HAWK ace , the AIM-9X has a max range of around 20km when the IR Mica can kill you at 60km .

Cheers .

Wrt Aesa radars , all T/R modules are not equals .

MMICs from the 90s are not the same than current MMICs for example , so rating various Aesa radars is not about counting the number of T/R modules .
The db/M ratios are not the same , the noise ratio is not the same , the size of the die is different as well as the size of the module itself . Cooling is also different .

For example , the F-22 AN/APG-77 (1990 technology) is made of 2000 T/R modules rated at 4 watt each , total output power : 8 Kw (8000 watts) .

The production RBE2-AA is said to use around 1000+ T/R modules rated at 15-16 watt each , total output power : around 15 Kw (15000 watts) .
In fact , it seems that Rafale can only give around 10 Kw to the radar to play with . This is the reason why Dassault and Thalès said to the UAE that to gain 10% performance in range , a re-design of the electrical system was needed .

But , that doesn ‘t mean that the RBE2 has a better range than the -77 , so why that ? Because it depends mainly on what the radar is designed for and how the beam forming is used (software related) . As a general rule , better the resolution is , lower the range is .
The goal (the job) of an Aesa radar is to be as much multitask as it can so the power (the juice) is always divided in between the tasks at hand . “X” numbers of the T/R modules will do “this” while “X” numbers will do “that” , which is called interleaving .
A radar built for extrem long detection will fare “poorly” (or not at all) in other task (i.e SAR , realtime groundmapping, etc) . In 2008 , Northrop Grumman fielded the APG-77(v1) to better the AtoG tasks .

It also depends on how the user is seeing things , is he going to use “brute force” (Russia) or an ENCOM approach (F-22 , Rafale) where the defensive suite is carefully managing the EM emitions at all time ?
The radar (and how the back-end works) will be different , be sure of it .

So , to come back to the thread at hand , the Blk 52 radar can ‘t compete with the RBE2-AA and the J-10 is still using a mechanical array . Rafale has a big edge .

Cheers .

Evidence for that? Oh sorry you have none!

Stop spinning something that the Indian MOD deny! (…)
Stop persisting in spinning rumours that have no basis!

It depends on what evidence you are talking about .
BlackArcher said :

it turns out that the IAF actually recommended the Rafale

which is true .

Cheers .

Did that actually fly or was it just a static model?

I ask this because I can’t seem to find any air intakes in that pic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYueaFelZ9U

Cheers .

tell me about it 12F 🙂
And …very fast : Mach 2.34 , a speed record who still stand for a European made fighter 😎

(for some reasons , it reminds me of a well known US Navy Fighter …:D)

Cheers .

Both Lockheed and Boeing were debriefed on the reasons they did not make the downselect, and both accepted the fact that they lost because they would require ToT waivers for some technologies, and this was not acceptable to India. But hey whatever you want to believe 🙂

Phaid , soon you are going to try to explain to us that the US planes offered to India are better than the selected aircraft . 😀
While it is true that India gave the finger to the US due to “attached strings” and poor ToT , the IAF clearly said that the 2 US fighters did NOT met the technical requirement and were (I quote) “older equipement and not state of the art equipement“
-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2zdNzmBanQ&feature=player_embedded#!

As an example, the SH had really poor performance during take offs in high altitude airbases and in one occasion it even failed to take off . Its APU also suffered and lead to many aborted “start engines” . Something the Indian Fulcrums and MK2s have no problem with .
In fact , there has been very little politics involved during the MMRCA contest because of the rules imposed by the Indian GoV and the IAF Herself .
Some good papers and videos are explaining CLEARLY that transparency was of the utmost importance .
Phaid , since the Rafale won you didn ‘t say a single word about the aircraft itself (like “Bravo”) but you keep posting every “cons” you can find here and there . You ‘re acting the same than on a well known so called “military” US far-right forum …

You also said :

Right, just as Dassault and EADS had to include the expensive AESA radar upgrade for their aircraft to even meet India’s requirements for sensor performance

-1) any Aesa radar is expensive
-2) “even met” ??? Where did you get that ? At the contrary , I can tell you that the production RBE2-AA used during the technical evaluation was highly regarded . Another hint : the real-time ground mapping/terrain following mode coupled to the autopilot IMPRESSED the Indians in the Himalayas 😎 .

Cheers .

I always prefer military canard aircraft like Gripen and Rafale, where the canard is behind the pilot. Surely it gives the pilot better vision. eh ?

True , special mention to AtoG :

Cheers .

Now now! Both aircraft met the technical needs of the competition and Typhoon was found to be better in certain technical areas whilst the Rafale in others. Don’t try and spin it otherwise the contest WAS VERY CLEAR on this…the final part of the contest was cost based only!

So far people have been fairly cordial about the result don’t sink it now with silly comments like that.

I understand but I wasn ‘t looking down on the Typhoon . What I was saying is when you have Rafales , what ‘s the point to have Typhoons ???
(I admit that I rate the Rafale higher than the Typhoon .)
We ‘re not gonna start again a pissing contest but what a 2020 Typhoon can do a 2020 Rafale can ‘t ? To start with , I contest the rumor that the Typhoon is a better AtoA platform than the Rafale .

Cheers .