typhoon have an agile missile option (two in the case of Typhoon) in the form of ASRAAM and IRIS-T. Also both have a HMD sight option unlike Rafale.
Then again I don’t know if the sights were available for the trials.
I agree that the slow WVR conditions might well favour the Swiss Hornets especially with JHMCS/Aim 9X.
Frankly as people keep on forgetting this contest was for an F-5 replacement and the Swiss pending the almost inevitable referendum have made a sensible choice.
Even if sights were available, an HMS/High boresight AAM alone is not enough from what I gather – maneuvering and nose pointing at slow speeds is critical. I am not sure if the Gripen/Tiffy can match either the SHornet or Rafale in this regard – the latter with lerxs are designed for carrier ops and so would be excellent in this area.
An aside: Look at the number of times the Tiffy seems to have suffered in DACT (WVR) – ATLC, Corsica, at the hands of the PAF F-16s, and now this. They supposedly held up well vs. the MKI in INdradhanush (no mean feat) but then the MKI has a v.large visual sig, putting it at a serious disadvantage WVR.
I’d not be surprised if the TIffy with a Captor E emerged top dog in the supersonic BVR arena, however, at lower altitudes and slower speeds, I think it’d do well to get that HMS and TVC combo ASAP.
The Gripen has similar difficulty although it is a good replacement for the F5 and probly serves the needed role well enough in the Swiss AF. Hardly surprising though that it is at the bottom of most evals which have twin engined heavies competing against it. Of course, if the buyer is cost inclined, it emerges a clear winner (as in present case).
uss noviceGripen and Tiffy might have come out with a disadvantage vs. Swiss Hornets for the foll reasons:
Less emphasis on BVR and more on WVR. The SwAF Hornets are equipped with the JHMCS/Aim 9X combo and can carry the ATFLIR as well. The hornet’s low-slo w ability is supposedly v.v.good. Ditto with the Rafale.
As a result F-18> Gripen (even NG) is not hard to fathom.
Or maybe the Tiffy beat the Hornet in BVR easily enough, however, only equalled it in WVR, this would explain its marginal gain vs. the Hornet in the published chart. And perhaps the Gripen equalled it in BVR but lost out comprehensively in WVR?
Otoh, the Rafale is supposedly a demon low-slow and with the RBE 2 should be v.competitive BVR as well. Might’ve beaten the F-18 comprehensively in all scenarios?
Just some thoughts.
USS.
uss noviceIf it’s NG, then it’s not just ‘good enough for Switzerland’ but better for Switzerland than Rafale. It has a better radar (thanks to the repositioner), it has a helmet sight, and it has better take off and landing performance. Industrially, the Swedes are peerless when it comes to delivering offsets, etc.
No, the Swiss aren’t going to have such a good long range heavy attack aircraft as they’d have had if they’d bought Rafale. They’re not going to be carrying multiple Scalps over long distances. No, they’re not going to have an atom bomber. No they’re not going to have such a good BVR fighter as they’d have had if they’d bought Typhoon.
But they will have an aircraft that’s well matched to the capabilities they need most, and one which won’t ‘break the bank’ and one that will provide lots of work for Swiss industry.
Congratulations to Saab and the Gripen team.
Couldn’t help yourself and just HAD to take a dig at the Rafale eh, Jacko? Nice.
uss noviceAgain 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.
Err, where did I mention anything about bribes? :confused: What are you talking about?
no i think seahawk is suggesting that every time something goes awry for Rafale, certain members start claiming corruption on the part of BAE….
I hope that was not directed at poor lil me – I no say BAE being no good, me simple thinking: Euro-consortium might have more clout with current GOI.
uss noviceTalk 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.
Sign In
