India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

[Indranil]

I have just one question to the pundits ... Since we are discussing the radar ranges here, please illustrate to me scenario of when any one the opponent fires a A2A missile and how does the scene roll out from there?

My underlying thought is state of art planes can beat beat state of art missiles heralded at it by further than 40 kms, at which distance planes both planes would be glowing red in each others screens ... So what difference does it make in operation to have a 180 km radar vis-a-vis a 120 km radar.

Once we have decoded this I would like to make a it a little more complicated. Suppose we are hunting in formations (almost always the case) ... with the upgraded Su-30 radars, one would be able to look quite far indeed and nobody is going to shoot off missiles from 100 kms away ... so there should be enough warning before hand.

So my basic question is simple, given today's status quo what is the point of going on and on about how far my radar can see when I can't do anything at that distance, except taking a U-turn before I light up the enemy radars?

I'm under the impression you think to much in absolute terms. Say your radar x has 180 km vs. 5sqm target. Radar y has 120 km vs the same target. Now reduce the signature size auf your target. Radar X now can track it at 60km, while radar y is reduced to 40 km range. Quite a difference.

Plane x doesn't defeat missile y at range z. I thas a chance to do so. And not all targets are of the same quality. Reduced radar range just limits your choices. And since assets like AEW aircraft are a limited resource I can't embrace the idea that onboard sennsors are not necessary. If that where the case, Raptor and JSF wouldn't be fitted with large powerful radars.

Marc, you just made the RCS of the target 1/3rd at a swoosh. Tracking range is a fourth power of RCS. For making an aircraft undetectable by 3 times, you have to reduce its RCS by 81 times. And this is for a clean aircraft.

Modern aircraft have the same RCS as the armaments it carries. So as long as we do nothing for weapons' signature reduction and they are slung outside of the plane, even if you make the RCS of the plane 0, your total RCS will remain half of what it used to be. In that case you will reduce the distance at which you get detected by 16%.

[SaiK]

well, we are assuming again that we can't integrate the near 1 tonner novator k-100 that has an expected range of at least 200km and possibly more. so, unless this integration is not planned, then we can safely assume the existing kat radar is sufficient.

[GeorgeWelch]

Does Typhoon Have Upper Hand in India?

Close and experienced observers of the Indian defense sector are placing their bets on the Eurofighter Typhoon beating the Rafale in the competition to provide India with new combat aircraft.

They say the two aircraft down-selected at the end of last month are very similar performance-wise and so the decision is likely to swing to the Typhoon.

And why? Because Dassault in December signed a $2.1 million contract to upgrade India's fleet of 51 Mirage-2000s and, these observers say, India is likely to buy submarines from France. So, in keeping with India's policy of keeping a broad supplier base, India is unlikely to also procure its 126 new medium multi-role combat aircraft from France.

[Nihat]

Does Typhoon Have Upper Hand in India?

Close and experienced observers of the Indian defense sector are placing their bets on the Eurofighter Typhoon beating the Rafale in the competition to provide India with new combat aircraft.

They say the two aircraft down-selected at the end of last month are very similar performance-wise and so the decision is likely to swing to the Typhoon.

And why? Because Dassault in December signed a $2.1 million contract to upgrade India's fleet of 51 Mirage-2000s and, these observers say, India is likely to buy submarines from France. So, in keeping with India's policy of keeping a broad supplier base, India is unlikely to also procure its 126 new medium multi-role combat aircraft from France.

I think we BRF and many defense analyst types have been somewhat mistaken by the overwhelming feeling that the final decision will be political and IAF will only make recommendations, Rafale and EF selection does imply that perhaps IAF does have the final say over here and decision will be based 100% on technical parameters and IAF requirements.

Having said that, I really don't know why IAF would need another "Air superiority" bird with the MKI already in its ranks, PAKFA in prototype phase and LCA too under induction. They maybe looking at a more h-tech replacement for our Jaguar and Mig-27 fighter bomber role. Also, I wonder how much upgrades can make up for in areas which the designers perhaps considered "secondary" requirements at the time of designing the fighter. The F-16 for eg. was always meant to be a A2A bird with A2G capabilities , similarly the SH was always meant to be ground pounder but with more than enough capability as a A2A fighter.

[BENNY]

MMRCA, French ambassador interview


May 18th, the Hindu is publishing an Interview of Jerome Bonnafont, French Ambassador in India. The French public servant's answers to the Indian Journalist about the ongoing MMRCA contest are very elusive and in line with the usual French behaviour about the India competition for 3 years : The less we talk, the better it is.

Indu : In the joint statement, it was mentioned that the contract for the much-delayed upgrade of the Indian Air Force's Mirage-2000 aircraft would be inked soon. It's five months since.


J.B : Commercial negotiations are always long; there are so many things to agree upon. It's very complex. It has to go through many processes, so it takes time. But we're hopeful it'll be completed soon.


Indu : In a major step in the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) procurement process, India has shortlisted from six contenders the French Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them to renew their commercial bids. The process has had many twists and turns from the time the Request for Proposal went out with speculative stories doing the rounds, MMRCA files going for jaunts and the like. How do you view the latest development?


J.B : At this stage, I'll be extremely sober and quick in my answer. Rafale is an exceptional plane which is in operation in many significant fields of operation showing its performance there. We're very satisfied that it is allowed to continue in the race. The French government is giving 100 per cent support to Dassault and for the continuation of its discussions with the Government of India.


Indu : Is there a Navy angle to the MMRCA competition? While Rafale boasts a naval variant, the Typhoon naval version is under development. Would there be a French pitch if the Indian Navy sought to buy a new carrier-borne fighter?


J.B : I'm not going to elaborate on that.

This last cursory reply alone tells a lot about how cautious (paranoiac ?) the French are regarding the MMRCA. Yet, Everybody will have understood that the "Navy angle of the MMRCA" will most likely play a significant role in the indian final choice. Similarly, EADS strong advertising for its Typhoon N at the last aero India air show was certainly not innocent...


http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/05/ ... l?spref=tw

[Rakesh]

well, we are assuming again that we can't integrate the near 1 tonner novator k-100 that has an expected range of at least 200km and possibly more. so, unless this integration is not planned, then we can safely assume the existing kat radar is sufficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_K-100

Wiki states that the K-100 program has been resurrected in 2004, due to India providing the funds. She is an AWACS killer...good for hunting down Erieyes and KJ-2000/Y-8 aircraft. All three aircraft serve/will serve with the Pakistan and Chinese air forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJ-200

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJ-2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_2000

[Viv S]

Viv: Thanks for your reply. You are probably right in saying that if I can see early I can strategize faster, which might translate into me gaining height or going off bore sight or taking refuge of ground clutter. But after doing that if I use active scanning, at around the 100-140 km mark I will start showing up on my opponents radar (most modern radars have that range). Unless I have passive tracking capability from this 100 km range onwards and my missiles don't need radar guidance, I would be illuminating my opponents screen from 100 km onwards.

Indranil: That's where frequency hopping LPI AESAs come into the picture. The opponent's RWR may pick up trace radiation, but getting a positive ID, let alone a ranging solution will be a very big challenge. In addition, having a far greater number of T/R modules on the Captor-E allows it more flexibility, functioning in an EW role, in lieu of or supplementing RWRs and for datalinking.

Now how much time does my opponent have to the point that they can start firing things at let say (40km) : Assuming that their average relative velocity is 1200 kmph, the time is 3 minutes. Most modern fighters reach their flight ceiling in less than a minute. any other maneuver takes lesser time.

That's assuming the fighters will hold fire till they get to the missile's NEZ (the Meteor is rumoured to have a NEZ of 80km - maybe higher depending on launch vel. and alt.). Detecting first will usually give the pilot the option of taking the first (and longer) shot albeit with a lower pk, thereby forcing the opponent to take evasive action. And incidently, the EF's supercruise capability gives it the option of a higher launch velocity when forced to shoot at short notice.

Well then what about stealth? If I can look very far, but can't hit so far, then let me become invisible till my firing range or become kinematically agile within this range. F-35/F-22 applies the first logic and Su-35 applies the later.

Well, the LO characteristics of the Rafale and EF in a dirty configuration are at par. But the EF still retains an advantage in agility in all profiles.

But just putting a big radar on the same "4++ gen" airframe with similar missiles (and limitations) is not going to change the game by much. And this was displayed by the much publishes Rafale vs EF face-offs.

Depends on how you define 'much'. If one had to choose between that advantage and the Rafale's two additional wet points, I'm confident the former is a better option. With regard to the face-offs - I wouldn't read too much into it until one has heard both sides of the story (we learned at least that much from the Red Flag debrief). And it most certainly wouldn't offset disparities that would set in once both aircraft graduate to AESAs (the touted SPECTRA will find locking onto Captor-E's emissions, a very different cup of tea from the Captor-M's).

[SaiK]

Scenario: On a mini awac role MKI say does track and scan at 300-350km ranged targets and feeds into MMRCA which at at 100-150km from various targets.

This would be best deep strike approach for least illumination of the striker a/c. Any difficulties in integrating with MKI:- either Rafale or EF2K that can't talk to MKI platform at all?

[negi]

Indranil I share you pov on the Radar range; if one would check the www for the list of fathest ever BVR kills one willl see a figure of 16-20km reported by Unkil during the Gulf war, and it is noteworthy that apart from the detection and tracking performance of a airborne Radar a reliable mechanism of IFF should be in place else there is a chnace that one might down a friendly AC at BVR ranges.

Having said that coming to your point about advanatge of having a more powerful Radar one of the key things that comes to my mind is ablility to exploit the capabilities of a moderm BVR missile like Meteor to it's fullest extent which might not neccessarily be the case with a Radar which can detect a fighter sized target at say 120km (assuming the tracking range for the same target size would come down to ~100km in say TWS mode).

[Juggi G]

Self Deleted

[Indranil]

Viv, I understand the very basics of AESA, but do understand the frequency hopping but at 100 kms an opponent will start seeing you even without RWR.

And Meteor is being touted as the next big thing with a lot of kinematic energy, but could you provide and credible links which say that the NEZ of the missile is 80 km. With a 100 odd km as max. range, 80 km of NEZ is quite hard to imagine If the NEZ is really 80 km, my point is moot, otherwise we are back to square 1 with my first question.

Negi sahab, I know of the record you are speaking of. I am still saying let us assume that with a meteor like missile, let us say that tomorrow we can shoot down an opponent at 40 km. All my rudimentary calculations are based on the 40km range. Even then ....

[SaiK]

Juggi, please consider to keep such posts into a separate thread, per guidelines.

[Singha]

imo compared to the mini-awacs theory of a MKI the desi EMB145 will do a far better job - its radar is suited to surveilling 100s of targets and probably tracking 10s of them, it has the onboard consoles and operators, comprehensive datalinks and EW and a good azimuth without having to keep its nose pointed directly at the enemy vector.

in a strike package ofcourse a high flying active radar MKI or any other plane might be able to passive feed the radar pic to lo-lo-lo fighters via ODL. but for air defence not really needed if AEW planes are onsite.

sometimes I think BRFites project the MKI as the solution to all the worlds problems...or a solution searching for problems to fix

[Raman]

Having a radar that out-ranges your (and the opponent's) weapons has several advantages:
- As Singha points out, you can guide a missile shot from an off-axis friendly who is flying nose cold. This is sure to give a heart-attack to the enemy.
- You can choose to prosecute, decline or skirt around a BVR engagement depending on the tactical situation. You shouldn't underestimate the value of discretion, being the better part of valor, etc. Even better, with an aircraft with gobs of fuel like the MKI, you can (temporarily) decline the engagement, re-position and re-engage on better terms.

[Indranil]

But sometimes it could be one of the solutions, right? I mean the AEW have their role. There is no questioning that. But they have their limitations on agility, high value etc.

Limiting our fighters to AEW detection range cripples there operation range too as most of the time we would like them to operate well within our borders.

Anyways this is a completely different discussion. Ofcourse the MKI is first our supreme A2A fighter and then everything else and certainly not a mean to all ends.

[Singha]

desi EMB145/Phalcon flying racetrack orbits say 150km inside indian airspace should still be able to scan around 300km across the border(maybe more for the phalcons). this will be high quality scanning not subject to nose pointing and other limitions of big fighter radars. ground based radars of high power will be scanning upto 800km away from where they stand ...atleast for high flying targets.

with this, we can probably catch enemy fwd airbases all the action , but fighters/strikers sortieing from further inland at low level to dodge ground based radars can be picked up only if they prick the 300km bubble. at around 800kmph speed they will still need around 30mins to arrive at the indian border .... enough time I feel to vector interceptors to intercept points.

for strike pkgs, going past the 300km mark for deep targets ofcourse a AWACS could tail along far in the rear to provide a moving bubble or a high flying MKI transmit at full power to provide a moving bubble atleast in frontal arc. periodically another MKI could do a right-left 180' sweep and resume fwd heading.

[bmallick]

I think another important thing has to be kept in mind during all this discussion of which to pick between Rafale and Typhoon. What am I am talking about is the whole idea of Medium Fighter. With MKI being the heavy fighter for us, the concept of medium means, the fighter would have lesser capabilities albeit at a lesser cost, both operational and unit . If we are getting lesser capability at equal cost of a heavy fighter it beats the very purpose of going for a medium fighter. So a Typhoon having significantly less radar capability, less strike capability etc but at the same cost as MKI beats the very rational of the IAF going for a medium fighter, further investing money from our pocket to get complete capability would add more salt to the wounds in our pocket. Hence the Rafale makes more sense, for all costs being touted around are significantly less than Typhoon.

[Nihat]

Rafale vs Typhoon: A History Of Malice

[MarcH]

Marc, you just made the RCS of the target 1/3rd at a swoosh. Tracking range is a fourth power of RCS. For making an aircraft undetectable by 3 times, you have to reduce its RCS by 81 times. And this is for a clean aircraft.

Modern aircraft have the same RCS as the armaments it carries. So as long as we do nothing for weapons' signature reduction and they are slung outside of the plane, even if you make the RCS of the plane 0, your total RCS will remain half of what it used to be. In that case you will reduce the distance at which you get detected by 16%.

Sorry for my inaccurate language. Assume just two different targets. What I'm trying to say is that signature reduction becomes more and more a fundamental design principle in military aviation.
And this is not exactly a good thing if by today the radar range of a certain aircraft is considered "sufficient".

[paramyog]

So if EFT is selected for IAF, then Raf might just b with the Navy, for its 2nd Aircraft carrier.

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/sea/ind ... craft.html

[kmc_chacko]

I would have preferred to have 126 Rafael's i.e., 72 to IAF (replace 51 older Mirage's and total 4 sq) & 54 for IN and 216 EF's i.e., by 2020 IAF will have 3 sq of Mig-29, 12 sq of EF's, 4 sq of Rafael, 15 sq of Su-30MKI, 6 sq of Tejas total 40 sq of top end fighters

[jai]

well, we are assuming again that we can't integrate the near 1 tonner novator k-100 that has an expected range of at least 200km and possibly more. so, unless this integration is not planned, then we can safely assume the existing kat radar is sufficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_K-100

Wiki states that the K-100 program has been resurrected in 2004, due to India providing the funds. She is an AWACS killer...good for hunting down Erieyes and KJ-2000/Y-8 aircraft.

Rakesh, the wiki page seems to be very old and all the supporting links/docs seem to be from the 2005 - 2007 period. What is notable is that there is nothing in the open sources anywhere after 2007 - which can mean either that the program is progressing in complete secrecy or that some where the program got cancelled.

What is interesting and gives hope is that the IDA analysis on FGFA http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... analy.html does list a certain R 172 AAM - L with > 200 km range. Perhaps the missile is now redesignated, but no word of any collaboration or joint production yet.

[Indranil]

Having a radar that out-ranges your (and the opponent's) weapons has several advantages:
- As Singha points out, you can guide a missile shot from an off-axis friendly who is flying nose cold. This is sure to give a heart-attack to the enemy.
- You can choose to prosecute, decline or skirt around a BVR engagement depending on the tactical situation. You shouldn't underestimate the value of discretion, being the better part of valor, etc. Even better, with an aircraft with gobs of fuel like the MKI, you can (temporarily) decline the engagement, re-position and re-engage on better terms.

Raman sahab, but shoot his missile from what distance? That is my fundamental question. And I have never said disengaging is cowardly.

I think I am posing my question in a wrong way. I am not saying that a bigger radar is useless. But having a bigger a radar alone wouldn't make the EF the better A2A fighter of tomorrow. For example how do you think a aerial fight with a (say) Su-30 against a A-50 armed with say R-37 or K-100 missiles end up with?

The reason I brought up the SU-30s was because I wanted to stress the point that not all platforms in our inventory needs to have the largest radar. We will have huge radars in the MKI and FGFA.

[Singha]

the hunter killer example of higher RCS F15s illuminating targets for the stealthy F22s going in closer could be an example.

EF has the advantage of carrying 4 AAMs in conformal fashion, reducing its frontal RCS but its intake is much more prominent than the blended manta ray shape of the rafale. if rafale could work out underwing stealthy weapons stations for meteor and mica would be a good combo

[Karan M]

VivS,

I wouldn't dismiss the French pilots claims of detecting a Typhoon at twice the range they detect a Rafale as hot air. It could indeed be that the EF has a RCS significantly more than that of the Rafale, which by several accounts was designed for discreet operations from day one, plus tasked for the French deterrent. The limited range of the radar, and reports (note the JED report I linked earlier) that it operates in LPI fashion or has LPI modes would indeed back that up. Plus the effort put into Spectra is fairly comprehensive. While DASS is by no means a pushover, it does appear the French invested heavily in Spectra, some reports note almost a third of the cost around the Rafale program was in Spectra alone. Overall, I do think the Rafale was designed for being a multirole platform from day one whereas the EF program office focused more and more on the Air Superiority aspect, since the individual partner nations had significant A2G capability already extant in their fleets. At a British discussion boards, there are a couple of ex EF program management guys from the RAF who noted that the attitude towards the EF was always A2A, with A2G really neglected. I would disagree with you that the extra wet pylons and greater payload capability (thanks to the pylon arrangement) of the Rafale is not a big deal. I would say its a pretty big deal, as it allows it to have a more robust performance in the strike role. While CFTs may ameliorate this for the EF, apart from ruining the otherwise good looks of this aircraft, they will need to be integrated and flight tested, something which has not yet been done, which will be time consuming and expensive. Overall, while I agree with you that the EF has some advantages - namely a better A2A optimized radar with long range, better T/W ratio, higher top speed & kinematic performance, but I do feel that the Rafale is a more mature platform today in terms of multirole capabilities, with a balanced roadmap already laid out & with lesser political hassle to deal with when it comes to working with one supplier nation (which we have a long history with) versus four, with complicated workshare agreements and political issues. TOT will be IMO, a bigger hassle with the EF than with the Rafale. Offsets on the other hand, will be easier from EADS than Dassault, given the size differential. Logistically speaking, the oft repeated claim the Mirage 2000 & Rafale fleet have commonalities may have an element of truth. There are common standards used by every nation for stuff like ground handling equipment, even weapons lugs and placements, fuel and aviation lubricant standards etc. We could also use a lot of the weapons stuff that we are buying for the Mirage 2000 on the Rafale as well.

Personally, I now find it hard to decide which of the platforms to root for. The Su-30 MKIs even today, can handle the J-10B & evolved Flanker variants. Upgraded variants will be even more potent, coming as they will with upgraded radar, EW suites and avionics. Even without an engine upgrade, they will still be the peers of most PLAAF aircraft kinematically (given the size of the J-20, unless they have significantly more powerful engines, it may not be all that it is hyped out to be). So with the presence of Su-30 MKIs and AWACS/AEW&C, a case could be made that we need to focus more on the multirole mission than the traditional "fighter jock" air superiority one, which too the Rafale can handle. Kargil showed the value of the multirole Mirage 2000 fleet to effect. OTOH, it can also be argued, as you have done, that the more capable fighters the better, to deal with the perceived PLAAF threat which is increasing on a constant basis, plus the chance of a dual front war.

One final aspect, the Saudis have the EF - the KSA & PAF enjoy close ties. To some extent, the PAF will have opportunities to understand to some extent the EF. To date, the Rafale is only available with France. We may end up as the first unique customer of the type, while that also puts financial strain on us, there is also the privacy aspect. Don't know whether the IAF factored this in. Of course, at an operational level, the EF will remain classified, but at a platform level, some details will be known.

Whats funny, is that we know very little about the EF package offered to India, beyond the fact that it will be at Tranche 3+ level, plus incorporating all present improvements part of the P1E level. According to the net, CFTs are not part of the Indian offer, but are on offer for the EF 2020 concept. On a plus side, the swashplate AESA is part of the EF India offer.

Whichever aircraft we buy, I hope we work out a long term arrangement by which it serves as a proper multirole platform. We can scarce afford single mission aircraft given the limited fleet size we have. In that vein, I hope the EF guys pay more attention to the A2G role, beyond just the LGB and designation angle. ALARM, AASM style weapons would be a plus. Long range naval strike and land strike missiles another. I would also love to read more about the EF in the low level strike role. There is an excellent article about the Rafales integrated capabilities in that arena, and the latest F3 level can do 600 knots at 100 feet, with payload using the TFR, which is, to say the least, very impressive.

[Indranil]

the hunter killer example of higher RCS F15s illuminating targets for the stealthy F22s going in closer could be an example.

That is exactly what I meant when I brought in the Su-30 example.

EF has the advantage of carrying 4 AAMs in conformal fashion, reducing its frontal RCS

I don't have any knowledge of conformal bays on the EF. COuld you please provide any links

but its intake is much more prominent than the blended manta ray shape of the rafale. if rafale could work out underwing stealthy weapons stations for meteor and mica would be a good combo

Also the canards of the EF are much more radar friendly than those on the Rafale.

[Karan M]

imo compared to the mini-awacs theory of a MKI the desi EMB145 will do a far better job - its radar is suited to surveilling 100s of targets and probably tracking 10s of them, it has the onboard consoles and operators, comprehensive datalinks and EW and a good azimuth without having to keep its nose pointed directly at the enemy vector.

in a strike package ofcourse a high flying active radar MKI or any other plane might be able to passive feed the radar pic to lo-lo-lo fighters via ODL. but for air defence not really needed if AEW planes are onsite.

sometimes I think BRFites project the MKI as the solution to all the worlds problems...or a solution searching for problems to fix

An AWACS is any day preferable to a fighter, but remember AWACS come with far more logistical requirements and are far more expensive limiting their numbers. The Phalcon is what, $ 366 Million a piece, at which rate we could procure six MKIs at $60 Million each. And of course, the cost goes up day by day. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090527/j ... 025576.jsp

I really hope the IAF is practical and standardizes on the DRDO AEW&C, its the only logical platform. I really don't think we can afford more than six Phalcons.

Coming to the MKI, I think it is an underestimated platform, despite what you noted.

Let me explain, to this day, a big deal is made out of each incremental upgrade made to the EF & Rafale. Why, the Rafale's carrying a LDP in Afghanistan was big news. The EF showing the capability to do ground strikes in Libya was tom tommed. The MKI achieved true multirole capability a long time back. In Red Flag, the MKIs did both A2A and A2G work equipped with the Litening.

Today, the Su-30 MKI has: LDP (Litening), SEAD capability (Kh-31P) with dedicated pod developed by India for long range detection (Russian RWR itself could cue six Kh-31 P missile but the pod will have better accuracy), AntiShip capability (Kh-31A), PGM capability (LGBs, Russian KAB-500, KAB-250, KH-29 Laser & TV guided missiles), long range precision strike (Kh-59 missile, upto 150 km), BVR capability (R-77, R-27), WVR (R-73E), Long range recon (ELTA SAR pod), buddy refuelling (Cobham pod), a functional ESA, IRST, datalink, communications suite, jammer etc, I am sure I missed a few as well...I mean India, Russia & partners added several capabilities beyond what was on the original Su-30 series, and they did so in a quiet fashion. Compare & contrast the above *implemented list* of capabilities versus whats still being worked on in the EF & Rafale.

Furthermore, India & Russia have now signed off on the Super-30 upgrade (refer PV Naik's comment earlier this year), again, with minimum fuss & hype. Its to get new radars, EW suite & avionics.

Again, if the Russian & Indian side were as PR savvy, the net would be all abuzz with each item to be included on the Super-30 upgrade. But what we do know is that the upgrade is to begin circa 2012, with series upgrade commencing 2016. This for an aircraft already quite comparable to its western peers.

Now consider in the years since we operationalized the Su-30 MKI, what the Russians themselves have developed -
New RVV-AE, R73 variants, new tactical missiles to replace the Kh-25 (Kh-38 series), new range of wideband seeker equipped high speed ARMs (Kh-31 PD), long range AShM (Kh-31A, Kh-35), Glonass guided bombs (500 Kg)....and it becomes obvious that again with, minimum fuss, the Super 30 will come with a lot of capabilities.

What I would like is plumbing for wing tanks (to increase the range even further) & perhaps as part of a second MLU (with deep TOT as before), AL-31FPs to be upgraded to 117S level with some increased thrust. But to begin with, an avionics refresh, wing tanks, and that "mythical" K-100 missile to be made a reality as part of the Super-30. With that armament, Su-30's can force the AWACS to disengage, and once that is done, the Indian side will dominate in situational awareness. It will be a slaughter especially against the PAF, which has only, some 50 F16s and the rest all those second string JF-17s. Chinese Military Aviation (the speculative Chinese leak site) notes that the KLJ radar on the JF-17 can detect a 3 q Mtr RCS at 75 km. Fairly primitive performance by todays standards and no wonder the PAF was looking for a French RDY3+Mica+IRST+ Avionics package for their JF-17s!!

[Singha]

I meant the EF is shown with 4 semi-conformal meteors lined up along the fuselage. the pylons do not stick out holding the missile a distance away from fuselage.

[arthuro]

As far as agility is concerned the rafale is a much more maneuvrable fighter. It won 9-1 in WVR gun dogfight against the typhoon.

Enemy Brothers

Air&Cosmos - June 2010


Since birth, both were scheduled to compete. The wrestling (commercial) which has now engaged the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale on the international scene has its roots in the early 80s, while Europe is seriously considering a joint development of a new multinational European fighter aircraft. France, United Kingdom and Germany are the main actors in a drama that will last many years. These last two countries, which have already collaborated in the Panavia consortium for the development of the Tornado are looking to replace a portion of their tactical fleet. For its part, France is trying, too, to have a fighter that can replace almost all of its combat aircraft. But from the beginning, the situation appears complex, whereas the English call for an air superiority aircraft class 11-12 tonnes, Paris argues for a device of only 9 tons. Moreover, the problems of industrial shares weigh down the prospects of cooperation including France, whose aeronautical companies ardently defend their plans to support the maintenance of their skills. In 1985, France announced it will develop alone its future combat aircraft. For their part, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain will start the Eurofighter program. While France wants to start building a really multirole aircraft, the nations in the Eurofighter consortium finance the development of a superiority aircraft, designed for air to air combat. To date yet, the 'Typhoon has only very limited air-ground capabilities compared with the Rafale.

More thrust for the Typhoon

On paper, the Typhoon has some undeniable advantages: more powerful than M88, its two reactors give it a better weight/thrust than the Rafale. According to the Eurofighter pilots, this additional power would be particularly appreciable during simulated combat below 20,000 ft, where the density of air allows the engines to be fully expressed. In the battle beyond visual range (BVR), the Typhoon also has an greater "extension" than the Rafale. This is because of the the physical characteristics of the radar, which antenna "sees" futher than the RBE2-PESA, but also because of the dynamic performance of the American missile AIM-120 AMRAAM . Designed exclusively for medium-range interception, it certainly does not have the versatility of the Mica, but it is superior in terms of range. Facing a Rafale, these theoretical advantages, however, must be nuanced.
In BVR combat, although the lengthening of the radar and missiles of the Typhoon are superior, the french Rafale fighter's radar signature is, according to many pilots, much less important than the Eurofighter's one. It is therefore an asset. Even better: the sensors fusion which enjoys the Rafale is also a crucial advantage in BVR combat, because it offers the pilots a much better understanding of the tactical situation during combat, and this, 360 degrees around the aircraft.
Once the "merge" is reached (when BVR combat turns into short-range), the Rafale has still strong chances of victory against the Typhoon. In the opinion of French pilots who have confronted the European aircraft, it's above all the quality of the electric flight controls [FBW] of the French fighter who makes the difference. In dogfight, Rafale can quickly point its nose to the threat, while less degrading its energy than the Eurofighter does. And this partly because the maximum angle of attack of the Rafale is "clamped" around 300, which allows it to evolve in a controlled manner even at low speed.
This difference in terms of maneuverability is also illustrated by the position of the canard on the two planes: placed well in front of the fuselage on the Typhoon, they play the role of an additional control surface used to "steer" more quickly the nose of the plane to take the incidence.
Conversely, the Rafale ducks are located very near the delta wing and are used primarily to pick up the airflow to slow up the loss of lift on the wing, thus giving the pilot a full control of the aircraft at low speeds.

A first indisputable skirmish

The Armée de l' Air has been able to experience this superiority in dogfight in September 2009, during an exercise organized by the French and British headquarters, during a deployment on the Solenzara airbase in Corsica . Few days , the EC-1/7 stands next with the Royal Air Force transformation squadron on typhoons. The English have thought of everything, and introduce to the French pilots the simulated engagement patterns they wish to practice facing the Rafale. The French pilots push back a smile: the conditions of the exercice are, on paper, custom-made for the Typhoons , they plan within visual range fights , 1 vs 1, under 20,000 ft and at 350 knots. Whatever. The 'Provence' squadron takes up the gauntlet ... The 2 planes take off, then meet up at 18 000 ft to start the exercise. The aircraft are flying on the same trajectory with about 2 km of lateral separation. "Turn Away" with this announcement, the pilots turn 45 ° outward, to move away from each other. A few seconds later, the "turn in" and the planes turn toward each other to meet face-to-face in the sky. Once both aircraft is within visual range , its the ultimate ad: "Fight's on!". The first skirmish is indisputable. It need less than 40 seconds and only 3 crossing for the Rafale pilot to have its gun in firing position. However, the pilots flying the two planes are far from beginners. While the English is considered a Typhoon specialist in air-to-air, the "Provence" pilot has also a solid experience in within visual range combat.

Nine wins, one defeat

This initial result is not a fluke: the two next passes end also to the advantage of the Rafale. In total, 4 different engagements will take place in Corsica, for a total of 9 wins against 1 defeat for the french fighter. A nice demonstration of force that inspires the pilots the following moral: without mastery, power is nothing ... It is however an area where the Typhoon is victorious: the one of exports. While the Rafale is still looking for a first client, the Typhoon has already been sold to Saudi Arabia and Austria, and remains opposed to the Rafale in Switzerland and India.

Follow the link for Typhoon being gun locked by rafales :

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4&start=40

Also even before those rafale vs Typhoon encounters it was already anticipated by rafale designers, here is a comment from a Dassault senior engineer about rafale maneuvrability compared to the typhoon :

Like many other aircraft makers, Dassault has selected a delta-canard configuration for its latest design. “As we were working with the other Europeans, we started to diverge significantly on the design” explains Bruno Revellin-Falcoz [Director of Dassault’s Technical Department]. “Ultimately, we made some radically different choices. They wanted fuselage-mounted canards while we preferred to locate the canards almost above the wing-root. The key advantage of this configuration was that it would channel the air flow over the wing apex, which is where lift-generating vortices are formed. The Eurofighter Typhoon uses its canards as simple control surfaces. Although this creates a significant lever effect, it loses the positive impact on lift and therefore aerodynamic efficiency. That’s why we are certain that the Rafale can handle much better than the Typhoon at high angles of attack, such as during the crucial phases of dogfighting and low-speed flight. While they were groping around in the dark, we benefited from the know-how accumulated through the Mirage III Milan, Mirage III NG and Mirage 4000 programmes

Bruno Revellin-Falcoz is one of the father of the rafale and mirage 2000/4000.

[Indranil]

I meant the EF is shown with 4 semi-conformal meteors lined up along the fuselage. the pylons do not stick out holding the missile a distance away from fuselage.

The sticking out part and the amount by which it sticks out is determined by the aerodynamics and the CG. Anything outside with lots of fins will reflect signals.

[Henrik]

the conditions of the exercice are, on paper, custom-made for the Typhoons , they plan within visual range fights , 1 vs 1, under 20,000 ft and at 350 knots.

But is that really true? I thought Typhoon was designed more for high-altitude and higher speeds while the Rafale likes thicker air better than thin? Or am I mistaken? They should try out an encounter at above 20,000 ft and above 350 knots.

[Indranil]

Enemy Brothers
Air&Cosmos - June 2010

Probably we should stop banking on the same report as given by French pilots/designers all the time. This conveniently misses to outline the rules of the DACT. The English had come out later saying that they were simulating other aircraft. Also the FRench pilot had experience with working with EFs before this DACT, while the English did not. This is a huge advantage to the Rafale pilots.

Also the above example is only in case of a WVR where the EF and Rafale start as equals. What happens when Tiffy starts off with a BVR shot and maneuvers itself into a place of authority while Rafale dodges the bullet. Today the difference in the radar and TWR is not as significant as it is going to be when Tiffy comes with the Captor, 120 kN engines, and Meteors.

It is a fact that more AFs have chosen EF over Rafale, even though both were competing, even when EF is more expensive and less glossy than the Rafale.

However Rafales data-fusion and sustained turn rates will always be better than the EF IMHO. The only reason why I am supporting for the Rafale is that it is a very good A2A platform and an even better A2G platform. It can readily go to the IN as well. Also our A2A sector is very well covered.

But to keep drumming in the same DACT report written by French against the EF for its aerial capabilities is ...

[Samay]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xYVopIy86h8/T ... titre3.jpg
This pic says a lot

[SaiK]

Sounds like on a deep strike mission, using emb145/phalcons, perhaps MKIs as cover, low flying cruise capabilities of MMRCA could be nice to have as well, especially for multiple large SEAD targets.

[tejas]

The trailing edges of the Rafale's canards have a dogtooth pattern on their surface. On close up images these dogtooth patterns can be seen on other surfaces as well. The air intakes on the Rafale are a work of mathematical art. Clearly the French have done whatever they could to reduce RCS on what is a fourth generation platform. The air intakes on the Tiffy are as radar unfriendly as they aesthetically repulsive. I would also like for the GOI to give the UQ the finger whenever possible. Listening to German sermonizing for the next 20 years is also not particularly appealing.

I say up the order to 200 Rafales and tell the French the price of admission for this deal and the Mirage upgrade is help in making India an independent manufacturer of gas turbine engines.http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/468 ... 40d7_o.jpg

[arthuro]

I don't think the altitude performance difference (as far as the engines are concerned) is really backed by credible sources. It is more about personnal belief although it is certainly true that each engine would have its favorite area. At 20 000 feet the air is already thin, if you want to fight higher it would be difficult to push your jet at 9G and extracting the max performance of it. Certainly british pilots thought that would be area where the typhoon can perform the best (engine thrust and respone, 9G maneauvres). But that was not sufficient.

look reply n° 1513 on the link below. there is a nice picture with RAF pilots along with AdA pilots with a rafale and a typhon :
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ws/page101

[srai]

...

Today, the Su-30 MKI has: LDP (Litening), SEAD capability (Kh-31P) with dedicated pod developed by India for long range detection (Russian RWR itself could cue six Kh-31 P missile but the pod will have better accuracy), AntiShip capability (Kh-31A), PGM capability (LGBs, Russian KAB-500, KAB-250, KH-29 Laser & TV guided missiles), long range precision strike (Kh-59 missile, upto 150 km), BVR capability (R-77, R-27), WVR (R-73E), Long range recon (ELTA SAR pod), buddy refuelling (Cobham pod), a functional ESA, IRST, datalink, communications suite, jammer etc, I am sure I missed a few as well...I mean India, Russia & partners added several capabilities beyond what was on the original Su-30 series, and they did so in a quiet fashion. Compare & contrast the above *implemented list* of capabilities versus whats still being worked on in the EF & Rafale.

...

SIPRI database does not list KAB-250, and KH-29 Laser & TV guided missiles. Although MKIs are probably integrated for these Russian PGMs, IAF has not purchase them (at least according to the SIPRI records). So far, I have not seen any pictures which shows these two types of PGMs in the IAF. However, KAB-500 is in IAF service. SIPRI reports 500 units of these.

It is unclear about which of the Kh-31A/P variants (or both) have been purchased. SIPRI lists 200 units for these Kh-31 series of missiles.

On Kh-59, SIPRI reports 100 units of Kh-59ME variant, which has a 200km range.

[Indranil]

The trailing edges of the Rafale's canards have a dogtooth pattern on their surface. On close up images these dogtooth patterns can be seen on other surfaces as well. The air intakes on the Rafale are a work of mathematical art. Clearly the French have done whatever they could to reduce RCS on what is a fourth generation platform. The air intakes on the Tiffy are as radar unfriendly as they aesthetically repulsive.

Newbie pooch. Please reply in newbie dhaga if deemed so. Asking it here as it looks pertinent to me.
Question 1.
I have seen this saw tooth argument for Rafale a few times. However, I don't understand how it adds to stealth. It would have added to stealth if the edge itself was saw toothed. Here the source of the RCS (the edge) is still present and as prominently as before. We have added saw tooths in front of it. How does that decrease RCS in any way? Plus, if it was really done for stealth, would the saw tooth have been so fine? A coarser saw tooth pattern creates much lesser RCS. For reference please see the size of the tooth on the F-22/F-35/PAK-FA/J-20.

Also with so many protrusions, it doesn't make sense to remove the minuscule reflections from the edges which are barely at LOS. Either this or Amdahl's common sensical law has ceased to make sense.

I believe the saw tooth pattern is for structural strength rather than stealth. Please correct me.

Question 2.
I can understand that the sideways RCS of the Rafale intake is lower than that of the EF's because of the continuous curves. But from the front both planes subject the same amount of metal (boundary layer splitter and air intake lip). I don't understand waves that well and would like to know why the frontal RCS of the EF's intake is larger than that of Rafale's?

Is it because retro-reflection? But from the front I can't see how the planes in the EF-intake form the reflective planes.

[arthuro]

indranilroy,

Before insinuating that someone is a newbie you should google a little bit

From dassault aviation own website :

Minimising the radar cross section has also been a design driver in order to make stealth tactics possible. Most of the stealth design features are classified, but some of them are clearly visible, such as the serrated patterns on the trailing edges of the wings and canards.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/def ... e.html?L=1

[SaiK]

was RCS one of the 643 parameters? then RCS of the losers must have been so poor and not comparable at all.

btw, if composites allow wave penetrations, then wave deflections can happen with internal structuring as well while maintaining high degree of stealth with additional shaping and material cost of LRUs/other fixed structures.