India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Katare » 07 Nov 2011 19:57

Rahul M wrote:as the mil forum's most active mod I try to ensure a certain level of informed debate, if that goes against the freedom of speech to spout nonsense, so be it.
BR newbies do not get any leeway when it comes to lack of information, there is no reason why the standards should be lowered for you just because you registered earlier.

I wasn't debating, I was trying to be considerate and let you know exactly why your comments were not acceptable, if you would rather have a warning ban routine with no explanations all you got to do is ask, it is easier on me as well. but then do not complain when it happens. ;)
cheers.

p.s. if you have problems with my moderation take it up with the owners, do not derail this thread with your lectures.


If that was the case than you could have shown little more curtsey instead of telling me to "update my knowledge" I am all "rah-rah" and a troll. All this in your very first post to me, without specifying that you speak as a moderator to me.

Anyhow, I am putting it all aside not worth it. You have the last word on the matter. I will now disappear from BRF for at least 1 week to ensure I do not cause anymore disruption......

Suggestion- move JSF posts to a new thred for people to slug it out there........

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby GeorgeWelch » 07 Nov 2011 20:10

koti wrote:Money aside, do you think F-35 in its current form would stand tall against some of the 600 parameters laid down by IAF when compared to EF and Rafale.?


Of course.

(By 'current form' I'm assuming you mean when it hits IOC not literally right now.)
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 07 Nov 2011 20:21, edited 1 time in total.

Taygibay
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011 07:03

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Taygibay » 07 Nov 2011 20:15

@Koti

Good question!
The advantage should go to the EF in high thin air
but it may not be so great depending on the load.

The presence of the mountains under the plane
gives the Rafale a chance as it can use the ground
effect if adopting a close to the surface flight path.
The advantage of the thrust remains with the EF
however which would go high and fast yet.*1
If the load is nominal at 6 to 8 thousand kilograms,
the advantage is shortened or nulled since the Rafale
has a max payload 2 tons over that of the Typhoon.*2
In short, as you near 8 tons of payload, the EF is
at maximum capacity ( 7,5 tons ) whereas the Raffy
still has leeway.
At 6 tons of payload, the EF is at 80% of maximum
and the Rafale at 65% more or less so that the thrust
to weight ratio gets back around even.
Yet another way to see it would be to say that with a
pure AtoA assortment the Typhie should get there faster
and with a full mix of AtoA and AtoG weapons things
even out. Of course, if you need to bring 9 tons, the
Rafale will get there slowly and the EF simply won't.


@ Saik, of course no naval variant and that too comes
from design. The Rafale final conception was done as
a naval plane and the B & C versions are "de-navalized"
ACs so to speak. To get the Typhoon to be usable on
a carrier would require so much redesign that even the
UK would get Rafale for their(s) before attempting a
"navalization" of it.The TV nozzles would be a nice
addition to the EF ( to any plane actually )but would still
not make the low speed handling quite comfortable enough
for the purpose as it stems mostly from aero design.

@ kelesis
I'm quite surprised by the Rafale in first in IAF, not because
it is a bad plane of course but because previous sources had
the opposite brought forward. If the new source is correct,
the choice should be quite simpler.
However, the original one giving EF on top was Indian IIRC
and the newest one is French so that I'd be careful here. :-?

Later guys, Tay.
*1 Both planes have ceilings over the Himalayas,
of course : 17km Rafale/near 20km Typhoon.

*2 The EF is a ton to a ton and a half heavier empty.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby GeorgeWelch » 07 Nov 2011 20:18

Philip wrote:Dear George W,how can I be "making things up" when I quote from AWST and other aviation journals and established sources?


Please quote the exact part that shows the UK will get a less-capable plane.

You can't do it because no such quote exists. Ergo, you're making it up.

Philip wrote:If you've read my earlier posts,I've even given the issue numbers,etc.


Humor me and do it again with the quote.

Philip wrote:Given the possibility that they might offer their tricks for more that what the IAF punter can afford


I think you're confusing the F-35 with the EF and Rafale :mrgreen:

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby GeorgeWelch » 07 Nov 2011 20:25

Taygibay wrote:The presence of the mountains under the plane
gives the Rafale a chance as it can use the ground
effect if adopting a close to the surface flight path.


Ground effect for a fighter doesn't extend very high at all.

The ONLY time a fighter should be in ground effect is immediately before landing and immediately after takeoff

If any part of their regular flight path takes them into ground effect, they should be immediately discharged.
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 07 Nov 2011 20:49, edited 1 time in total.

kelesis
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 27 Jun 2011 12:05

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby kelesis » 07 Nov 2011 20:37

@Taygibay
I've asked the journalist of La Tribune for his source (see comments below the article), he said "industrial sources". But I had this summer a same answer from someone working for MBDA. I know we must be carefull but Shiv Aroor said also that Rafale was in the first place and I think this guy is serious.

Taygibay
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011 07:03

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Taygibay » 07 Nov 2011 21:01

@ GeorgeWelch
The effects of the aerodynamic formula of closed-coupled canards
as a tuning device on the overwing flow still take the presence of
a surface close under the AC into account.
That is not to say that the margins double or that the effect obtained
is paramount to flight control but simply that it helps.

For instance, the Rafale could have been designed without canards,
à la M2000 but it would need a larger wing then ( and be heavier ).
With the larger wing, the lift is best away from the ground and at
high speeds or incidences but with the closed-coupled canards, the
planes attitude, esp. wrt charges and position relative to air masses
in the vicinity is adapted to fit conditions.

BTW, your answer ( Of course, of course, :wink: ) about the F-35
filling the trials requirements if it had been available reminded me to
ask if anyone has a link to stress the Mono to Bi reactor question.
In some air forces, that would prove important if not essential.
For instance, years ago, the Canadian Air Force stressed the two
engine advantage when it chose the CF-18 over the M2000 for them
long coldish rides over the great white northern part of the country.
The prospect of walking a thousand kliks home near the Artic circle ...
At the same time, France seemed as ok to send M2000s over A-Stan's
mountains and so does India, lol.
So, asking again, does the IAF which operates both single and dual
engines fighter have a preference?
Having M2Ks and TEJAS* says no as does the Gripen and F-16 presence
in the MMRCA but finalist are twin-jets both?


@ kelesis
That would be great news for the French side. I do believe Shiv Aroor
to be serious and heck, contrarily to us, he did get to ride those birds.
Thanks for the specific answer, mate.

Later guys, Tay.
Last edited by Taygibay on 07 Nov 2011 21:26, edited 2 times in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby SaiK » 07 Nov 2011 21:17

actually, that brings a good point for AMCA. India should start with naval-AMCA first. I don't think this thought is OT, because many ToTing techs learned now may be directly applied towards developing advanced home grown fighters [which is the whole intention of ToT].

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23309
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Austin » 07 Nov 2011 21:21

shiv wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=16491
108 MMRCAS will roll out from Bangalore; cool HAL waits for the big winner

..senior officials of HAL remained cool as a cucumber. They probably knew, who ever bags the $10.4 b order, they will be the biggest winner.


Reminds me of a joke

Doctor: I have good news and bad news. Which do you want first?
Patient: Tell me the bad news doc.
Doctor: You have a 50% chance of dying and a 50% chance of surviving
Patient: And the good news?
Doctor: I get paid either way.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby chaanakya » 07 Nov 2011 21:25

I think MMRCA tender includes two important clauses
1. Offset , is it 35 or 40%
2. TOT

I think Rafale has better chance.

btw unkil offering F16/18 or current F35 don't agree on these clauses and also insisted for Interoperability agreement which is already rejected by Armed forces.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby GeorgeWelch » 07 Nov 2011 21:30

Ajatshatru wrote:Georgie boy, when last heard this forum has ample Mods., so stop acting as a 'judge and a jury' on this thread telling Philip what he can (or can't) do....I see no reason why Philip has to humour you either


And I have no reason to humor Philip's lies either.

Ajatshatru wrote:....the title of this thread is 'India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2' so please don't derail this thread by continuously peddling/defending the F-35 now.


Then maybe Philip shouldn't have started lying about it in the first place.

Ajatshatru wrote:If you want to discuss anything related to the F-35 any further, request permission from the Mods. to create a separate thread for the same.


Maybe you should take your own advice?

Ajatshatru wrote:this forum has ample Mods., so stop acting as a 'judge and a jury' on this thread telling [] what he can (or can't) do

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby GeorgeWelch » 07 Nov 2011 21:31

chaanakya wrote:I think MMRCA tender includes two important clauses
1. Offset , is it 35 or 40%
2. TOT

I think Rafale has better chance.

btw unkil offering F16/18 or current F35 don't agree on these clauses and also insisted for Interoperability agreement which is already rejected by Armed forces.


False, both the F-16 and F-18 met the offset and ToT requirements.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2598
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby JTull » 07 Nov 2011 21:36

Offset requirement for MMRCA is 50%

Taygibay
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011 07:03

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Taygibay » 07 Nov 2011 21:36

^^OFFSET at 50 % :D

And the fact of TOT being the decisive factor
if price and offsets are marginally close is a
great way of getting the most out of your money.
About which, the 20Bn$ will not be correct as
pertaining to 126 ACs IMHO.
Poll time : I'll start at 15.5
Whadda ya think?

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby chaanakya » 07 Nov 2011 21:40

GeorgeWelch wrote:
chaanakya wrote:I think MMRCA tender includes two important clauses
1. Offset , is it 35 or 40%
2. TOT

I think Rafale has better chance.

btw unkil offering F16/18 or current F35 don't agree on these clauses and also insisted for Interoperability agreement which is already rejected by Armed forces.


False, both the F-16 and F-18 met the offset and ToT requirements.


Is there a way to confirm this? These are parts of FB and not TB which was evaluated earlier. Previous discussions indicated that Unkil was reluctant on these two clauses. But if they gave public statement on these two clauses I would be happy to be corrected in my "impressions".

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby nakul » 07 Nov 2011 21:42

GeorgeWelch wrote:False, both the F-16 and F-18 met the offset and ToT requirements.


No, the AESA & its source codes were not part of the ToT, which is a critical part of the aircraft. Boeing was already outsourcing plane doors to India. There was little evidence that they would have help India's aerospace move beyond aircraft fuselages.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Cosmo_R » 07 Nov 2011 22:00

According to this

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=174

The MMRCA cost has ballooned to $20 bn which works out to some ~$175MM per plane?

Taygibay
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011 07:03

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Taygibay » 07 Nov 2011 22:13

I know Cosmo_R, we've seen it before and it is mentioned in that link
in Arthuro's post to which Kelesis replied.

But it does not fit with the supposed all out efforts by both constructors
to get the lowest bid possible in. :wink:
In that link, the journalist mentions :
le ministère de la Défense l'aurait pratiquement doublé pour le porter à environ 20 milliards de dollars (14,5 milliards d'euros), notamment pour tenir compte des contrats liés au support des appareils.


which translates to :
"the Ministry of Defence would have virtually doubled to bring it around 20 billion dollars ( 14,5 billion Euros ),
notably to take into account contracts linked to the support of the aircrafts."

So yes then through-life support would change things tremenduously!

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby GeorgeWelch » 07 Nov 2011 22:13

chaanakya wrote:Is there a way to confirm this? These are parts of FB and not TB which was evaluated earlier. Previous discussions indicated that Unkil was reluctant on these two clauses. But if they gave public statement on these two clauses I would be happy to be corrected in my "impressions".


I recall the same information from the Indian side, but this is the best I could come up with on short notice.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengalur ... r-deal-869

"The IAF's request for proposal stipulated technology transfer in five categories in four phases. Our proposal is fully compliant. There's no requirement for 100 per cent technology transfer in the RFP. The final proposal was submitted by the US government. So, there should be no problem on the ToT front"


(from LockMart)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3474
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Nov 2011 22:48

Taygibay wrote:@Koti

Good question!
The advantage should go to the EF in high thin air
but it may not be so great depending on the load.

The presence of the mountains under the plane
gives the Rafale a chance as it can use the ground
effect if adopting a close to the surface flight path.
The advantage of the thrust remains with the EF
however which would go high and fast yet.*1
If the load is nominal at 6 to 8 thousand kilograms,
the advantage is shortened or nulled since the Rafale
has a max payload 2 tons over that of the Typhoon.*2
In short, as you near 8 tons of payload, the EF is
at maximum capacity ( 7,5 tons ) whereas the Raffy
still has leeway.
At 6 tons of payload, the EF is at 80% of maximum
and the Rafale at 65% more or less so that the thrust
to weight ratio gets back around even.
Yet another way to see it would be to say that with a
pure AtoA assortment the Typhie should get there faster
and with a full mix of AtoA and AtoG weapons things
even out. Of course, if you need to bring 9 tons, the
Rafale will get there slowly and the EF simply won't.


@ Saik, of course no naval variant and that too comes
from design. The Rafale final conception was done as
a naval plane and the B & C versions are "de-navalized"
ACs so to speak. To get the Typhoon to be usable on
a carrier would require so much redesign that even the
UK would get Rafale for their(s) before attempting a
"navalization" of it.The TV nozzles would be a nice
addition to the EF ( to any plane actually )but would still
not make the low speed handling quite comfortable enough
for the purpose as it stems mostly from aero design.

@ kelesis
I'm quite surprised by the Rafale in first in IAF, not because
it is a bad plane of course but because previous sources had
the opposite brought forward. If the new source is correct,
the choice should be quite simpler.
However, the original one giving EF on top was Indian IIRC
and the newest one is French so that I'd be careful here. :-?

Later guys, Tay.
*1 Both planes have ceilings over the Himalayas,
of course : 17km Rafale/near 20km Typhoon.

*2 The EF is a ton to a ton and a half heavier empty.


Thanks Tay, that was a decent explanation. A couple of things more to think about - thanks to the higher thrust, the EF could possibly take off with a given paylaod more easily from runways based at high altitude where the atmosphere is rarified and engines have to work much harder (Leh for eg).

Re. Raffy's slow speed ability, I almost see a semi LEX type setup on it unlike the EF, over and above the close coupled canards. I wonder if the EF could somewhat resolve this if it ever gets TVC.

What I am really curious about is the Spectra, esp. in A2A scenarios. I think the Fr. have something rather special here, which allows them to emphasize the discrete/semi stealthy attributes of said a/c by somehow manipulating emissions. Why else would they forego a massive radar in the nose? Plus get an IIR BVR missile? I mean the advantages of a huge dish in the nose should be evident to all (esp. the Adla) so why let it go? It can't be because the French wanted a multirole bird, there is nothing that prevents a larger antenaa from performing proper a2g duties. Of course AWACS support can mitigate the need for a powerful radar, but surely even the French can't count on AWACS support at all times? Interesting.

CM

sohels
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 74
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 15:00

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby sohels » 07 Nov 2011 23:06

Cosmo_R wrote:According to this

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=174

The MMRCA cost has ballooned to $20 bn which works out to some ~$175MM per plane?


Wow. I assumed the $20b figure was for 200 planes. So it could be 350-400 (@$50-60m) Gripens vs 126 Rafale/EF? Philip's recent suggestion does make a lot of sense.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16757
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Rahul M » 07 Nov 2011 23:16

CM, vivek ahuja wrote a code to analyze EJ200 v M-88 performance based on publicly available specifications about air mass flow, TET and bypass ratio. he concluded that m-88 should perform better at higher altitudes even though Ej has more thrust at sea level.
given his otherwise spot on record with back of the envelope calculations I am willing to trust his views.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3474
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Nov 2011 23:29

^wow, how interesting! Who'da thought that the M-88 would perform better at higher altitudes than an EJ-200 (considering the thrust difference).

CM

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16757
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Rahul M » 07 Nov 2011 23:45

to clarify, that might not necessarily mean m-88 would have higher absolute thrust than Ej200 but that it would have a higher proportion of its own max thrust at higher altitudes.
unfortunately I don't have the graph and thread has been deleted since. now while the thrust differences are significant m-88 (50/75) Ej200 (60/89) it is offset by the much lower loaded weight of the rafale (about 2 tons if wiki is correct)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4257
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Kartik » 07 Nov 2011 23:45

Tumba wrote:i never quoted anyone, i was not saying anything against anyone's opinion. I just posted what's my opinion and I think I have full right to post that. I was not refuting anyone here on this forum and If you have or some one else have n number of reasons in favor of Rafale, i will respect his/her opinion and would love to give my perspective.


calling the IAF 'stupid' when you personally have zero access to any real data that they have access to really makes it look like you are the one who ought to be called that.

MarcH
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 10:32

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby MarcH » 07 Nov 2011 23:51

Hey Tay, thank you so far for the reasonable discussion. Never thought I would say something like that to a Rafale supporter. Being German myself I guess I should be in the EF camp.

Well, regarding the high and fast performance there is more to it then just more thrust. Eurofighter's engines where often discribed as leaking turbofans, while the M88 is a typical turbofan. Means the M88 is more efficient in denser air, at subsonic speeds, while the EJ-200 performs better high and fast. Note also that 2/3rds of EJ-200's maximum thrust are dry thrust, while the M88 is roughly 50/50 and some American turbofans even have a 40/60 split. Usually the higher the bypass ratio, the better the SFC under optimal cruise conditions.

I would say Tiffy offers the better hardpoint layout for a2a. The 4 semi recessed fuselage hardpoints give a drag advantage. Add to that the better supersonic acceleration and manouverability. One reason for it are the long coupled canards, that can cope better with the CoG shift at supersonic speeds.

Rafale with its close coupled canards on the other hand profits from the vortex control especially at lower speeds and high AoA. Not a bad thing for a Naval fighter. :wink:
Additionally, the layout adds to the Rafales outstanding load carrying capability.

Assuming that many internal systems of the MMRCA winner will form the technological basis for AMCA I'd say that favours Rafale. (Having already a carrier version and the heat signature reduction measures present in the M-88).

Fom a logistics perspective the Rafale is clearly in front, too. Gives at least a bit commonality with M2K's and allows a bigger weapons pool for both aircraft.

Further more Rafale is the safer bet when it comes to AESA.

Only issue I see is the ability to induct them quickly. Dassault rotating their workforce is one thing, getting the long lead items from subcontractors the other.

Overall, the Rafale seems to fit better. But then again, there is the 4th dimension of combat aircraft: politics. :|

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1387
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Kersi D » 07 Nov 2011 23:55

shiv wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=16491
108 MMRCAS will roll out from Bangalore; cool HAL waits for the big winner

..senior officials of HAL remained cool as a cucumber. They probably knew, who ever bags the $10.4 b order, they will be the biggest winner.


Reminds me of a joke

Doctor: I have good news and bad news. Which do you want first?
Patient: Tell me the bad news doc.
Doctor: You have a 50% chance of dying and a 50% chance of surviving
Patient: And the good news?
Doctor: I get paid either way.


IT IS NOT A JOKE. :(( :(( :(( :((

HAL gets a business of 108 aircraft on a platter without any effort. Nor will they make much of an effort to deliver with high quality or before time.

And they will come to the BR stall on AERO INDIA 2013 and expect posters and books and CDs, FREE OF CHARGE

And they call themselves as the premier aircraft company in India :evil: :evil:

K

Taygibay
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011 07:03

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Taygibay » 08 Nov 2011 00:22

thanks to the higher thrust, the EF could possibly take off with a given paylaod more easily from runways based at high altitude where the atmosphere is rarified and engines have to work much harder (Leh for eg).


Yes & no, CM, lol
That was in there. If the load is below 6+ tons things should be pretty even
but around maximum payload for the EF, from 5,5 to 7 tons approx,
clear advantage to the Typhoon but reverting back to Rafale after 7.5 tons
and further since the maximum payload is reached for the Eurofighter! :P
Still, it gives the Typhoon best performance at the most credible load range.
Here are pics of it in best form :
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_Typhoon_RAF_ASRAAM_AMRAAM_Vertical_lg.jpg

http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Eurofighter-Typhoon-.JPG

The first is far interdict over the mountain range and the second
shows the half'n half 6+6 mix of the Typhie in multirole.
So yes March, :) too.
And Rahul_M sir that :
it is offset by the much lower loaded weight of the rafale (about 2 tons if wiki is correct)

is true of each with same payload and fuel, MTOW is one ton higher on the Rafale, just to be clear.
It is a shame to have misplaced that analysis, those are the fine tuning details that add up
to give a clear picture of those magnificient flying machines in operative form.


Eurofighter should go thrust vectoring at some point.
If/when available it would "complete" the Typhoon perfectly.

As for SPECTRA it is very special and anyone forgetting it makes a major blunder.
As you know, the name shows the place it occupies in the plane's overall design.
Système de Protection et d'Évitement des Conduites de Tir pour le RAfale.
Or RAfale's Targeting Controller Evasion and Protection Suite in English format.


It has a few distinctive features to what had been done on fighters before.
One in the name stands out, it was conceived for the plane specifically so that
A) it is completely networked to the pilot and helps in the consolidation of
alerts,
B) it does so both for the AtoA AtoG situations
C) it takes advantage of all sensors adding those of the weapons to its own.

There is an element of active cancellation involved but I will not
comment further on that since it is kept under a tight lid.
Anyway, real active cancellation is on the way in a few years max,
it has been done on bigger planes than fighters.

As for the nosecone size, time will tell if it was the proper choice.
The timeline goes about thus :
When Dassault gets ready to fix the design, the prefered route is
centered on a smaller plane so that its very size plays a part in
being LO.
Thales is already more or less fixed on going AESA and proposes a radar,
the RBE2 with electronic scan and complex mode interlacing so that
the switch would be "natural".
Confident that the AESA solutions of the future will add to SPECTRA
and compensate, Dassault indulges in a smallish nosecone.

That is why the Captor in AESA form will be so important in assessing
acquisition performance differences between the two planes.

The most important variable you cited was when AWACS are added to
the equation but it is somewhat incomplete.
Replace AWACS by NetworkCentricElement. Through link 16, any form
of targeting system that can communicate with the Rafale will do from
the AWACS, from a ground radar station or C2 plane or ship connected
to it and mostly another Rafale from the same patrol.
Detecting a plane silently as it scans a friend, so that you can transmit
to it the firing data it needs to engage.
In that example, the first plane(s) in a patrol is(are) silent and the rear
one comes in with radar beaming.
Such tactics have seen high off boresight firing of a MICA to reach an
hostile incoming full rear in exercise as commanded by a wingman that
had acquired the threat.
It relates to SPECTRA as said before as at least one instance has been
recorded of SPECTRA firing a MICA by itself.
( I wonder if the pilot felt bad? Too slow jack, the machine chose fer ya? )

As for a BVR IR missile, at 60kms that would be the MICA IR which debuted
in 2000.
Of course, we'd all like a METEOR IR and it may come but at 100kms,
you'll need quite a Pirate/OSF to give a confirm in passive mode :eek:

That's about it' Tay.
Last edited by Taygibay on 08 Nov 2011 08:42, edited 2 times in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4257
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Kartik » 08 Nov 2011 00:59

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Carrying out the mission assigned to it.


The IAF didn't think so. Otherwise it would be one of the finalists.


Again certain arbitrary requirements whose actual importance is somewhat dubious.


If ever there was a case of sour grapes, this is it!


Clearly not. They delivered the first Australian SH in 27 months so obviously faster is possible.


That was because the Aussie Shornets are exactly the same as the USN's versions. Ditto. Not so with the IAF. Boeing itself said 36 months, so I'll take what they say rather than you.


Why not? Because it doesn't fit your narrative? They are the biggest operator of it, shouldn't their opinion on the matter be worth something?


Selective cherry picking. You didn't answer why the F-22 supersonic acceleration is a minor advantage. If it was really so, then they were fools to spend a fortune on it when a lower T/W ratio would've sufficed and possibly kept costs lower.


The USAF is far more excited about the F-22's stealth than they are about it's kinematics (although obviously they love those too).


The same stealth that takes 36 man hours of maintenance for 1 hour of flight. Yeah, enamoured, surely.


Completely false. The supersonic acceleration issues are partly due to the wing being optimized for low-speed operations (like landing on a carrier . . .). And the SH's engines are already more powerful than either of the euro's. Strong engines + wing optimized for low-speed lift = great liftoff capability in hot and high conditions.


And yet the supersonic acceleration issue is the main issue that GE claims will be resolved with the F414 EPE. The F414 EPE is stated as improving the T/W ratio of the Shornet to one of the best in the world, without which it didn't meet the IAF's requirements. Otherwise there was simply no reason to offer to develop it for the IAF. In hot and high conditions, you need thrust as well to be able to take off.



Of course they had a choice, they could have ordered the Rafale :rotfl:


Your answer shows just how pathetic an attempt you're making to peddle an already rejected fighter.


Another falsehood. The SH offer met the ToT requirements, there's no reason the F-35 couldn't too. If nothing else, they could offer the exact same ToT you would have gotten with the SH.


Lies. We've all seen how great the ToT offers have been even to partner nations so far. The US would never be so concerned about parting with the Shornet's technology as they would be with the F-35.


That's a given . . .


And that means that the Typhoon or Rafale are both better to bulk up than the F-35 which will arrive too late anyway.


False


I don't believe you when you say that the US won't impose some sort of restrictions on how the F-35 will be used. I think most people on BRF won't believe you either.


Partner is based on money invested. Buying that many jets automatically puts you at the table.


Are you even aware of the JSF consortium's rules ?


There are three levels of international participation. The levels generally reflect the financial stake in the program, the amount of technology transfer and subcontracts open for bid by national companies, and the order in which countries can obtain production aircraft. The United Kingdom is the sole "Level 1" partner, contributing US$2.5 billion, which was about 10% of the planned development costs under the 1995 "Memorandum of Understanding" that brought the UK into the project. Level 2 partners are Italy , which is contributing US$1 billion; and the Netherlands, US$800 million. Level 3 partners are Turkey, US$195 million; Canada, US$160 million; Australia, US$144 million; Norway
, US$122 million and Denmark, US$110 million. Israel and Singapore have joined as Security Cooperative Participants (SCP)."


You contribute financially to the DEVELOPMENT program to become a partner. You don't become a partner because you just buy F-35s. And you expect the UK and Italy to sit by when a nation that hasn't contributed development money gets more ToT than even they can on the F-35? The reason that there are so many partners is because all of them get a stake in the production run. If India were to do it all alone (as it intends to do eventually with the MRCA) then all these partner nations will not sit idly by watching their investments go fruitless.


If you had been paying attention, you would know that I've ALWAYS questioned need for the MRCA, BUT that IF you were going to go forward with it, it would make sense to go with the SH as it would be available soonest and cheapest.


If it made sense to go with the Shornet, then it would've been one of the finalists. It isn't and as much as you demean the process and the MRCA requirements, it won't change. I'm especially happy that the IAF is getting what it rates the best, and the ones that it feels meet its requirements the best.


The IAF had and has the same option!

They could have bought more Mirages. They could have bought more MiGs. They HAVE repeatedly bumped up orders for MKIs. Those didn't seem to run into any red-tape. So don't say you can't do it, you ALREADY HAVE when the situation warranted it. And apparently they don't feel the situation warrants any great haste in this case.


They could have bought more Mirages- but the GoI didn't want to go with a sole supplier for a 126 jet order in order to prevent any allegations of corruption. I won't bother explaining all this to you anymore. If you cannot get it into your head then so be it. It’s a waste arguing with you.



If the need was urgent, the IAF would have sold the GoI on the need. They didn't. That should tell you something.


You obviously don't know how things work in India. If the GoI doesn't agree to something, then there is nothing that the IAF can do. Follow-on purchases in small batches of MKIs are not the same as a one-time large purchase. The DPP that came into being later, ensured that.


How much of a competition was there for the MKI?


Two airplanes were in the competition- the in-development MKI and the Mirage-2000. Back then, your US govt. wouldn’t even offer us anything, so there were no F-16 Block 50s to evaluate. And EADS' Typhoon IPA1 hadn't even been fully assembled, so it was out of the question. Gripen A/B's wasn't considered. So there was a competition, albeit a smaller one, where the MKI won.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6808
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby nachiket » 08 Nov 2011 01:10

Kartik wrote:

How much of a competition was there for the MKI?


Two airplanes were in the competition- the in-development MKI and the Mirage-2000. Back then, your US govt. wouldn’t even offer us anything, so there were no F-16 Block 50s to evaluate. And EADS' Typhoon IPA1 hadn't even been fully assembled, so it was out of the question. Gripen A/B's wasn't considered. So there was a competition, albeit a smaller one, where the MKI won.

The MKI was also considerably cheaper than new Mirage-2000s at the time, despite having a significantly greater range and payload. Another thing was that new DefMin regulations regarding a need for multi-vendor competitions (like the MRCA circus) weren't in effect at the time.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6808
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby nachiket » 08 Nov 2011 01:23

GeorgeWelch, you seem to be making the same argument repeatedly that if the IAF was really desperate, they could have bought more M2ks or Mig-29s and the fact that they didn't means that the IAF can wait. You need to realize that the way that defense procurement works in India is vastly different from that in the US and other countries. Even if the IAF (or IA or IN) is extremely desperate, their need may still be completely ignored by the MoD and/or MoF in light of financial or regulatory constraints or due to sheer bureaucratic laziness. Case in point is the IA's artillery procurement saga which has been going on for 20+ years without a single gun being bought. Even a cursory look at the IAF's current fleet will show that it's need for numbers is bordering on desperate and they would have been better off buying 126 M2ks 10 years ago. However since their requests were turned down by the MoD citing regulations and fear of corruption allegations, they are trying to make the best of the situation by acquiring the best aircraft that is available currently. And the JSF does not fulfill the "available currently" requirement no matter how you try to spin it.
So can you please stop peddling the JSF here? It is only decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio here.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby GeorgeWelch » 08 Nov 2011 02:40

Kartik wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Carrying out the mission assigned to it.


The IAF didn't think so. Otherwise it would be one of the finalists.


No, it didn't think it would meet the specifications as set forth in the tender. That's a legalistic determination and has nothing to do with how they view the capabilities.

For example, during the first KC-X competition, the USAF decided they liked the KC-30 better than the KC-767 even though it didn't meet some of the requirements they themselves set forth in the RFP. So they chose the plane they liked better. Oops, legally they were in the wrong because they didn't follow the rules they set forth. The IAF is trying to avoid a similar fiasco.

Kartik wrote:

Clearly not. They delivered the first Australian SH in 27 months so obviously faster is possible.


That was because the Aussie Shornets are exactly the same as the USN's versions.


Which is clearly what we were talking about. Standard SHs first to be upgraded at a later date.

Kartik wrote:
Why not? Because it doesn't fit your narrative? They are the biggest operator of it, shouldn't their opinion on the matter be worth something?


Selective cherry picking.


So the opinion of the largest operator is 'selective cherry picking'? :rotfl:

Kartik wrote:You didn't answer why the F-22 supersonic acceleration is a minor advantage. If it was really so, then they were fools to spend a fortune on it when a lower T/W ratio would've sufficed and possibly kept costs lower.


You need to study the history of the F-22 more. The kinematics weren't what made it expensive . . .

Kartik wrote:
The USAF is far more excited about the F-22's stealth than they are about it's kinematics (although obviously they love those too).


The same stealth that takes 36 man hours of maintenance for 1 hour of flight. Yeah, enamoured, surely.


Why do they do it? Because it's worth it.

However it is also why they're excited about the F-35 and it's much more durable stealth coating.

Kartik wrote:
Completely false. The supersonic acceleration issues are partly due to the wing being optimized for low-speed operations (like landing on a carrier . . .). And the SH's engines are already more powerful than either of the euro's. Strong engines + wing optimized for low-speed lift = great liftoff capability in hot and high conditions.


And yet the supersonic acceleration issue is the main issue that GE claims will be resolved with the F414 EPE.


Yes, you can overcome drag with more thrust. You find that surprising?

Kartik wrote:The F414 EPE is stated as improving the T/W ratio of the Shornet to one of the best in the world, without which it didn't meet the IAF's requirements. Otherwise there was simply no reason to offer to develop it for the IAF.


Correct. And also why the USN has no interest in it. It exists solely to check one datapoint on the IAF list of requirements.

Kartik wrote:In hot and high conditions, you need thrust as well to be able to take off.


False. It has plenty of thrust for hot and high takeoffs. Again take-offs occur at LOW speed where the SH excels. The 'problem' is drag in the trans/supersonic region. Hardly an issue at takeoff speeds.

Kartik wrote:
Another falsehood. The SH offer met the ToT requirements, there's no reason the F-35 couldn't too. If nothing else, they could offer the exact same ToT you would have gotten with the SH.


Lies. We've all seen how great the ToT offers have been even to partner nations so far. The US would never be so concerned about parting with the Shornet's technology as they would be with the F-35.


You aren't paying attention to what I said.

Kartik wrote:
That's a given . . .


And that means that the Typhoon or Rafale are both better to bulk up than the F-35


Except the amount being spent isn't 'bulk-up' money, it's 'core of the future' money, and the F-35 will be far better to be a core of the future.

To spend so much on obsolete fighters solely to 'bulk-up' boggles the mind.

Kartik wrote:which will arrive too late anyway.


Too late for what?

Kartik wrote:Are you even aware of the JSF consortium's rules ?


Yes.

Kartik wrote:

There are three levels of international participation. The levels generally reflect the financial stake in the program, the amount of technology transfer and subcontracts open for bid by national companies, and the order in which countries can obtain production aircraft. The United Kingdom is the sole "Level 1" partner, contributing US$2.5 billion, which was about 10% of the planned development costs under the 1995 "Memorandum of Understanding" that brought the UK into the project. Level 2 partners are Italy , which is contributing US$1 billion; and the Netherlands, US$800 million. Level 3 partners are Turkey, US$195 million; Canada, US$160 million; Australia, US$144 million; Norway
, US$122 million and Denmark, US$110 million. Israel and Singapore have joined as Security Cooperative Participants (SCP)."


You contribute financially to the DEVELOPMENT program to become a partner. You don't become a partner because you just buy F-35s. And you expect the UK and Italy to sit by when a nation that hasn't contributed development money gets more ToT than even they can on the F-35? The reason that there are so many partners is because all of them get a stake in the production run. If India were to do it all alone (as it intends to do eventually with the MRCA) then all these partner nations will not sit idly by watching their investments go fruitless.


Development will be ongoing and India will undoubtedly have their own requirements (perhaps weapons integration). As you see, countries got partner status for as little as $110 million. You really think they would deny India who will invest so much more? :rotfl:

Secondly this gets back to where you misunderstood my earlier comment about ToT. I don't know how much of the F-35 they would be willing to share BUT they would obviously be willing to share what would have been included in the SH/SViper package, which would have met the MRCA requirements.

So you still get the same or better ToT than you get for ordering the EF/Rafale.

Kartik wrote:
If you had been paying attention, you would know that I've ALWAYS questioned need for the MRCA, BUT that IF you were going to go forward with it, it would make sense to go with the SH as it would be available soonest and cheapest.


If it made sense to go with the Shornet, then it would've been one of the finalists.


You must stop confusing what makes sense with what legalistically has to happen. There is minimal overlap between the two. For instance they couldn't even CONSIDER bid price before the downselect. Some people have questioned the wisdom of such a policy, but it is the policy and they have to follow it whether it makes sense or not.

Kartik wrote:It isn't and as much as you demean the process


Exactly, can't have it demeaning the almighty process. :mrgreen:

Kartik wrote:I'm especially happy that the IAF is getting what it rates the best, and the ones that it feels meet its requirements the best.


The second has no relation to the first.

Kartik wrote:They could have bought more Mirages- but the GoI didn't want to go with a sole supplier for a 126 jet order in order to prevent any allegations of corruption.


And if the need was desperate, they would have gotten over themselves and let it happen.

They haven't had any problem sole sourcing more MKIs.

Is the secret to simply split the order into smaller bite-sized chunks? If they had ordered 40 more there would have been no problem. Then another 40 and still no problem. And another 40 and voila! You're at 120!


Kartik wrote:You obviously don't know how things work in India. If the GoI doesn't agree to something, then there is nothing that the IAF can do.


They can lobby the GoI to change it's mind. If they don't have convincing enough evidence, well . . .

Kartik wrote:Follow-on purchases in small batches of MKIs are not the same as a one-time large purchase.


Bunch of small batches or one large batch, end result is the same. They added 140 more MKIs without any sort of competition.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Philip » 08 Nov 2011 02:55

George.Don't call me a liar ever again,you litttle t*rd.That is being impolite and abusive in the extreme and this is a gentleman's forum.I can be equally abusive if need be.I have made thousands of posts on BRF for well over a decade and they are based upon authentic sources and information.I do not need to keep repeating them time and again for your benefit.If you missed them,too bad for you.If you also want to keep on pimping the JSF for the IAF,please do it on another thread.

Mods and WBmasters,please teach this guy some manners.Pl. forgive my JSF quotes below,as my integrity is being called into question.There are lots of comparisons with some of our MMRCA contenders ,so there is relevance to the thrust of this thread too.

PS:Just for the record for members,here's one report/quote.

Plan B

By early 2006 UK officials were emphasizing that in case the issues in relation to the JSF couldn’t be resolved, they were having to think the unthinkable and consider a pull out from the JSF programme at the end of 2006. Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, said: “There has to be a Plan B. We need to make sure we have done the work needed to ensure we have an option.”

In special hearings before the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 14 March 2006, British, Australian and Italian officials expressed their unhappiness about the lack of consultation in U.S. handling of the JSF program and technology transfer delays. Minister for Defence Procurement Lord Drayson issued a stark warning that unless Britain's technology access needs are met, it will quit the JSF program. The British government's stance appears uncompromising. Either provide the U.K. with "operational sovereignty" on its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, or watch London pull out.

"We have no reason to believe that our discussions with the administration will not be successful, but without the technology transfer to give us the confidence to deliver an aircraft fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy these aircraft," Drayson cautioned. "I am spelling this out because it is so important to make our intentions clear. I know the British can be accused of understatement." The STOVL F-35B remains the most likely choice but other options include a move to the CTOL F-35C or a split buy. Even a navalised variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now being seriously re-considered as "Plan B" if the UK pulled out of the JSF project at the end of 2006, something that would have been unthinkable in 2003 or 2004.

During the summer of 2006 the UK Ministry of Defence submitted a list of its requirements to the US Department of Defence and required a satisfactory answer before 6th December 2006, warning that otherwise it might not sign a memorandum of understanding to move from the JSF system development and demonstration phase to the manufacturing phase of the project.

The problem of purchasing an alternative aircraft for JCA under a “Plan B” is that none of the contenders can be considered to be a fully satisfactory alternative to the F-35 JSF. Buying the less capable American-made Boeing F/A-18E Super would be a farcical decision after just pulling out of the JSF project; a further development of the Harrier would result in an inferior and non-stealthy subsonic product compared to F-35B; there would be minimum UK content in a purchase of French made Dassault Rafale M’s; while developing a marinised version of the land based Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 would be expensive.


(*These costs are now in the stratosphere,with latest estimates being $125m for a JSF)
....Costs

The cost of new fighters is extremely difficult to accurately estimate and usefully compare due to: the massive R&D costs which may or may not be included in a quoted number; the often huge price difference between a basic equipment fit and a "fully featured" aircraft; the bundling or otherwise of spares (including engines), weapons, support, maintenance equipment, training, etc.

While now a historical debate, it's still interesting to compare the approximate unarmed unit costs for the JCA contenders as being suggested in 2001. Derived partly from export prices offered in fighter competitions, in Year 2000 prices they were:
•F-35 JSF - $50-60m depending on variant [DOD/MOD estimate]
•Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon - $71-80m * [RAF estimate & Greek Fighter competition]
•Dassault Rafale M - $60-70m [French Parliamentary Finance Committee estimate, offer to India, Greek fighter competition]
•Boeing Super Hornet FA-18E - $65-75m [DoD estimates]

*A navalised Typhoon would reportedly have cost at least 25% extra, i.e. $89-100m.

Although these costs are significantly more than the basic configuration "fly-away" unit costs that are often and somewhat misleadingly quoted (e.g. as little as $40-50 million for Rafale) and presumably include a small profit for the manufacturer, they still exclude most research & development and in-service support costs. Development costs are high for the F-35 (for just the UK alone, approximately $3.3bn in total at 2001 prices), would have been significant for Sea Typhoon and substantial for a Anglo'ised Rafale. A Super Hornet could be bought nearly “off-the-shelf”.



*Here's the report about "tier1,2,3 variants!" Only the US will get the fully loaded JSF and evn Britain's "tier 1" does not come with TOT and codes (other reports).

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The ... rsy-05089/

As one might expect, this status makes the F-35 a controversial long-term bet in many of the program’s member countries. The USA is looking at its budgets, and has concluded that it can afford about half of the annual aircraft buys it had originally planned during the program’s early years. Its fellow Tier 1 partner Britain is reportedly re-evaluating its planned F-35B order in light of rising costs and problematic defense budgets. Sharp controversy has erupted in Tier 2 partner the Netherlands over long-term costs and industrial arrangements, leading to political pressure for a competitive bid. Tier 3 partners Norway and Denmark have both traveled down that same road, and are holding open competitions that pit the F-35 against Saab’s modernized JAS-39NG Gripen.


Now for JSF capability vs its rivals,Rand study:Note,"double inferior" in WVR combat to the SU-30 family! What about the internal missile capacity of only "4" missiles?! "Quantity having a quality of its own",.....

On Sept 11/08, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon had asked for a full report from Australia’s DoD, in response to public reports that a classified computer simulation of an attack by Russian-built SU-30 family aircraft on a mixed fleet of F-35As, Super Hornets and F-22s, had resulted in success for the Russian aircraft. Fitzgibbon, who questioned the strategic logic behind Australia’s plans for an F-35/ F-18F fighter fleet while in opposition, asked for an Australian Department of Defence review, and added that:

“I’m determined not to sign on the dotted line on the JSF until I am absolutely certain it’s capable of delivering the capability it promises and that capability can be delivered on time and on budget.”

On Sept 12/08, Australia’s opposition Liberal Party waded into the fray in support of its previous decision to buy the F-35A. It asked the new minister to release the results of the recent Air Combat Capability Review, and get on with his decision.

Even so, the timing of this contretemps could not have been worse from Lockheed Martin’s perspective. Just 3 days earlier, the left-wing American Center for Defense Information had released “Joint Strike Fighter: The Latest Hotspot in the U.S. Defense Meltdown.” Its commentary echoed some items that were in the RAND study, though those items were not the study’s focus. Lockheed Martin and the USAF soon countered, as the controversy became an international issue.

In order to really understand that controversy, one must first look at what the RAND report did and did not say. Fortunately, that is now possible, thanks to a leaked and posted copy. The subsequent controversies involving CDI, Lockheed Martin, et. al. will make more sense in this context. Once the various claims and counter-claims are clear, it becomes possible to evaluate their strengths and gaps, then match that to potential impacts on the larger F-35 program, and its sales.

Australian Altercation: The RAND Study

On Sept 25/08, the RAND Corporation stepped in with a statement of their own concerning the August 2008 Pacific Vision simulation performed under its wide-ranging Project Air Force mandate:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft”

That last assertion is true. On the other hand, DID managed to obtain a copy of the RAND Power Point briefing [5.3 MB, PDF]. When the full briefing is read, RAND’s study does have implications for the F-35. They are decidedly mixed.

RAND is correct that their study did not attempt adjudication of air combat. Indeed, its assumptions of perfect missile attack and perfect missile defense by American F-22 fighters were designed to remove this very issue from the equation. When F-35s did participate in the analysis, the full range of “missile kill probability” figures from 1% to 100% were offered as “what if” tools, without making predictions or distinctions based on either side’s aircraft.

The core problem in Pacific Vision 2008 was that even an invulnerable American fighter force ran out of missiles before it ran out of targets, at any number below 50% of missile firings resulting in kills. Whereupon the remaining Chinese fighters would destroy the American tankers and AWACS aircraft, guaranteeing that the USAF’s F-22As would run out of fuel and crash before they could return to Guam.

To reiterate: RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It is about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions. RAND’s Project Air Force argues, persuasively, that based on history and current trends, numbers still matter – and so does the “Lanchester square.” That’s the theory under which the combat performance of an outnumbered combatant must be the square of the outnumbering ratio (outnumbered 3:1 must be 9x better, etc.) just to stay even.

Or, as the oft-repeated Cold War era saying goes, “quantity has a quality all its own.”

F-35: Air to Air Analyses

The belief in quantity could be seen as a point in the F-35’s favor, when comparing it to its implicit F-22 as a rival for USAF dollars. Even so, it’s prudent to note that the RAND study revolved around total missiles carried, and the F-35’s internal capacity will be no larger than half of the F-22’s (no more than 4 missiles, vs. 8 in the F-22A). Equivalent air-air missile capacity at each aircraft’s maximum stealth configuration thus requires at least twice as many F-35s as F-22s, a move that also raises the cost of the supporting aerial tankers and other infrastructure required to field long-range missions.

The RAND study also spends a great deal of time on the core American assumptions concerning “beyond visual range” air to air combat, and the current and future capabilities of SU-30 family aircraft. The implications of its examination do affect the F-35’s fighting qualities – and they will be significant to some of the plane’s potential customers.

RAND’s discussion begins by predicting poorer beyond visual range missile kill performance than current models suggest when facing capable enemy aircraft, by noting that BVR missile performance since the 1990s has largely involved poorly-equipped targets. It also notes the steep rise and then drop in modern infrared missile performance, as countermeasures improved. Meanwhile, AESA radar advances already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-air missiles, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against even ultra-stealthy aircraft. Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.

The F-35’s lower infrared and radar stealth mean that these advances will affect it more than the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches from 2020 -2050.

The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”


..and lastly,a collection from various media comments on the alternative (cheaper) JSF engine gambit,actually adding to the overall cost of development.
http://www.f135engine.com/alternate-eng ... ents.shtml

The little engine that couldn't award goes to the $465 million for the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. A project that has been in the Pig Book since 2004. Secretary Gates said that he will recommend a veto of any legislation that contains funding for the alternate engine.
Tom Schatz, president, Citizens Against Government Waste, in his remarks about the alternate engine winning an “Oinker Award” at CAGW’s annual Pig Book press conference, April 14, 2010
Last edited by Philip on 08 Nov 2011 03:53, edited 2 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Viv S » 08 Nov 2011 03:04

arthuro wrote:Rafale and Eurofighter side by side in India
La Tribune , Nov 6
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fin ... -inde.html


Arthuro, taking the Tribune report at face value would force one to take this Telegraph report at face value.


A senior Indian official has told The Sunday Telegraph that its air force's technical findings have been forwarded to the defence ministry, where a final decision is expected to be made in the next few months.

"There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead," the official said.

The disclosure is a significant boost for the Typhoon consortium, but it must now address Indian concerns that the Eurofighter is more expensive than its competitors in upfront costs. British, German, Spanish and Italian officials are confident however that it will be cheaper than its competitors over the lifetime of its deployment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -deal.html



Truth is I don't expect either of those newspapers to have access to unbiased informed Indian sources (MoD in particular).

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Nov 2011 03:13

Viv S wrote:
arthuro wrote:Rafale and Eurofighter side by side in India
La Tribune , Nov 6
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fin ... -inde.html


Arthuro, taking the Tribune report at face value would force one to take this Telegraph report at face value.


A senior Indian official has told The Sunday Telegraph that its air force's technical findings have been forwarded to the defence ministry, where a final decision is expected to be made in the next few months.

"There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead," the official said.

The disclosure is a significant boost for the Typhoon consortium, but it must now address Indian concerns that the Eurofighter is more expensive than its competitors in upfront costs. British, German, Spanish and Italian officials are confident however that it will be cheaper than its competitors over the lifetime of its deployment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -deal.html



Truth is I don't expect either of those newspapers to have access to unbiased informed Indian sources (MoD in particular).


Isn't the second article from last year?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6808
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby nachiket » 08 Nov 2011 03:17

Cosmo_R wrote:
Isn't the second article from last year?

What difference does it make? Both articles quote unnamed sources vaguely stating that a particular aircraft is "ahead". Both should be dismissed as speculation.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby SaiK » 08 Nov 2011 03:37

adding 140 MKIs without competition: sounds like the sins of partnering with Russia, and we keep exercising the option of purchasing more and more on an agreed price, without even considering that a competitor might give us a better deal.

So, If additional MMRCA is ordered, then there is competition at all because, it is unfair for other competitors to add more of the same. Example: It is rude to ask EADS to supply 140 MKIs. :twisted:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Philip » 08 Nov 2011 04:14

Latest report from http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/
The full rpeort traces the history of the contest and the latest evaluation.

The shortlisted fighters have a long shared history. Dassault’s Rafale was developed when France parted ways with its erstwhile European partners, who went on to develop the Eurofighter. Both types have been fielded without full capabilities, and both have had trouble landing export orders. The EADS/ BAE/ Finmeccanica consortium is looking for Eurofighter’s 2nd major export sale, after Saudi Arabia. Dassault is still looking for its 1st export win.

Rafale (Dassault, France). Initial reports indicated that the Rafale did not meet India’s technical evaluation criteria, because critical information was not included. Dassault persisted, and their fighter is now back in the race.

The Rafale offers good aerodynamic performance, has exceptional ordnance capacity for its size, and can have its range extended via conformal fuel tanks. Dassault claims Mach 1+ “supercruise” capability without afterburners, but observers are skeptical, and it has been challenging to demonstrate this with the Snecma R88-2 engine. The Rafale also offers some equipment, maintenance and spares commonalities with existing Mirage 2000 fleet, which would probably increase if an agreement is finally concluded to modernize India’s Mirage 2000s. France’s general reliability as a weapons supplier, good history of product support, and long-standing relations with India, offer additional plusses. The Rafale-M’s demonstrated carrier capability might also be attractive, but that requires catapult launch capabilities, which India’s initial fleet of carriers will not possess.

The Rafale’s weaknesses include the continuing absence of a compatible surveillance and advanced targeting pod, the need for additional funds and work to integrate many non-French weapons if one wishes to use them on the Rafale, and its lack of an AESA radar until Thales finishes developing the RBE2-AA. The Rafale’s failure to win any export competitions is also an issue – one that reaches beyond mere perception of “also-ran” status. As Singapore’s choice has shown, export failures are already forcing cuts in future Rafale procurement, in order to pay for modernization. That dynamic is likely to get worse over the next 30 years, unless a big buyer like India steps up.

Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS/BAE, Europe & Britain). A fourth generation aircraft currently optimized for the air-air role through its performance characteristics, and what is by all accounts an excellent pilot interface. Some observers believe that aside from the F-22A Raptor, the Eurofighter is the next-best in-service air superiority aircraft world-wide, though the 2007 Indra Dhanush exercise that matched it up against India’s SU-30MKI makes a case for Sukhoi’s fighter.

India’s delay has given the fighter more time to mature, and upgrades and new weapon options are giving current production versions full multi-role capabilities. Typhoon fighters reportedly have “supercruise” capability, though it probably isn’t sustainable once the fighter is armed. Eurofighter GmbH even unveiled a proposed naval variant at Aero India 2011, which it claims could launch without catapults from the “ski-jump” decks on India’s future carriers.

With respect to industrial offsets, BAE already has an order from India for 123 BAE Hawk trainers, 69 of which are being built in India. Those Hawk orders ran into trouble, but the troubles were resolved, and India upped the order from 66 to 123. That gives BAE solid industrial experience and credentials, and given EADS’ key role in the Eurofighter consortium, Airbus might also be able to contribute.

Weaknesses include the aircraft’s $100+ million price tag, which may stretch India’s budget to the breaking point; the fact it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; its lack of naval capability; the developmental status of its CAESAR (Captor AESA Radar) technology; and the non-existent geopolitical benefits of selecting it. Given the Eurofighter’s performance and costs, simply buying more SU-30MKIs would appear to make far more sense. India’s shortlist process ignored cost, however, so Eurofighter made the short list.


Anotherexcerpt from the Rand report (earlier post) on JSF shortcomings which have relevance to MMRCA capability too,as stealth is no magic bullet in combat.

Some of these criticisms were echoed in the left-wing American Center for Defense Information’s Sept 8/08 briefing “Joint Strike Fighter: The Latest Hotspot in the U.S. Defense Meltdown.” This analysis by Pierre M. Spey, a key member of the F-16 and A-10 design teams, cast sharp doubt on the F-35’s capabilities:

“Even without new problems, the F-35 is a ‘dog.’ If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be: “Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter…. [F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot…. less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam…. payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay…. With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’... too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods…. What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft…. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35’s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.”

On Sept 18/08, Lockheed Martin fired back in “F-35: Setting the Record Straight.” It takes direct aim at both the Australian press reports, and the CDI article, noting that external weapons clearance is indeed part of the F-35’s current test program. Lockheed Martin added that:

”....The Air Force’s standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios…. In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois…. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented “see/shoot first” and combat radius advantages.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament… We do consider all of this in today’s fighters….

....Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access—all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again.”


Note that Lockheed Martin’s release does not address infrared stealth against modern IRST (infra-red scan and track) air to air systems, which are present on advanced European and Russian fighters. The F-35 will use a clever system that circulates fuel near the aircraft skin to remove some frictional heat, but it still has a 40,000 pound thrust turbofan in the back, and Russian designs already have ranges from 50 km (OLS35, head on) to 90 km (OLS35, rear). Nor does it make any claims concerning superior maneuverability against thrust-vectoring opponents like Russia’s MiG-29OVT and the most modern members of the SU-30 family, or canard-equipped “4.5 generation” aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, EADS Eurofighter, or Saab’s Gripen.

Can these statements be reconciled – and if not, which of them are incorrect? Some of the F-35 program’s success could hinge on the answers to those questions.
Part of the problem is that both the CDI’s analysis, and Lockheed Martin’s reply, are incomplete.

Spey has undertaken a similar analysis of the F-22A Raptor for CDI, but aircraft pilots have said that his analysis in key areas like maneuverability is poorly done, and does not match provable reality. Spey’s wing-loading model claimed superiority for the F-15, when the F-22 has significantly better instantaneous and sustained turning capabilities (28 degrees sustained, vs. 21/15-16 degrees per second instantaneous/ sustained). This justifies strong caution in accepting Spey’s F-35 analysis, and Lockheed Martin’s reply offers additional reasons for doubt. In fairness to Spey, it should also be said that combat experience with his A-10 aircraft in Afghanistan etc. does back up his contentions concerning the limitations of fast jets, and the capabilities required for close air support.

The F-35’s problem is that concrete reasons could be advanced to explain why Spey’s F-22 aerodynamic analysis parameters were wrong, such as the Raptor’s thrust vectoring and controllable tail surfaces to offset Spey’s unidimensional wing loading analysis, the tactical implications of having the ability to cruise above Mach 1 without afterburners, and stealth that has defeated AWACS aircraft and worked against international fighter pilots even at relatively short ranges. F-22 pilots have also racked up incredibly lopsided kill ratios in American and international exercises, far in excess of “normal” performance for new aircraft, that back up their pilots’ performance claims.

This is all much harder to do for the F-35, which remains a developmental aircraft and lacks key aerodynamic features like combat thrust vectoring (Harrier, SU-30 family, MiG-29OVT, F-22A), canards for fast “point and shoot” maneuvers with high off-boresight short-range missiles (some SU-30 family, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen), or loaded supersonic cruise (F-22A). The F-35 has also been designed from the outset to feature less stealth than the F-22A, though it will be stealthier than contemporary 4.5 generation European and Russian aircraft. Aircraft intake size and hence volume are set unless the aircraft is redesigned, and wing size, angle and loading can all be observed. )

The F-35’s explicit design goal has been stated as being the F-16’s equal in in air to air combat, at a time when the F-16’s future ability to survive in that arena is questioned. The question naturally arises: what special features give the F-35 a unique ability to prevail against the kind of advanced, upgraded 4.5 generation and better fighters that it can be expected to face between its induction, and a likely out of service date around 2050 or later?

Classified simulations whose assumptions are shielded from the public may indeed demonstrate the attested results, but their foundations are outside any public scrutiny, and amount to a claim that must be taken on faith. That may not be very convincing in the political sphere. Especially since models of this type have been very wrong before, due to the well-known phenomenon of incorrect or missing assumptions producing results that don’t match the test of battle.

The F-35 does have the equivalent of a Sniper ATP reconnaissance and targeting pod built in, and experience on the front lines indicates that its presence goes significantly beyond just “slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.” That addresses an important component of the F-35’s overall rationale – but it does not address the air to air dimension.

Hence Lockheed Martin’s limited success in the public relations sphere. Aviation Week’s veteran journalist Bill Sweetman, for instance, greeted Lockheed Martin’s September 2008 air superiority claims with a reaction best described as incredulity:

“Moreover, it’s made just as Graham Warwick reports (subscription) that Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch, stated last week: “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.” There is surely a universe where these two statements are compatible, but we don’t live there…. If the F-35 can really do all that, why did the USAF spend billions on supercruise, rear-aspect stealth and supermaneuverability (the reason for 2D vectoring nozzles) for the F-22? And does this mean that the all-aspect/wideband LO tech on the B-2 and X-47B UCAS is superfluous?”

In a follow-on October 2008 article however, Sweetman described a possible air-to-air feature that may offer a partial explanation for Lockheed Martin’s claims. As RAND noted, improvements in countermeasures have affected infrared missile kill probabilities, and this system has yet to be tested in realistic combat scenarios involving multi-spectral flares, etc. With that said:

”[The F-35’s Distributed Aperture System] comprises six fixed, wide-angle infrared cameras that constantly image the entire sphere around the F-35…. and one of its functions is to provide imagery to the VSI helmet-mounted display…. one of the DAS’ most interesting capabilities is that it can constantly track every aircraft in the sky, out to its maximum range… covers the within-visual-range envelope…. it stares, never looking away from any target, and it has optical accuracy, with megapixel-class resolution…. Moreover, DAS is expected to track with enough accuracy and tenacity to permit a safe high-off-boresight, lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) missile shot with any datalink-equipped missile. Indeed, Northrop Grumman’s DAS business development leader, Pete Bartos – who was part of the initial USAF JSF requirements team – says that this was basic to the F-35 design and the reason that it did not need maneuverability similar to the F-22. Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, “maneuvering is irrelevant”.”

This feature would also explain the F-35’s 1960s-style cockpit with its limited rear visibility. Despite its stealth benefits, analysts like Pierre Spey have seen it as a retrograde step – one that disregards the air-to-air combat lessons which drove the bubble cockpits on America’s “teen series” (F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18) fighters.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Par

Postby Pogula » 08 Nov 2011 04:48

GeorgeWelch, have some Kool Aid and relax. Your misplaced rants over F-18 or F-35 on a Rafale/EF thread will not make any difference out where it matters. Stop wasting your time and our time.

1. F-35 was not a competitor in the MMRCA tender, and hence it is LM's fault and not IAFs.
2. A buyer is not going to change his policies/rules/requirements to accommodate the seller's conveniences; It is always the other way around.
3. Accept the fact that America lost the competition. It is ok to lose. Don't be such a sour loser now!

As far as your rants against other users go, you are repeating yourself over and over again like a broken record now. Try and sell your snake oils elsewhere (On an F-35 thread) buddy. Come back here to this thread when you have relevant (Rafale/Eurofighter) news to share.



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya G, Jaeger, Kakarat and 47 guests