But point is the EF will retain a first-look advantage vis-a-vis the Rafale.

Look, point is vs. the J20, the first look advantage is almost always going to be with the VLO fighter, irrespective of whether it faces the Rafale or Tiffy. Even if it has a radar that is gen 1 aesa, it should still detect a Tiffy with A2A missiles (1sqm?) at a good 140+ km (assuming current Bars type range). And while it may be that the Tiffy could detect it at somewhat better ranges than the JSF, (let us assume 75km), more than likely the J20 has already fired off a salvo in the direction of the EF by then.

So the idea that the EF is going to fare much better than the Rafale here is really unlikely. Assuming they ecanards have similar RCS (although there are sources that suggest that the Rafale has a clear edge here), they’ll probly both be shot at the same time. And the EF radar is hardly going to come into play. In any case, there are just too many assumptions in this EF is better than Rafale vs. LO/VLO platforms argument – we simply don’t know. There are way too many factors.

10-15 seconds of warning after the missile goes active is barely enough time for the pilot to identify the incoming tracks let alone outmaneuver it.

Possibly not, but I am sure the pilot will try something – either use ECM or perhaps try to get lost in ground clutter, who knows.

And the efficacy of ECM against the Meteor or Aim-120D in that time-slot is … lets say unproven.

Yeah, but what exactly is proven in this whole argument? And why would the IAF face meteors Amraam Ds?

Today yes. But the J-10 will likely be in production till the next decade (maybe even further). The J-10B has a rear facing MAW for now, but judging from its dispersed ECM antennas, 360 degree doesn’t seem a long way off.

Ya, but the rafale road map envisages a GaN based TRM soon – so what? This or that may happen in the future, but it is not as though a Rafale can’t evolve. In fact, the EF roadmap is hardly that clear.

With regard to the MICA’s design, I was given to understand that it was identical to the MICA EM with the seeker being the only difference. So ‘great lengths’ may be an overstating the case.

Perhaps, but then why even bother? And surely it is not cut+paste job, there is scarce $$ resources and much research involved.

Yes the Rafale is ahead in CFT integration but no it will not retain its range edge once the EF is integrated with CFTs. Not unless the aircraft is required to fly an uber long range mission that requires both CFTs and EFTs.

Possibly, but then as said before, CFTs do have their disadvantages – can’t toss ’em in a desperate situation for example. Plus maneuverability is compromised for entire range of mission.

Because buddy refueling isn’t something you perform as a matter of course (as an exception I believed I mentioned Operation Opera). You have the luxury of planning out the logistics out on the ground. Its a different game when you detect ‘bandits’ while flying CAPs or are awaiting a scramble call on the tarmac. At that point you can scarcely afford to be phoning up the nearest Sukhoi squadron for support, or loitering in the air until a Su-30 enters your sector.

Three points here:
1) You know that the IAF could simply have some bases that can be shared by both MKI and Rafale, they have done that with other birds. IOWs, there are operational tactics that can certainly make such a thing possible thereby reducing the range advantage of the captor AESA. It is not like the IAf has a few, token MKI, there are a honking 270 of these birds planned.

2) IN terms of scrambling for incoming threats – it assumes that the IAF has detected them, and is possibly tracking them, which allows equal advantage to both the Rafale and EF to postion themselves for the best possible vector/positioning. I don’t see how having a massive radar helps in this situation. Cues are probly provided either by GCI or AWACs (it was no fluke that the Russians hardly felt the need for a radar on the fulcrum initially as they viewed its role mainly as that of point defence).

Both these points should make it clear that there will be some rather specific occasions when the range advantage of the Captor radar will come into play. I frankly cannot think of one, which cannot be countered without much difficulty by the Rafale.

3) in terms of buddy IFR, perhaps it might not be a common practice with other AFs that have huge tanker support available. Otoh, in case of the IAF, where tankers are still limited, it might become a more common procedure – at least it is an option.

In any case, my whole point was/is that there is v.little between the two birds in A2A, with a speculative possible advantage to the EF in certain roles/scenarios. Mind you, some might high level chaps from a professional force like the Adla have gone on record, which btw, has not been countered by any similar official, to suggest that the Rafale can outperform the EF A2A as well.

This is reversed in strike ops, where the advantage goes to the Rafale.

USS.

Accurate ranging would be very hard even for Rafale. Even harder with AESA radars which can modify their output power much more and so will make ranging based on emissions even harder. Against a fast moving target using controlled LPI emissions it should be very hard to pinpoint the location without data sharing between multiple planes. If you use an optical sensor to confirm the location, I would dare say that PIRATE should do this equally well. the only difference I see is the fact that MICA-IR allows a completely passive engagement, while AMRAAM means that the missile will go active and give a warning.
But considering MAWS systems it might no be such a big difference and finally it will depend on the missile, more than on the launch plattform.

Point is, difficult or not, the Rafale it seems has this ability – it can detect, and get enough information from passive sensors to fire a Mica at BVR ranges. So far, nobody else has done so, irrespective of whether you think Pirate + Dass can do so.

I hardly think that IF the Rafale cannot do this at BVR ranges, it is worth a mention, I mean the fulcrum/flanker could do so at WVR ranges ages ago. And everything from a Hornet to the Gripen it seems, can fire Amraam types at BVR ranges without turning on their radars.

I hardly think that the EF consortium which has a rather active marketing dept. would lose the opportunity to show off such an ability.

If the ability is there with the EF, how comes nobody has heard a whisper?

USS.

Arguably, this M53 engine was the M2k’s greatest weakness – it was stuck with a poor TWR for all its life 🙁

What would be entirely relevant is if they could spruce up a M2k with a more powerful engine ala AL 31

USS

We’ll if we’re willing to concede that China may field a VLO aircraft by the end of the decade, assuming that reduced RCS variants of the J-10 and J-11 will be in service as well, shouldn’t be a stretch. Rafale superiority against greater odds supported by AEW&C aircraft of their own, is far from assured. Kinematics aside, you do want as much power from your radar as you can get.

Lots of assumptions there – how reduced is the RCS of a J11 going to be? If assuming all your assumptions hold, your conclusion that the Rafale’s superiority is not assured, is equally applicable to the EF! Or is the entire design philosophy behind Chinese jets simply to stay out of Rafale sights while ensuring that the EF can detect it?

Point is, does having a couple of seconds of warning really help against active missiles? Especially if ripple fired, with only one unit going active and other homing on the jamming signal.

You could certainly at least start using ECM, maneuvers, etc

Also, while I’m not very familiar with Chinese aircraft and there systems, but dispersed sensors on systems like the DASS, SPECTRA and EODAS, should still be able to detect non-emitting threats.

Normally you’d require optical sensors – and I can’t think of any J10/J11 variant having 360 coverage, yet.

The latest variants of the R-73 have ranges that can be classified as BVR (40km according to these folks). So the MICA-IR by itself doesn’t isn’t unique.

First, the latest variant of the R-73 has a min of about 1/3 less range than the Mica. Second, at long ranges, which it will probly never be used for – it has no datalinks for MCG. And third, the seeker on the R73 is not imaging, just IR. ACtually this clearly shows the great lengths Rafale designers have gone into making the Mica IIR.

They have upsides as well – considerably lower drag and freeing up two or more pylons for other stores. Routine payloads on either aircraft aren’t likely to every approach MTOW limits.

Point is, the Rafale is ahead in CFT integration as well – and the range edge will continue to remain with it so long as they can’t manage to plumb some more hps on the EF.

As for buddy refueling, I can see the value for one-off special missions (like Israel’s bombing of the Osirak reactor for example), but as a matter of course why use the Rafale as a quasi-MAR aircraft when you have a fleet of flying fuel tanks i.e. the Su-30s.

So if you can use the Su-30s as refuellers, why can’t you use them as mini AWACS (my very first point) to increase the “sight” of the rafale’s radar? Esp. if you perceive that a threat from VLO bogies is imminent?

USS

I don’t think the plan at the outset banks upon AEW&C support being a fact of life. The IAF can’t afford to have two lucky cruise missile strikes overturn half a decade of planning and procurement. You hope for the best, plan for the worst. And planning for the worst means assuming the MRCA will sent up against J-10s and J-11s without AEW&C coverage and without Flankers backing it up.

Vs. J10s and J11s, I don’t think the Rafale would have an issue. It is small enough and has a good enough radar to use the Meteor at max ranges. I was thinking more of the J20, for which the Pakfa is the best bet. I’d think that neither MRCA candidate is made to handle a VLO fighter but the EF’s radar advantage can be offset (if needed) with MKI.

I’ve never understood the appeal of a MICA-IR. What exactly does silent kill mean? After all, if time fire-and-forget missiles like the Meteor or Aim-120 are in range when they go active in the terminal stage, the target is more or less toast. If a missile goes active 20km off an enemy aircraft, the pilot has 10-12 seconds to identify the threat, ascertain the direction, calculate an escape vector and the either outmaneuver a missile that can pull over 20Gs, outrun a missile that flies at Mach 4 or attempt to jam a missile that homes onto jamming. I don’t see how the MICA-IIR can do it any better.

Apart from what Teer wrote, AFAIK, the Mica IIR allows the Rafale to take a shot at BVR ranges without ever turning on the radar. No radar emission means no warning via RWR. I believe the Spectra plays a part in this. Actually the very presence of the Mica IIR makes you think that the RAfale uses some unconventional means of engaging A2A threats.

The range and payload advantages are a function of its hardpoint rather than anything else. CFTs on the EF will equalize it in those roles. Weapons are slowly coming online. By 2015, most of them should have been integrated including the Brimstone, Storm Shadow, Taurus with only the HOPE/HOSBO remaining an unknown.

If and when the CFTs come, and they have downsides. Like you said, weapons are slowly coming online, the Rafale has already shown this ability. THere is little doubt that the Raffy is more versatile in this area – 9 ton payload, and mini tanker ability for eg. Also iirc, the Rafale is ahead in terms of CFT integration as well.

All of the above brings me to the next question – what is next for the Rafale? I remember reading that Dassault was thinking of making it stealthier? Any details?

uss

Or it tells us that EF is playing that much harder to win.

As things stand, Dassault does not have a single export customer yet for the Rafale. The EF already has two, Austria & KSA.

Plus, there is the long term issue to consider. As I recall, the ratio of upfront costs (airframe) and sustainment (lifecycle) is usually around 40:60. Even if India chooses to make aircraft inhouse, the transition from SKD, CKD to raw materials will take between 50-100 planes worth out of a production run of 189. Plus the spares for these aircraft as the IAF will fly very intensively in the beginning (~300 hrs/year if we go by the Su-30 example) to settle at the 180-240 hrs/year benchmark later (averaging out to 150 odd hours per airframes, as rotated).

Then there are upgrades and additions.

Point is money can be made apart from the initial purchase itself and if one goes by what you are saying, Dassault is ok with a loss to maintain margins.

Over the past few weeks, I have seen several Rafale supporters on this forum already bring up claims of bribes and this and that – none of the EF guys have.

It seems you are already preparing for a possible loss? Tell me something, are you lot (Rafale supporters) happy if Dassault loses the deal in order to maintain its margins. Or do you anticipate Dassault would do this?

Honest queries. Because, that article appears to dismiss a valid competitive strategy using some vague reasons.

Good questions, just to throw something more in the mix for Raffie supporters/information gurus. Does the existence of infrastructure for the M2k perhaps mitigate the cost for Dassault.

The IAF no doubt has a supply chain set up for the service of this bird, how well does this SC align with one for the Rafale? Tools, components etc? IIRC, the IAF had infrastructure set up to manage 140+ M2ks, which was never used optimally because that number for the M2ks was never reached.

Still further, the tremendous cost of the M2k upgrade deal, including the $ 500 million for TOT perhaps is a clever way to reduce costs for Dassault.

This would be further highlighted by the commonality shared in terms of weapons.

Thus, cost savings might occur for Dassault in ways that are not so easily seen and hence they are not so worried. All of the above PLUS the fact that it is already L1 (even if it is close) might mean something.

Just wondering.

USS

Taking the MMRCA tender as an example, it shows that :
if the IAF pre-requisites center on AtoA multirole, the EF
should win;
if the IAF pre-requisites center on extensive multirole, no
dominant aspect, the Rafale should win.

If this is indeed the case, the Tiffy might do well, in the MKI the IAF already has an a/c that performs a lot of similar functions as the Rafale – air superiority, strike, recce, EW. And it can always be further honed.

But purely a2a, high/fast, the MKI is a little compromised thanks to the twin seat, and lower engine power. A Tiffy with a massive AESA + meteor in conformal carriage, might just be what the Doc ordered.

USS.