IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

[Cain Marko]

Well why exactly has the Swedish defmin been visiting... And what is with the bonhomie btw fadnavis and saab? Hainji? Daal mein kala for sure...perhaps lca mk2 will wind up looking like gripen ng wonlee, I see an incanny resemblance. With hal draggjng it feet, ada cooking up new dish called amca, and iaf finding plenty of faults what true stake do any of the so called stake holders truly have, kissee key baap ka kya jata hai, all will continue happily. Iaf with new toy, hal with hanholding gori, and ada with new science project..

[member_22539]

^All this speculation ignores one essential fact - PRICE. How much will a Make in India Gripen cost? Will it be much cheaper than Rafale? Will we be able to afford it in numbers? Or for that matter, which other foreign fighter (outside of Russian and Chinese ones) will we be able to afford in numbers? And do any of these hold a candle to LCA Mk. 1/1.5/2 in terms of value for money?

Wikipedia says Gripen costs close to 70 million per unit (which I SERIOUSLY DOUBT is the current fly away price, not to mention the price of the TOT version). Does this even compare to the 30 to 35 million dollar (at most 40) price of the LCA? Particularly when the capabilities are almost identical.

If they want something more they will have to pay MUCH MUCH more? Where is that money going to come from? Does the IAF have a dollar printing machine?

None of these presstitutes and their MOD/IAF "sources" include these considerations in their speculations, so in the end it is all just NONSENSE.

[srin]

Brazil bought Gripens at around $150M unit price ...

[srai]

^^^

Not cheap!

The problem with the IAF, and the Indian Armed Forces in general, is that every weapon system it imports it needs to acquire a separate set of munitions for them adding to the overall costs. Integrating local (or other in-service) munitions is a lengthy process and will cost extra. That is why in-service munitions are a hodgepodge from every country! Duplicate roles but country of origin different--one type has 50 units while another may be in couple of hundreds. How do you manage inventory of that? No wonder the IA and IAF keep running to the MoD in panic every few years and demand emergency ammo purchases of xyz.

Start standardizing on aircraft types and munitions (over the next 15-years):

• AAM -> Python-5 for CCM; Astra Mk.1/2 for BVR
• ARM -> NGARM
• ASM -> Nirbhay; Brahmos-M
• Anti-armour -> CBU-105; HELINA (fighter launched)
• PGM -> Griffin LGB kit (450kg general & 900kg/2000lb for penetration); Glide-bomb kit (250kg & 450kg)
• Bombs -> HSLD (250kg & 450kg); FAE (500kg), BL755

[Philip]

Reading an interesting book,on our China stand-off (2014) where the author alleges that due to the failure of the LCA,the DRDO (possibly includes the MOD/establishment) wants to acquire the Gripen,by roping in SAAAB to co-develop the "LCA MK-2" which will be a Gripen!
This may explain the Swedish factor we are seeing in play.

[vaibhav.n]

I am still mystified at the lack of clarity as how much would the Rafale cost this country. The per-unit figure being bandied about goes from 100-250 million € mark, costs which might or might not include maintenance & armaments contracts. Whatever might take our local prestitute's fancy.

If one goes by what could be arguably the most accurate document; the French Senate's Finance Bill 2013.

Cost of the program
Before taking into account the draft Trademark Law, the total cost of the program for the state was 45.9 billion € 2013 . Unit cost (excluding development costs) of 74 M € 2013 for the Rafale B (110 aircraft) 68.8 M € 2013 for the Rafale C (for 118 aircraft) and 79 M € 2011 for the Rafale M ( 58 aircraft).

This is for the entire batch of 286 planes which was whittled down to 225 as the document states. For the most part the figure quoted even in the indian contract was in the 80-85 million € region. Even accounting for the new F3R standard and inflation if we assume costs have spiralled to more than 100 million €, it will be difficult to account for the ''reported'' 220 million € fly-away costs.

During the last visit this was what was agreed to France offers India fly-away Rafales at same rate as its own air force

In the same article:

As per industry experts, the price of a Rafale to French air force works out to anywhere between $200-220 million.

"If we take the lowest value of $200 million, it will work out to around Rs 1,240 crore per aircraft. Even if we increase it to Rs 1,300 crore, it would be a better price than earlier," sources said. The price per aircraft not only includes its own cost but also that for maintenance, training of pilots and technicians, armaments and spares. Qatar has recently signed a deal worth over $7 billion for 24 Rafale jets. This includes MBDA missiles and the cost for the training of 36 Qatari pilots and 100 technicians. The value of each aircraft thus comes to over $290 million.

Modern aircraft flyaway costs

Anyway we look at it, the cost differential is at best marginal between the Rafale and the Gripen.

You only need to look at the future capital budget projections to realise the IAF will be at the top position wrt. maximum capital spending budget. The IAF can afford to induct expensive platforms.

The rest is all acoounting maya onleee!!

[Viv S]

I am still mystified at the lack of clarity as how much would the Rafale cost this country. The per-unit figure being bandied about goes from 100-250 million € mark, costs which might or might not include maintenance & armaments contracts. Whatever might take our local prestitute's fancy.

If one goes by what could be arguably the most accurate document; the French Senate's Finance Bill 2013.

Cost of the program
Before taking into account the draft Trademark Law, the total cost of the program for the state was 45.9 billion € 2013 . Unit cost (excluding development costs) of 74 M € 2013 for the Rafale B (110 aircraft) 68.8 M € 2013 for the Rafale C (for 118 aircraft) and 79 M € 2011 for the Rafale M ( 58 aircraft).

This is for the entire batch of 286 planes which was whittled down to 225 as the document states. For the most part the figure quoted even in the indian contract was in the 80-85 million € region. Even accounting for the new F3R standard and inflation if we assume costs have spiralled to more than 100 million €, it will be difficult to account for the ''reported'' 220 million € fly-away costs.

Important thing first is to break-down the costs involved. The €220 million cost for the Rafale is the program acquisition unit cost and the figure supposedly includes a 20% VAT factor. Unit flyaway cost in contrast is reported to be in the $80-90 million range. Domestically.

As far as export costs are concerned again - the $200 million+ tag attached for the 36 (off-the-shelf) Rafales is the acquisition cost. Flyaway + support + training + ground setup + initial spares. Plus weapons.

Modern aircraft flyaway costs

Anyway we look at it, the cost differential is at best marginal between the Rafale and the Gripen.

Please take anything ol' Picard serves with a bucket of salt. You'll notice for example that there are no references attached to his post. Its by design - to avoid looking like what it is i.e. a blog post.

The Gripen E is almost certain to be a lot cheaper than the Rafale. By around 25% by my estimate. Its the F-35 that will be marginally cheaper than the Rafale (with the Eurofighter perhaps marginally more expensive).

[member_29151]

the Best solution Will BE SU35(40) plus Su 34(60)
Or we could cut the Crap and buy more Su30 MKI.
a Short Comparison of Mki Vs Rafale.
http://www.aviatia.net/versus/rafale-vs-su-30mki/

[brar_w]

Su-35, Su-30, Su-34 and T-50..What will the impact be on operational budgets with such a fleet of 'heavies'??

[member_29151]

Su-35, Su-30, Su-34 and T-50..What will the impact be on operational budgets with such a fleet of 'heavies'??

Rafale Cost none Less Than Biggies. anyhow the Requirements Are for 150+ AC as Migs Start Phase Out. So Why Not A biggie Which Is Less COSTLY than Rafale ??

[member_29151]

Unit Cost :

RAFALE: :90.000.000 USD
SU 35 :65.000.000 USD
SU 30MKI :47.000.000 USD
SU 34 :36.000.000 USD

Plus SU Family Infrastructure Is available already .(Reduction In cost)
*Similar Systems = Less Logistical Mess.

Plus SU 30MKI Plant In Nasik. SO quick Delivery possible.
similar Engines Mean Large Inventory Of them.
Bigger The quantity lesser the Cost.(More Negotiable)
Plus you Could add drama Dassult Is Doing now

please Correct If I Missed something.

Regards
Kumar Vinod

[member_29151]

A full detailed Report On Su 34 : Very interesting Please Have a look.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html

[Philip]

Shishir Gupta. Himalyan Face-Off.Excellent book. India's options. Published 2014. has the quote about the Gripen being the LCA Mk-2.

SU-34.Been crying for it for aeons in the absence of a dedicated strat. bomber like the Backfire/Blackjack. 2 sqds. could carry the IAF's share of the N-triad and for deep strike. It also reportedly has a tiny loo for the pilots!

[srai]

Su-35, Su-30, Su-34 and T-50..What will the impact be on operational budgets with such a fleet of 'heavies'??

Rafale Cost none Less Than Biggies. anyhow the Requirements Are for 150+ AC as Migs Start Phase Out. So Why Not A biggie Which Is Less COSTLY than Rafale ??

The IAF is trying to "replace" MiG-21s and MiG-27s with Rafales. Both MiG-21/27 are in the LCA Mk.1 class. Enlarged LCA Mk.2 will be in the Mirage-2000 class, which is what the IAF wanted back in 2000. IMO, get a mix of Su-30MKI and LCA Mk.1/2; something like 3 additional squadrons of MKI and 6 of LCA on top of current orders. That will be around $8 billion total.

[member_29151]

The main issue sticks here is LCA production rate and we have to wait till then LCA MK2 arrives!!
The phase out ratio to new addition is not balancing at all . LCA is Good if it arrives in Numbers . Fingers crossed !! SU 34 is Great Replacement For MIG 27 and Mig 23.

[member_29151]

Shishir Gupta. Himalyan Face-Off.Excellent book. India's options. Published 2014. has the quote about the Gripen being the LCA Mk-2.

SU-34.Been crying for it for aeons in the absence of a dedicated strat. bomber like the Backfire/Blackjack. 2 sqds. could carry the IAF's share of the N-triad and for deep strike. It also reportedly has a tiny loo for the pilots!

Loo is a great relief For Pilots

[member_29151]

Shishir Gupta. Himalyan Face-Off.Excellent book. India's options. Published 2014. has the quote about the Gripen being the LCA Mk-2.

SU-34.Been crying for it for aeons in the absence of a dedicated strat. bomber like the Backfire/Blackjack. 2 sqds. could carry the IAF's share of the N-triad and for deep strike. It also reportedly has a tiny loo for the pilots!

Backfire/Blackjack are most beautiful and mysterious military aircraft in world. If they comes in IAF fleet AWESOME . but For CAS And Deep Strike we need something like More jaguar and SU 34.

Just my 2 Paisa.

[Abhibhushan]

Tu22 and Tu160 are not really in the same class. If my memory serves me right, our Russy friends were pushing us very hard to induct some number of Tu22M in the 1970s. The misinformation was so strong that some people really believed that some number of Tu22Ms were actually inducted in the Indian Navy !!! The IAF and the IN did not want to touch it.

I do not think the Tu 160 was ever exported by USSR or the Russian Republic to any one.

[Viv S]

Tu22 and Tu160 are not really in the same class. If my memory serves me right, our Russy friends were pushing us very hard to induct some number of Tu22M in the 1970s. The misinformation was so strong that some people really believed that some number of Tu22Ms were actually inducted in the Indian Navy !!! The IAF and the IN did not want to touch it.

Could you expound on that sir.

[Philip]

The rumours about a new MMRCA search may be an exercise to acquire the Gripen. Adding to my earlier posts,if one examines the cost factor,LCA MK-2 will ceratyinly cost a lot more than MK-1,with an AESA radar,new engine,redsigned fuselage,etc. almost a new aircraft say some.This cost and dev. cost will be compared with other existing available aircraft and if the IAF want numbers at a leser price than the Rafale,that too a western bird,then the Gripen would fit the bill. The IAF are certainly p*ssed off with HAL,etc., and will take their schedules,etc. as yet another tall tale. It is also hooked onto firang wares. great way to get both French champagne and Swedish Absolut!

[member_29151]

TU 160 AND Tu 22
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html

[member_29151]

[NRao]

Rumors with little wings:

New shot for the MiG-35 in India

First some riff-raff, then:

United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) representatives told Gazeta.ru that they are not ready yet to comment on the possible participation in a tender that has yet to be announced. In the opinion of Russian aviation industry experts, such participation is quite likely. The opinions of the experts interviewed differed, however, regarding the chances for winning such a potential tender.

“In their defence policy, the Indians have always been distinguished by their unwillingness to put all their eggs in one basket, and the fact that they try to choose suppliers from various countries, said Ruslan Gusarov, editor of the Avia.ru website. “They are working with us on the production of the Su-30 heavy fighters, so they decided to choose Rafale for lighter class fighters. But the MiG-35 may have an advantage in the tender. India is definitely interested in technology transfer above all, and we are willing to share it more than others.” In the opinion of Gusarov, the Russian aviation market, including for military products, is not so great, so India presents good opportunities for developing promising projects.

An expert at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Maksim Shapovalenko regards with greater scepticism the prospects for the Russian fighter in the new competition: “The new bid is factually a continuation of the former. The project for the supply of 126 Rafale fighters fell through, primarily because of the inability to agree on a procedure for the transfer of technology to India. The French agreed to a transfer in principle; however, they refused to take responsibility for a product which would be assembled in India, rightly mistrusting the quality of assembly. I do not exclude the possibility that the new tender is just a suave way of getting the manufacturer Rafale to finally accept India’s terms.”

[Philip]

With the controversy over the IJT,and extended delays of the LCA,which firang manufacturer will have any faith in HAL? I think that this is a back-door attempt to bring in the Gripen,which will be a western bird and cheaper than the Rafale. The IAF will say,"we'll somehow manage (with the Gripen!)".reason,that SAAB will help us with development of the LCA MK-2 aka Gripen-2! The desi LCA will remain forever in "development". I now wonder whether even the limited number of HF-24s built,120+ will be surpassed by the desi LCA in whatever avatar!

Though buying more MKIs and MIG-29s is the most cost-effective solution,the IAF are lusting after western birds,sultry Swedes of Moulin Rouge cabaret artists!

[member_29151]

Though buying more MKIs and MIG-29s is the most cost-effective solution,the IAF are lusting after western birds,sultry Swedes of Moulin Rouge cabaret artists!

[arthuro]

Here is a report from a French journalist on the rafale discussing about various positive and negative elements on the rafale.

First, I’m writing down these tidbits here, not in a porail-aviation.com article for several reasons : either the collected informations weren’t cross-checked (obtained through a single informant for ex), either these revelations were done « off » microphoneor during the public days when I didn’t have my journalist hat, or because they’re consolidated from informations obtained through different interlocutors without them directly validating the analysis.
That said, I think I know the subject and if I talk about specific elements or give my analysis ; that’s because I deem them correct.

There may be redundancies too as I took notes across several days from several interviews, knowing that Tmor already alluded to things in my presence, that I didn’t write again here.
If I forgot something, it will come back and I’ll put it down later.

Enjoy the read, leave your questions if you have any, I’ll try to answer them in time.


About OSF and LDP

The TV channel in OSF-IT doesn’t bring extraordinary gains in pure performance as the optic’s diameter didn’t evolve. Yet it remains one of Rafale’s biggest features, unique in the Western world, allowing visual identification day-night by purely passive means, unlike the NTCR mode of legacy radars.
The TV channel of the IT version still operates in near-IR which makes it practically all-weather, and the tool is truly appreciated both in air to air and air to ground, for telemetry as well as long range identification.

The lack of dedicated IR channel in the new version isn’t really a problem : first because the IT A2A scan function of the latest MICA is more efficient than the old OSF with IR channel, then because the Damocles pod’s FLIR is more than decent for navigation, finally because the tracking functions (including A2A) are better managed by Damocles or the new TV channel than the old IR one.

The Damocles pod cannot do wide scan but can rally on an AWACS (through L16) or radar track for ex. Its range is simply one of the world’s best even if it suffers from some drawbacks short range that will be corrected with the new Talios pod. Even if I didn’t get specific figures, it seems that the AASM-Laser + Damocles combo offers one of the longest ranges, if not THE longest in the world (moreso when the pod allows accurate targeting of a fast-moving target).
So yeah, it may not be the best pod in the world for very short range CAS, but for zapping incoming landing barges, mobile SAM sites or a well-defended armored column, it looks really nice ! If Talios brings along better short range capability without compromising long range performance, it promises to be real good.

The air to air functions of the pod aren’t fully integrated to the sensor fusion though, as viewing the pod’s optical take is done on one of the touch screens and not integrated in the VTM (Visualisation Tête Moyenne, the big center display just under the HUD where the fused tactical data is shown to the pilot, we’ll get back to it later). The MICA scan tracks OTOH are integrated to the VTM and truly serve as A2A FLIR.
Lastly, regarding the passive scan and track, the old IR channel had the advantage mostly of being fully integrated to Spectra whether for scanning or tracking. But it was also frustrating in that its resolution was much lower than the pod’s and one was eventually rallying the latter to the obtained track in order to gain better ID. This meant working on the pod-dedicated screen than the fused VTM data, but is no more penalizing than on any other fighter using this kind of tech and, if the result takes a bit longer than with the old IR channel, in the end it’s much more satisfying. Then, the current solution isn’t necessarily more time-consuming, both the LDP and OSF-TV allow positive visual ID of the target at longer range than OSF-IR.
Today, scanning is done through the MICAs and « another sensor » (IMHO the DDM-NG, as I doubt the Damocles FLIR can do it, but if someone can correct me I’d be delighted) whereas tracking will be done through the TV channel or Damo depending on target distance, attitude and nature (you don’t deal the same way with a nap-of-the-earth helo and a high altitude bomber).
In fine, scanning is done transparently for the pilot. Unless he asks for it, he won’t know if the track comes from a MICA, Spectra, DDM or a combination of several ; Spectra manages sensors and threat prioritization.
For tracking though, the pilot retains the choice of using the best mean to achieve visual ID.

Now, I only comapred the old IR channel to the new TV ones, to Damocles pod, MICAs etc and one could wonder what it would be worth compared to a hypothetical new generation IR channel. The problem is, an IR sensor even latest gen, inside the OSF would never have the same dimension as the one in Damocles (and later Talios) so the feeling of frustration leading to using the pod’s would likely endure. Since the Rafales are meant to fly inOPEX (actual combat deployments) most often with a LDp (at least one per patrol) it seems more interesting to invest in a better pod (and in sufficient quantity) and also better sensors for MICA or DDM-NG rather than an IROSF channel that doesn’t fit the best compromise overall.
This seems to be the way explored now.

I asked if on could imagine a new sensor in place of the aerodynamic ballast currently present in OSF-IT (I was thinking a fixed DDM-NG like but front staring), I was told that nothing was planned for now, and the old OSF shape was preserved because the need to not disturb the aerodynamic flow in this zone, the pitots being located right below.


Rafale vs Typhoon :

OK, I’m not going to teach anything to you, I’ll only say again what i’ve been told for more than 4 years now : the Rafale today is significantly superior tot he Typhoon and it won’t stop tomorrow. And if this seems like an evidence in A2G, it’s also true A2A, even today.
The Rafale is largely more maneuverable than Typhoon, thanks to its aerodynamics as well as its FBW which is the aircraft’s big strength.
But the Typhoon, well handled, remains formidable. If the Rafale doesn’t take the upper hand rapidly (which rarely happens, rest assured) the Typhoon can use its superior power to gain the advantage htrough more reactive vertical maneuvering. But this isn’t supposed to happen, outside a mistake by the Rafale pilot, given equal pilot level. This was said to me textually, without any bravado, only to explain me how well they thought of the FBW, so that’s rather reassuring. In any case, the Typhoon doesn’t impress much, on the contrary. At best, it looks like a Mirage 2000 with a bit more brawn and missiles going a bit farther, nothing more.
In BVR, Rafale sensor fusion and MMI seem truly in a class of their own and do offer a formidable advantage in terms of quick decision making, tactical positioning, but also learning : the « partition » is the same played A2G or A2A (same keypresses to acquire/designate/shoot a target, on the ground or airborne) allowing a pilot specializing in A2G to quickly become very good in A2A as well.
Nevertheless Typhoon climbs higher faster, and once « perched » knows how to play its strengths : orbiting high and fast, using its high off-boresight radar to look low and in the corners, and has missiles with a longer reach, especially fired from HA. It isn’t unbeatable but if the opposing Rafales are in A2G config they lose some of their own advantages in terms of SER (radar equivalent surface) and maneuverability. But apparently it’s not dramatic either : the strengths (and therefore tactics) of the Typhoons are similar to the Mirage 2000–5F, therefore in A2A config the Rafale pilots have well rehearsed tactics to balance things versus Typhoon. And with the AESA it’s even easier.
More or less, as usual, listening to the pilots they’re afraid of nothing, estimating that even the F-22 is « takeable » in dogfight. In BVR they would have liked to « test » the F-22 but nobody wants to reveal their cards in this era : neither the French or the Americans.
Indeed, the basic BVR tactic with the usual ROE consists in detecting the intruder on radar or via L16 then establish visual detection on OSF-IT, which seems to have a rather long range. One could feel they were burning to see the Raptor drivers’ faces after they received a MICA-IR volley from fourty klicks away. But that’s not for the here and now.
The most I could extract was what I was already told several times : AMRAAM has a f$cking good range especially the latest versions. On a good platform (F-15C with AESA retrofit, Typhoon etc) flying high and fast, it should never be taken lightly. But in the end it all depends on ROE. Most of the time, NATO ROE require positive ID of the target, and often visual positive ID. In this game Rafale and its « small » MICA often fare better than F-15 and F-16 with AMRAAM since positive ID for these relies on very low discretion radar modes (and which can be jammed) and visual ID relies on… the pilots’ eyes.
Which explains why Rafales in very low altitude penetration mission sometimes could shoot their attackers before the latter could : because OSF-TV allows long distance visual ID (given the same ROE for everyone, which isn’t always the case, but let’s not spend 107 years splitting those details).

Two things however : many unpleasant surprises in dogfight could have been avoided with an HMD and according to the pilots I could talk to, this is really the most lacking equipment today, both A2G and A2A, far more than additional thrust, vectoring nozzles or anything else.
Moreover, it was confirmed that MICA performance, especially of their seekers and terminal agility, weren’t realistically simulated during exercises, as DGA wants to hide the missile’s actual capabilities (but alos those of DDM-NG and Spectra, I was confirmed). Despite all that Rafale already doesn’t fear anyone in actual operations or exercises, even though a certain French plane-maker whose name we won’t say would like Armée de l’Air to show the aircraft’s guts a little more, so that they could communicate about it with potential prospects.
Commercially speaking, nobody at Dassault hides the technical and technological quality of F-16E and its evolutions, which remains an excellent aircraft, well designed and having received remarkably good upgrades.

Small regret, I’d have enjoyed talking to a Navy pilot to know what they think of the Super Hornet.


About the gun :

No great joy yet, concerning Rafale’s gun. I won’t retell the weapon’s history as I already did so extensively, but it is clearly on of Rafale’s two major design flaws. Too high a firing rate so the gun heats up and stops, and too low a dispersion of fired ammo. What would have been excellent with the initially planned automatic fire control became barely good enough, best case, in conventional use. As a pilot said « it works fine as long as you don’t use it » and he seemed to be only half joking.
Despite this, a large part of the initial problems due to vibrations were or are being solved. Nexter allegedly works towards reducing the firing rate in order to raise reliability.
So, it still doesn’t achieve the same reliability as Mirage 2000’s gun, but is being continuously improved and now reliable enough (or secured enough) to be used regularly in combat, whether for A2A warning shots or A2G use. But, I’m still quoting « fortunately we always fly in pair ».
The dispersion issue on the other hand seems to be more difficult to correct.
Even if I didn’t get a frank answer from Dassault, the presence of single and dual-gun pods on their stand didn’t seem innocent to me. One of my interlocutors even evoked the theoretical likelihood of seeing a future Rafale without an internal gun if a customer asked for it (I assume that Rafale N’s legacy should make this feasible without too much trouble) but I didn’t feel like it was referencing a particular prospect, more the technical feasibility of the request.
That being said, I’d personally find rather cool a Rafale version without an internal gun but a larger fuel capacity for ex, with a monotube gun pod under the air intake across from a Talios pod. Or better, 6 AASM, laser guided rocket pods on store point 3, and a dual barrel gun pod ventrally. To make it more clear, apart than writing « CAS in your face » on the aircraft’s side, I can’t see how !

About the DDM-NG :

Whether at Dassault or the Defense Ministry, the instruction given to our interlocutors is clear : they must not speak about it. However by reading between the lines, listening to oncersations around, or with « off » remarks, one can still extract something interesting. First, one thing is certain, they seem to be VERY satisfied. From what information I could pull off sneakily, they work towards the protection « bubble » around the plane, integrated in Spectra, which can single-handedly determine an over the shoulder MICA shot. To deduce that DDM allow rudimentary target designation (TD), there’s a single step one could easily cross… With all the nuances it brings : this kind of TD would only be useful for self-defense. The missile is launched at an approximative location and works alone to finds its target. Even if it doesn’t hit, it will force the opponent to duck and cover, allowing the Rafale to reposition itself and fire another MICA.
In any case, it works towards the goal of firing behind the shoulder.Is it enough for this use, or does it have to involve another sensor ? I have the feeling and conviction that in some cases it can do it alone, without the track being correlated with L16 or Spectra but I don’t have anything to prove it. Technically anyway, it doesn’t seem to be an issue, as we know from Prof’s (another poster) article, but it remains to be seen what is actually implemented in the plane’s weapon system. The DDM-NG being plug and play replacements to legacy DDM, it’s more than likely the more exotic capabilities allowed by the sensors will only be added to the weapon system as software updates are introduced along with the different standards.
Anyway, even if the DDM-NG were able to produce, alone, a rudimentary TD, I feel that it’s tactically implausible : a Rafale doesn’t operate alone and it’s unlikely it would be surprised so much. An intruder won’t appear our of thin air less than 10nm from the Rafale without Spectra, L16 or other sensors correlating the DDM-NG track.
But I don’t doubt anymore that the DDm-NG is more than a simple missile launch detector, and that in some cases it shares a role in detecting aircraft and achieving TD. We knew it was technically possible, for me it’s an operational reality now.
That being said, it isn’t an OSF bis ! The DDM-NG tracks are fused into the VTM data but the pilot doesn’t have direct access to what the sensor « sees », unlike the OSF which allows vu=isual ID, there’s no laser rangefidner, etc.
That’s why I think it largely works towards building situational awareness and TD building but, alone, its stays a purely self-defense item.
So, not an OSF in that it doesn’t allow obtaining TD like an OSF (laser rangefinder, screen visualization etc) but takes part in TD through sensor fusion.

About the radar and radar signature (SER) :

The AESA antenna brings considerable advantages compared to the old antenna, which was already very nice. The PESA could demonstrate the flexibility and ECM resistance of the electronic antenna, the active one yet improves flexibility while offering a welcome maximum range, all without compromising the previous model’s discretion.
In practice, more than the maximum range necessary to shoot Meteor (even though it seems we’ll sometimes only use it in the same range bracket as the PESA to gain in discretion), mode interleaving is very awaited, notably terrain following and A2Asurveillance.
It was hinted that eventually, counter-stealth modes are being developed and could arrive « sooner than anticipated » (I’d bet 50 bucks on F4 standard and 50 more on a wake tracking capability, given what was hinted to me, but I can be mistaken as I don’t know anything in radar frequencies in use and such things).
Rafale’s SER is very low, dramatically less than Typhoon’s in clean configuration, according to a Rafale pilot. But planes don’t actually fly clean and even if they were completely invisible apart from two drop tanks, a pair of pigeon-like signatures flying in formation at Mach 1.5 would be noticeable on a radar screen.
So more or less, passive stealth isn’t so important in operational configurations, Spectra and flight profiles playing a much more important role in the plane’s discretion. Still, Dassault works on stealhier stores to improve again Spectra’s efficiency.
In any case, the sawtooth patterns and wing positioning, as well as air intake angles aren’t random or decorative. Whereas on Typhoon, to quote a Rafale pilot, « it looks like they did everything to make it non discreet » talking soleley about design.


About Spectra and the VTM :

I won’t go back in detail over the VTM, we can always discuss it later. Roughly, it’s located right below the HUD and likewise collimated to infinity (well actually 5m but to the human eye it’s the same). First, it prevents the eye from working to accomodate between HUD and VTM, but even more, it gives the impression (to the eye and brain) of seeing a much larger surface than actually perceived. A bit like a cinema screen at 10m won’t be larger in your FoV than your smartphone close to your eyes, but will remain far more comfortable to look at, with better picture definition and ease of interpretation.
On the VTM, the aircraft’s weapon system displays the tactical situation and the informations it chooses to show in combat. It is the screen of the famous, and much talked about, sensor fusion. On a single display, the system offers a clear picture of the tactical situation , threats, elements detected by the various sensors. Its symbology is simple, the pilot doesn’t have to switch from one screen to another to check that the L16 track transmitted byAWACS corresponds to the one detected by the IR sensor, etc. Everything is done by the sensor fusion and delivered to the pilots on the VTM.
And they’re very happy with it. They know it’s one of their main strengths, which implies greatc onfidence in the system by the way, but offers tremendous advantages in terms of situational awareness and rapid decision making.
The only little drawback of the VTM is, sometimes you have to tilt your head a bit to the side because it’s difficult to see everything at once. But it’s apparently quick to learn and not a problem.
We’ll note that this VTM only works so well because Spectra’s really efficient ! I already spoke about the possibility of some cross-checking errors, notably when integrating badly refreshed or approximative L16 tracks, but it’s always possible not to display some data on the VTM then. Still, most of the time Spectra manages everything all by itself, even to the point of classifying threats and prioritizing them, allowing the pilot to achieve his mission.

Well, is one confirms that Spectra plays a major role in Rafale’s discretion, one won’t give infos to a journalists. In the end, I got more « confidences » during the public days hiding my badge than during the pro days.
Even though I didn’t learn anything new, it’s always nice to have confirmations :
_ Spectra alla lone allow to achieve target designation in BVR, but this isn’t necessarily pertinent as ROE often require visual or AWACS confirmation. Moreover, even if Rafale’s ECM are excellent, the enemy’s can also be very good, and then you see again why sensor fusion is interesting : MICA-IR can confirme a target’s direction, OSF-TV and laser range finder confirm distance, all the while minimizing the Rafale’s presence.
All the more so during penetration missions, when Rafale has to be as stealthy as possible, its very low alt posture forcing the opponent to search using radar, and it can use OSF range to its fullest, as it surpasses the range of its missiles.
_ Of course I wasn’t told about active cancellation, but some details hinted at it. It seems that playing with enemy radars’ return waves is a reality, but the goal would be less becoming invisible than deceiving about location, number, distance, nature of the threat. That we already knew, but I was really impressed with the coherence of the system with the Rafale concept : it requires enormous confidence in Spectra and a good pair of balls, but it manages to really protect the aircraft while either forcing enemy radars to get out of the woods, allowing one to better avoid them (or even destroy them), or play low as they can’t make sens of the tactical situation. Of course I don’t have the tactical details, but it looks really impressive, and I don’t even know what Spectra has in reserve for A2A (for what it’s worth, maybe it leans more towards invisibility). Anyway it remains coherent with the idea that Spectra isnt’ designed to jam wide and hard to clear a safe corridor for an entire raid (the US method) but to jam subtly and finely to protect each aircraft and also create a diffuse electronic background noise making things impossible for the people down there.
_ In Libya, which was rather well equipped SAM and AAA wise, the guys knew that Rafales were en route, knew their destinations and targets, yet couldn’t do anything about it. There was, reportedly, enemy fire, decoys and evasives, but it remains hard to say to what extent aircraft survival was due to Spectra’s quality or misisle launch failures (and apparently they don’t really care as long as they get to return home). In any case, Armée de l’Air didn’t wait for the Tomahawk barrage in order to do SEAD with AASM and OSF-Spectra tracks then. But we already talked about that.


About AASM and SEAD :

Since we’re talking AASM. Target coordinates are transmitted via L16 or Rover, or directly from the sensors : OSF, Damocles, radar, even Spectra or a combination thereof. Then they’re integrated into the AASM through a pilot manipulation : it isn’t done automatically but he doesn’t have to input the coordinates manually either. Apparently it’s well designed, and simple and fast enough to do.

AASM is well and truly able to be fired towards the rear. Here’s word for word the conversation with an AdA armorer : « So it is true you can fire AASM backwards ? » « Yes, we sure can ! » « So was it ever done, I mean is there any good reason for doing it ? » « Ah no, it’s completely useless, be if we wanted to, we could. »

Soit was never done operationally and apparently the usefulness isn’t yet established. But it could be done if ever needed. Tactically it seems smarter to shoot from the side then do an evasive (which makes it so the target behind the Rafale at the time of impact) rather than fly over a target and then shooting it over the shoulder. And indeed, it’s logical when you say it like that.
The bomb’s big advantage is NOT having to fly over the target, or having a predictable behavior for the guys down there, being able to do several firing passes on a group of targets without EVER coming from the same place, overflying the targets, never having the same altitude or attitude when shooting. It’s possible to coordinate strikes with great accuracy, to shoot a target in the next valley if you want, etc.

At the DGA they stay very evasive regarding SEAD use of the Rafale : it seems to be done empirically but procedures for it apparently aren’t completely validated. I asked what it was worth compared to a F-16CJ, and was told it was apples and oranges. The F-16CJ is an escort plane, it forces enemy radars to come out of hiding so they can be destroyed and ensure the safety of the bombers who themselves don’t have any defense mechanism of their own against that type of threat.
With Rafale it’s very different. One doesn’t fly provocatively to make the enemy show himself. Each plane in the raid can defend itself and, if radars show themselves, Spectra allows to avoid them above all. If the mission demands it or it’s a valid opportunity target, SEAD shoots with AASM can be done (and have been done) but the goal’s mainly to let the raid get through towards its original targets. Everyone protects himself rather than the crowd… global efficiency is higher for a French-like tactical use..
The biggest advantage of the solution lies in the fact that each plane in the raid can potentially destroy 6 enemy radars, and by not forcing the enemy to show himself during the first raids, the risk of losing a plane is lwoered while mastery of the air isn’t yet total (if you can avoid a CSAR mission the first day, you will).
Long term, either you send raids to directly attack the SAM sites (with AASM or SCALP) or their logistics (missile transport trucks, command vehicles, etc).

So finally there won’t be a dedicated anti-radar AASM. It doesn’tseem to fit with the spirit fo the AASM which is precisely versatility, not having to choose before flight which type of bomb to bring.

In this little game the laser version is much awaited, whereas the IIR version doesn’t seem to have AdA’s favor any more : too constraining as it doesn’t allow hitting mobile or pre-recorded targets other than with its GPS-INS mode that demonstrated metric accuracy, the IIR version stays in the inventory (if one day the GPS can’t be used, jammed or denied by the US for ex) but operationally the INS-GPS version showed its accuracy and the laser version’s the one awaited in quantity (the first operational shots didn’t fully exploit the critter’s potential).
The laser version has the advantage of working against fast moving targets, as well as radar sites and naval targets, the Damocles pod being quite impressive in range. And the effectiveness against mobile targets doesn’t prevent from using it « conventionally » with impressive accuracy.
Airburst modes are being developed for current CAS missions and future SEAD, anti-infantry, vehicle concentration etc. Spectra seems accurate enough to extract rough coordinates of radars or communication systems of SAM sites, even though most often Rafale’s discretion allows it to refine target designation with Damocles telemetry or OSF.
Then, a pair of AASM soon in airburst mode will do just as well as a couple HARM.
So instead of developing an new and mission-specific ammunition, industrials prefer to work on improving TD on passive multisensor tracks (Spectra), understand refined by synchronization of two or more aircraft’s observations.

I’d have liked to know more about the new AASM head shown with two seekers (one IIR and one laser I suppose, though I don’t know why they didn’t make a dual mode, it’s doable) but I didn’t find anyone to talk to. If someone else has infos about it…


Other stuff :

The AESA radar seems really excellent. PESA wasn’t bad at all but AESA is a leap forward in terms of range, functions and discretion. Collaborative work between a Rafale AESA and one or several PESA equipped ones (who will actually mostly fight radar off) should fully become a reality soon.
You can reget that every PESA didn’t switch to AESA but it doesn’t matter much actually : usual rafale tactics already imply that only some operate radar on, the others staying discreet. Here, one will make it so the AESA one is radar on.

It was hinted when talking about DDM-NG, but Rafale can well and truly fire MICA backwards using only its own sensors, therefore Spectra, and certainly DDM-NG too. But even without these Spectra alone can achieve sufficient TD for self-defense shots to the rear.
Dassault would really like AdA and MN to try that kind of thing during international exercises so they cojuld communicate about it, but here too DGA refuses to show potential adversaries that a plane flying radar off in a Rafale’s 6 is already a target for it.

AdA wants the opening of stores point 3 and an HMD… but doesn’t want to pay for development. So little strongarming between Dassault, who doesn’t want to ask their export customers to pay for a capability that AdA will then use (it looks cheap and diminishes the competitiveness of Dassault’s offer), and AdA who doesn’t want to pay for stuff that will be offer to export anyway.
In the end it will mostly delay HMD deployment, even though the State should pay for at least part of point 3 opening, the idea being giving A2G Rafales as many A2A weapons as current interceptor configs. In air superiority missions, it would mean carrying 2 Meteor, 4 MICA-EM and 2 MICA-IR. This is starting to be a nice crowd.

On the other hand, THE big drawback of Rafale isn’t the lack of HMD, nor the engine (which is by no means too weak) but the radio. New antenna or not, rafale’s radio is apparently horrible, its most annoying system. You don’t hear anything, range is crap, the plane need to be flying level to give it a chance to barely work… In short, it would be THE THING to replace urgently according to the pilots. Not that it’s a critical problem, just very annoying apparently. Ifound that weird because I never heard about it, but of I was asked to inquire, I suppose it wasn’t for nothing

As alluded right before, thrust seems more than enough to everyone I could speak to. The basic plane remains light and in A2A config, wanting a 9t engine is wanting to transform it into a Millenium Falcon (I told you recently, 9t on a rafale would give it the best TWR in the world, above Typhoon, Raptor and PAK-FA) and risk getting bingo fuel much too soon, when the current plane doesn’t have any problem thanks to the FBW and ease of handling that some prospects might not have anticipated.
Still, it could be interesting to have a bit more thrust for hot weather, high altitude, heavy config take offs, but even there people seemed confident enough : « if we have to cover 200m more runway to take off, it’s not big deal »..

I asked which weapon was most lacking on Rafale. The answer was, until now mostly lacking was a heavy strike capability easier to deploy than SCALP, but confirmation was made that Rafale had just emplyed GBU-24 for the first time in operation, just e few days before.
What is still lacking is a low collateral damage weapon, for use in urban terrain especially. TDA strongly pushes for guided rocket pods in point 3 (2 pods of 12 guided rockets in total), arguing that it would allow to neutralize 24 sensitive targets, without taking from the ability to carry 6 AASm or GBU-12 under wing.
But TDA/Thaless ideas are a bit too disruptive for the heads of AdA. Allegedly they were told before they even began their presentation during an AdA brief, that « No but you’re wasting your time anyway, what we want is missiles, rockets are over ». In short, innovation vs a well entrenched culture that refuses to admit its past failures (with some decent arguments, others not so).
In the meantime, Rafale will get a reduced lethality weapon, namely the BLU-126 which is just a bomb body similar to the Mk-82 but less pwoerful, guaranteeing its integration on GBU-12, GBU-49 and AASM in theory. Less glamour than rockets but damn easier to integrate.
So, roughly, armament wisethe future belongs to low ollateral damage bodies and airburst ones for the bombs in service, a generalization of AASM-Laser, and maybe later MICA on point 3.
EDIT : beyond new weapons, what pilots are asking for is the ability to load asymetrical configs or at least different weapon types on the same flight.
The DGA and industrials are already working on the ability to carry one GBU-24 underbelly and 6 AASM/GBU-12 underwing so one main target can be treated along with secondaries (or the main one’s defenses) on the same flight.
Dassault states that it isn’t a problem to allow for carrying GBU-12 on the right and AASM on the left, or AASM-IR on one side and AASM-Laser on the other. But the customer has to pay for it, and for now AdA prefers to mix inside the patrol rather than under the same plane, a choice that’s worth another.

From an industry source working in the Middle East, no resale is planned for the Qatari and Emirati Mirage 2000, for the moment : the goal over there is rather to increase armed strength (deep strike and close interdiction), with even an increase in the A2G capabilities of the region’s M2Ks. I’m not allowed to say more, but roughly there will be all new weapon configs on the local M2Ks that we’re not used to. Of course we’re used, sicne a long time, to have 4000 liters of fuel underwing in order to fly very far and drop two lousy bombs on whatever idiots we can unhide. Against Iran, the goal is exactly the contrary : the landing barges will be less than 60km from the airfields, and the planes will have to be loaded to the gills with ammo. I’m waiting that impatiently.

Last but not least, I learnt that a Rafale ate a pelican during an international exercise. It seems that it was in Canada or Norway, I can’t remember. But the bird completely scrapped the engine, damage being confined to it, apart from a few bumps on the intake and a Spectra antenna that didn’t enjoy the experience. After a standard engine change, the plane could fly home without concern.
Still, a pelican !

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... XVI/page31

[member_29151]

SU 30 MKI Vs Typhoon

Recent exercise update:

In some of the most intense international air combat exercises ever featuring the Indian Air Force, IAF pilots flying Sukhoi Su-30 MKI fighters had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favour against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

In subsequent Large Force Exercises (LFE) which featured combined Eurofighter Typhoon and Su-30 formations, the IAF jets were somewhat less successful but consistently held an edge over the Typhoon.

In an exclusive interview, Group Captain Ashu Srivastav, the Contingent Commander in the exercises, told NDTV that the performance of his pilots was “exceptional.” According to Group Captain Srivastav, who happens to be the IAF’s most experienced Su-30 pilot, his pilots showed “flexibility and adaptability to a new environment and operating conditions and on this benchmark, I would rate them exceptional.”

The 10-day exercises which commenced on July 21 was the fourth edition of the Indo-UK Bilateral exercise called ‘Indradhanush’. IAF aircraft and personnel were based out of three Royal Air Force bases: four IAF Su-30 fighters operated out of RAF Coningsby, C-17 and C-130J Hercules transports were positioned at Brize Norton and Garud Commandos of the IAF operated alongside British forces at RAF Honington. The IAF also deployed an Ilyushin IL-78 air to air refuelling tanker at Brize Norton.

The IAF fleet departed India on July 15, with the fighters refuelling twice mid-air ahead of their first pit-stop at Taif in Saudi Arabia (near Jeddah). The formation then proceeded to Athens on July 16, refuelling once before their arrival. After another halt for one night, IAF aircraft flew onto the UK again refuelling once mid-air.
For the Royal Air Force, the chance to train against the Russian-designed Su-30, arguably the finest fourth generation fighter aircraft in the world, is rare. India is the largest international operator of the super-maneuverable fighter and was equally keen to pit the skills of its Top Guns against the RAF’s new Eurofighter Typhoon, the mainstay of the RAF’s fighter fleet.

The first week of the exercises pitted the Su-30, which NATO calls the Flanker, in a series of aerial dogfight scenarios. First, there were 1 v 1 encounters, where a single jet of each type engaged each other in Within Visual Range (WVR) combat, firing simulated missiles to a range of two miles. The exercises progressed to 2 v 2 engagements with two Eurofighters taking on two Su-30s and 2 v 1 exercises where two Sukhois took on a single Typhoon and vice versa. Notably, in the exercise where a lone Su-30 was engaged by two Typhoons, the IAF jet emerged the victor ‘shooting’ down both ‘enemy’ jets.

In all dog fighting exercises, IAF Sukhois were able to turn sharply into the extremely agile Typhoons using their thrust-vectored engines to keep the RAF jets locked in their sights. The Su-30’s advanced Infrared Search and Track System (IRST), a passive sensor, which cannot be tracked, proved to be a distinct advantage for the IAF’s pilots in close-combat maneuvering. Both the IAF and RAF used the full capabilities of their onboard radars, albeit in training mode, which meant that actual radar frequencies used in combat conditions were never exposed for confidentiality reasons. However, the detection ranges of the radars of both aircraft were not curtailed per se. This was air combat as close to the real thing as possible.

The pilots themselves ranged from young Flight Lieutenants to senior Group Captains from either side drawn directly from Typhoon squadrons and the IAF’s 2 Squadron, The Winged Arrows, based in Kalaikunda. The idea was for both sides to expose their operational pilots to a modern frontline platform of the same class. Accordingly, the IAF did not deploy any senior pilots serving with its Tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment (TACDE).

By the time the exercises shifted to Large Force Engagements (LFE) in the second week, IAF pilots were comfortable operating in British conditions. The Large Force Engagements saw mixed formation scenarios where the IAF operated its jets alongside RAF Typhoons in air battles against fellow Su-30s flying together with other Typhoons.

The Large Force Engagements saw 4 v 4 engagements at beyond visual range and graduated to a massive 8 v 8 engagement featuring 16 aircraft in the skies near Coningsby. IAF pilots shared tactical information with RAF pilots in their formations using radio communications since the IAF’s data-link system (which shares critical sensor data with friendly aircraft) was not compatible with the Link 16 system in use with NATO aircraft like the Typhoon.

Asked about the performance of IAF pilots in these Large Force Engagements, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV his pilots performed “fairly well” though “quantifying [the results] is difficult”. It was not unexpected for the IAF to “lose” one or two jets (over all the Large Force Engagements put together) given that the movement of each formation was directed by fighter controllers coordinating an overall air battle. Both sides agreed to simulate their Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Missiles at 25 miles for offensive missions and 22 miles for defensive scenarios.

IAF C-130 and Il-78 jets also participated in the Large Force engagements where they were “defended” by the fighter formations they were flying with against ‘enemy’ attacks.

The IAF also encountered no serviceability issues with any of its participating jets. All Su-30s were available for the daily exercises which took place over two blocks, one in the morning, the other in the afternoon for a total of eight sorties daily.

Praising the support the IAF received from the RAF, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV, “The hosts were very good. They were ready to extend exceptional support.”

The sense of camaraderie extended to C-17 transport pilots of both sides. According to Group Captain Srivastav, “There was good interaction between young pilots. The C-17 Squadron of the RAF wanted some help in Kathmandu [following the Nepal earthquake]. We helped them then, this was more than reciprocated.” RAF pilots showcased their assault landing and combat off-loading experiences with IAF pilots observing from the cockpit of the big jet. IAF pilots shared their experiences of operating the C-17 at high altitudes.

Over the last decade, the Indian Air Force has been very keen to develop its Garud Commando Force meant to protect its assets such as air bases and also be deployed behind enemy lines if required. Operating alongside British forces in the UK, the IAF Garud commandos participated in a 96-hour camp in a training area close to Honington. This involved reconnaissance and surveillance missions and a combat free fall para-jump with British forces.

Back in India now, the IAF, like the Royal Air Force, is keen to point out that the exercises were a learning and training opportunity, and should not be seen as a battle between the IAF and the RAF, who are close allies and partners. According to Group Captain Srivastav, “It was all about learning from each others experiences and to fine tune our own procedures.”

At the end of the day, though, for the IAF, these exercises were about gauging the skill levels of its own pilots and the aircraft they operate. For the IAF, these exercises came as positive news on where they stand against some of the best of the West.

[NRao]

The desi LCA will remain forever in "development".

All planes have pretty much faced the same set of broad issues. I have no clue what is so different with the LCA that makes it sound like a dud. The IAF should have placed their combined weight behind the project long back - just as teh Army should have done with the Arjun. That would have meant that the foreign "analogue" would have been phased out - something clearly unpalatable to the foreign vendors, middlemen, some politicians and some within these Services.

#SilentKillers

[ramana]

arthuro, Very good article on evolution of weapons for Rafale and by same token for all aircraft.

In my view stats show 80% of A2A kills since WWI are from rear third quadrant. So a rearward firing AAM is useful.

[member_29151]

Lca mk2 Foc deadline : 2022

[Philip]

Who needs the Rafales now?
IAF Sukhois lick Typhoons 12-0 says this Brit report.

A few years ago,Oz analysts Carlo Kopp,predicted that the Flankers would outclass both Eurocanards and even Rand that Chinese Flankers would get the better of US Raptors due to larger numbers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 44466.html

[GeorgeWelch]

Who needs the Rafales now?
IAF Sukhois lick Typhoons 12-0 says this Brit report.

As always, a healthy dose of skepticism is called for.

http://forces.tv/00317417

Sources from the RAF state, however, that Indian planes were being 'bedded in' to new terrain and effectively shown the ropes. The RAF were "introducing them to the airspace", putting the Typhoons up against the Sukhois in something more akin to a pigeon-shooting exercise, rather than a combat exercise, so the Indian pilots could get their bearings.

Once the IAF were comfortable flying in foreign air space the Large Force Exercises (LFEs) began and subsequently the RAF Typhoons proved more than a match for the Indian SU-30's.

Speaking to Forces TV an RAF spokesman offered a polite rebuttal to the claims in the Indian press, saying:

"Our analysis does not match what has been reported, RAF pilots and the Typhoon performed well throughout the exercise, with and against the Indian Air Force."

[Singha]

arthuro, Very good article on evolution of weapons for Rafale and by same token for all aircraft.

In my view stats show 80% of A2A kills since WWI are from rear third quadrant. So a rearward firing AAM is useful.

imo thats unrealistic as the backfiring aam will have to waste lot of fuel cancelling the fwd velocity of the plane, also there is no radar cover in the back to guide out the missile or provide it waypoints.

so onlee option is to get to know of the threat from 3rd parties and take action not to be ambushed.

[Karan M]

As usual George Welch appears to do his usual as the unpalatable facts come in

[Singha]

the familiarization flight thing appears dubious at high level 20,000ft....no need to stage a fight to get familiar...just fly around and know the north sea range or whatver in terms of ceiling floor and dimensions...in any case controllers would constantly monitor if anyone is straying out...they do at red flag also.

i could understand if it was iaf jaguars doing lo-lo-lo exercises in concert with tornadoes over rolling scottish terrain .....

[GeorgeWelch]

As usual George Welch appears to do his usual as the unpalatable facts come in

Providing some needed balance?

(It should be obvious by now I'm not even a EF fan)

[GeorgeWelch]

the familiarization flight thing appears dubious at high level 20,000ft

Where do you see 20,000ft?

[Karan M]

As usual George Welch appears to do his usual as the unpalatable facts come in

Providing some needed balance?

(It should be obvious by now I'm not even a EF fan)

Yeah sure...

[Karan M]

the familiarization flight thing appears dubious at high level 20,000ft....no need to stage a fight to get familiar...just fly around and know the north sea range or whatver in terms of ceiling floor and dimensions...in any case controllers would constantly monitor if anyone is straying out...they do at red flag also.

i could understand if it was iaf jaguars doing lo-lo-lo exercises in concert with tornadoes over rolling scottish terrain .....

Singha, these were the same no holds barred workups that the IAF had vs the RAF in the past in India and the UK. They pulled their entire bag of tricks - but it didn't work for them. They had no qualms claiming all sorts of stuff in the past, but are now very upset that they came out worse.

[GeorgeWelch]

Providing some needed balance?

(It should be obvious by now I'm not even a EF fan)

Yeah sure...

You think I'm a secret EF fanboi?