arthuro wrote:Call the margins whatever you want. Point is the IAF's MKIs fly without fuel tanks and I've never heard of any pressing requirement to extend that range, whether it is for tactical reasons or strategic ones. And if that range is good enough for the Su-30MKI, its good enough for the EF.
The MKI is not a good example as it sheer size makes it in a league of its own and even without fuel tank it gets more range than the typhoon.
Anyway with this type of argument you can say that the IAF doesn’t need the typhoon because the MKI has already bigger radar and if you upgrade it to AESA level it will always be superior to the typhoon and it would cost less than acquire the typhoon...And there is the T-50 coming… So this is a flawed logic and this type of arguments can go against the typhoon as well.
More range is always good to have in almost any type of operations. It simply creates tactical opportunities as explained previously:
attack from an indirect way from where your enemy is not expecting, re-route because a SAM pops-up, engage or escape a formation of enemy fighters, loitering longer over an area of interest in support of your troops or searching for potential targets...You can do all that with better/safer margins.
Typhoon range is Ok for ATA missions but poor for AtG duties, especially for long range strikes. Considering the size and price of the typhoon this is a big drawback.
You're missing the point royally. The Rafale's range on internal fuel is comparable to the Eurofighter's on internal fuel. The whole argument about the Rafale's greater operational range revolves around the fact that it can carry more fuel externally. Now if the ability to carry more fuel externally is
always good
without any diminishing returns, why don't we see the MKI flying with a pair of fuel tanks. It certainly wouldn't be a major technical challenge; the aircraft is already equipped with the Cobham buddy refueling pod.
You cannot dissociate the aircraft's capabilities from its intended role. The chosen MRCA wasn't required to bomb Somalia and recover to Nairobi. If the Su-30MKI can comfortably perform all tasks required of it without external fuel, so could the EF with two EFTs.
Taking down Lybian air defenses is already a testament that a modern RWR can be accurate enough to take down a SAM site with extracted 3D GPS coordinates only unlike a proper HARM missile who follow the radiation.
You forget that this capability was also demonstrated in AtA during ATLC and the opponents were not “old gen”: Typhoon, mirage 2000-9 and F16 block-60 (the precise type was not disclosed).
Also Typhoon and most other allied aircarfts were safely waiting the clearing of SAM sites as they needed to wait massive B2 and tomahwk strike against SAM sites while rafales could enter Lybian airspace prior to those massive strikes (day1) thanks to Spectra. That shows confidence and capability.
And yet Rafales employed the (fairly expensive) SCALP-EG against Libyan targets when it could just as well have popped over there and lobbed a few AASMs at them instead. What gives? In any case, the IAF is opting for a dedicated ARM rendering the AASM redundant.
That’s your own invention. The evaluation included defensive and offensive scenarios including a supersonic (mach 1,5) high altitude interception of a Swiss F18-hornet. In both defensive and offensive scenario the typhoon was behind.
The second phase of the evaluation in 2009 was about the Typhoon P1E with upgraded DASS and it was still behind in all types of scenario.
That's truly impressive considering that they'd run of out airspace in 30 seconds. And one wonders how they trialled the P1E and upgraded DASS when its only now that its being introduced.
You are forgetting that non emitting aircrafts can be detected via IRST and that Indian aircrafts will also be networked and often under AEW&C support. Rafale or typhoon they aren’t going to survive for long if you assume that the opposing sides are under extensive AEW&C support but that Indian aircrafts aren’t.
IRST at what ranges? Anything over 50km is just plain optimism supplanting capability. And this is just detection that we're talking about, tracking a hostile target on the other hand would require employment of the LRF, an active system.
Indian aircrafts will also be networked and often under AEW&C support. Rafale or typhoon they aren’t going to survive for long if you assume that the opposing sides are under extensive AEW&C support but that Indian aircrafts aren’t.
We're not talking about thumping the neighbourhood tinpot dictator where AEW&C support is assured. We're talking about a full scale conflict possibly on two fronts simultaneously, with one of the potential adversaries set to be the second most powerful air force in the world. While it may have certain limitations in terms of training and exposure, it certainly has a higher capacity for sustaining attrition. The IAF's AEW&C assets are going to be stretched to their limits. As the old saying goes - hope for the best, plan for the worst, and that means preparing to battle an adversary with superior AEW&C support.
I am not saying that typhoon AESA isn’t an asset. It will certainly perform with greater performance overall but for the moment it simply does not exist and that does not mean it will make the typhoon a superior system. Far from it. As for the rafale if you are ready to pay you can get cheeks AESA radar and even GaN components as proposed by Thales. If it was not directly proposed to the IAF in the evaluation it is because the rafale AESA was regarded as competitive enough.
Err... the Eurofighter's AESA should be treated as non-existent but the Rafale's cheek radars can be included in the equation?
On a side note if I followed your style of argument by bringing another Indian aircraft to prove that this capability is not that important I would of course bring the T-50 and why not the super sukhoi-30 with its big AESA working as a mini awacs + very long ranges missiles…Why need the allegedly AtA dominant typhoon then ?
On a side note if I followed your style of argument by bringing another Indian aircraft to prove that this capability is not that important I would of course bring the T-50 and why not the super sukhoi-30 with its big AESA working as a mini awacs + very long ranges missiles…Why need the allegedly AtA dominant typhoon then ?
By all means bring in the T-50. Whenever it does become operational, it will be comfortable superior to the Eurocanards. Vis-a-vis the Su-30MKI, yes its capability is valuable, which is why its no coincidence that its orders have nearly doubled over the last decade while the MRCA deliveries are unlikely to exceed 126 units. That said, the MoD and the IAF are looking to diversify their sources of import, absorb western technology, while still receiving an aircraft with a lower RCS, better MMI and superior flight characteristics including the ability to outmaneuver a Flanker or J-10 in the BVR arena.
Considering the level of performance of the AEROS pod from Thales it makes it in a completely different league than the recce light which is a bit of a poor man airborne reconnaissance. In the Swiss evaluation the typhoon was simply crushed by the rafale the Swiss themselves describing an “outstanding performance” of the AEROS pod.
The IAF's standard reconnaissance pod is the ELM 2060P, a system in the same class as the Reco-NG.
The AASM has a range of up to 60km dropped at subsonic speed for the 250kg version and about 100Km for the 125kg version. Dassault is currently opening the firing envelop of AtG weapons for supersonic release which will increase AASM already respectable range. Hammers are true standoff weapons with far more punch and reactivity than a gliding SDB. Future version of SDB will have tri-sensor seaker which bring some advantages and if the IAF feel the need to integrate the SDB with the rafale it can do it. Just like a proper HARM.
The difference is that the SDB's projected production is well in excess of the AASM's resulting in a far lower unit cost. And once the F-35 enters service in numbers over the next two decades, the scale of production will only increase. Plus, given its design the drag caused by the SDB is much lower than an AASM type add on kits.
With only gravity bombs the typhoon is still incapable of perform AtG strikes except in a safe environment which is a bit funny when you are supposed to be a super 4th gen fighter. I mean you are often bringing opposing fighters in your demonstrations to speak about typhoon air to air performance but conveniently more rarely SAM threats. An AASM will allow you to strike safely outside most of medium range SAM threats safely and for most defended areas (usually linked with strategic assets) you can use cruise missiles.
Strike 'safely' outside their envelope is a matter of opinion. Flying nap-of-the-earth exposes the aircraft to AAA and MANPADS while still leaving it vulnerable to airborne radars in the area and at a disadvantage to hostile fighters at higher altitudes.
Again, you're missing the point here. If indeed as you suggest the Rafale can benefit from the best of both worlds and field an American munitions package, that leaves it at the starting point with only the Paveway II integrated. The Rafale's 'available right away unlike EF' capabilities are contingent on the purchase of AASMs to go with it. While that's still a strong possibility, its quite obvious that the SDB and even JDAM is a better alternative to the AASM.
And anti-ship strike is also a missing capability for the typhoon.
The IAF is already equipped with the Kh-35, Harpoon, will soon be receiving the BrahMos and probably still has Sea Eagles in storage. The very last thing it needs is to further diversify that inventory by purchasing the Exocet. Ordinarily one would recommend that Harpoon be integrated to the MRCA, but seeing as the Brahmos thoroughly outperforms both of them (with a hypersonic variant in development), sticking with the Brahmos would be a wise decision.
That’s exactly the opposite: French weapons were a great asset to market the rafale for india. Read the report about the “true reasons of rafale victory”. And your reasoning does not stand a second. Why then upgrading those old mirage 2000 and buy those expensive micas?
With this flawed reasoning you could also argue that India should have gone for a US jet as they are produced in quantities at a very competitive price. Yet India didn’t go for a US jet by that logic…Why would it be different for weapons? And if ever they feel the need to get US weapons that should not be an issue. At least you have two options which makes you more independent.
'Reasoning does not stand a chance'? Are you seriously contesting the
fact that American munitions provide the best value-for-money? And before touting the MICA sale for the Mirages perhaps you'd like to examine the cost of a slightly larger order of AMRAAMs that headed to the PAF not long back.
The AASM is also superior to the SDBs in many aspects: it is much more powerful (up to 1000kg) and is far better against time sensitive targets as it is propelled vs a gliding bomb.
Including the cost of development the AASM is priced at $450K each, which the company claims will fall to $250K each once the entire projected order is processed. Even assuming that costs offloaded to an export customer will be low, that's still a very expensive proposition.
Same is true with the paveway IV: no range. And 1000Kg bombs are often uses in support of ground troops in Afghanistan. When you want to dislodge a mortar team firing at you from a mountain but you can’t spot them exactly a 1000Kg bomb is usually used…Or more generally when the distance is big enough you have a far better effect even in terms of psychological effect. There are plenty of “CAS” videos in Astan with 1000kg JDAM.
What do you mean no range for the Paveway IV? Where did you get the figures? Secondly, Afghanistan is not war, its a counter insurgency and its far from the first time that the US military has employed a sledgehammer where a pocket knife would have sufficed. Unfortunately the IAF doesn't have the luxury of expending expensive ordinance for psychological effect.
There plenty of situations were bigger AtG stores are necessary. I return you the question: in which major regional conflicts big AtG weapons were not used? And I bet it is often much more efficient, flexible and precise than resorting to Ground to Ground weapons.
So the Nirbhay isn't a 'big' enough air to ground weapon? Why would one want to put an aircraft in harm's way only to launch a missile that could have been launched from home base?
Fact is the typhoon is simply limited as soon as you need big stores as you have to choose between fuel and weapons. Even with paveway IV for that matter. Look: with 6 paveway IV and a LDP you get 0 external fuel with the typhoon while you can get up to 6000L of external fuel for the rafale(!)
With 6000L of external fuel you get a RCS rivaling the Su-30MKI's and drag surpassing it. And with 6 AASMs, you end up with a hole in your pocket.
I fully stand behind my post. Euroradar is a consortium like EuroJet and I will add with a political dimension as each country wants a fair share of the work.
Cassidian and Selex are part of the euro radar consortium and must agree on the architecture and the work share for development and production. That’s a time consuming effort. The Indian rafale contract negotiation should last for a year to give a comparison.
And when you are only at the stage of a RFP you are not yet at the stage where governments fully endorse the final project and a lot of cash is irrigating the program. 2015 seems more and more unrealistic as even Jon Lake admitted on key.
Call it 2016 if you like. With its power output and field of view... worth it.
The fundamental difference in the end between the rafale and the typhoon is that one is actually tested and available while the second is about promises that are still unfunded. With “if” you can imagine anything…That’s almost the only way the typhoon supporters can argue : an hypothetical super typhoon. Rafale supporter should bring the rafale F4...Development has started for the EW part so...
No super EF - just the regular old one with an AESA. With regard to the Rafale, two basic limitations remain - undersized radar and French munitions. Hopefully, the AESA will go some way in alleviating the first while a Raytheon supplement should take care of the latter.
You had the same hope that EF would get all the features that Rafale already has and will have in the version we get, that makes you now believe it will be better in 2015. The problem is, as long as the partners don't come to a joint decision, there is no hope for the EF, as sad as it is!
And there we have it again, otherwise you just confirmed that AESA is fully export customer dependent.