India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 3

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 12 Jan 2012 18:23

Rahul M wrote:
rajanb wrote:^^^^ Beauty is in the eys of the beerholder.
corrected. the EF has an ugly moustache.

Agreed. Katrina's moochie is much prettier.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 12 Jan 2012 18:38

tsarkar wrote:
Badar wrote:umm .. wasn't it argued in this very forum that the MKI is the best air to air platform bar raptor? What has changed overnight?
The joys of Jingo-giri

That's nothing. What if it turns out that the Rafale won after all? Think of all the 9G mental Immelman u-turns! Established positions and self evident truths will change so fast that even the red baron would get dizzy.

koti · Post by **koti** » 12 Jan 2012 19:52

BR will go into a G-LOC if that happens.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Jan 2012 20:34

The air intakes in the tiffy are butt ugly. Also the foreplane canards are at an angle simply displeasing to my eye. Obviously looks are not important but on looks alone their is no comparison. Look at that wing body blending. Those intakes are a work of mathematical art!! The tiffy intakes look like the mother of all radar reflectors. The main advantage to the tiffy is its larger radome and thus >> t/r modules for its AESA. If the IAF loves the M2K what do you think they will feel about the Rafale?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jan 2012 21:45

Rafale looks like a starving woman trying to suck thick chocolate ice cream up a very narrow straw.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 12 Jan 2012 21:54

Somewhere in pakshitstan

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 12 Jan 2012 22:01

tejas wrote:Obviously looks are not important but on looks alone their is no comparison. Look at that wing body blending. Those intakes are a work of mathematical art!!

^^^
Love that Rafale Pic!!!!

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Jan 2012 22:04

And this Shiv?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2012 22:06

sidelobes of rafale are needed fr fuel nd avionics due to its smaller airframe. they also fn as scoop to force air into far back inlets at higher aoa. its a very compact airframe fr a twin engine due to naval role

ef is garuda the king of eagles...or jatayu the king vulture

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jan 2012 22:26

As I remarked some time ago,the Typhoon reminds me of a busty Eurowh*re from Soho or the Reeperbahn thrustinmh her bosom out,but the gorgeous French filly,with her slinky lines and curvaceous underbelly,is like a can-can artiste from the Moulin Rouge! On those grounds alone,it would be a tragedy if the French filly lost out.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Jan 2012 22:46

tejas wrote:The air intakes in the tiffy are butt ugly. Also the foreplane canards are at an angle simply displeasing to my eye. Obviously looks are not important but on looks alone their is no comparison. Look at that wing body blending. Those intakes are a work of mathematical art!! The tiffy intakes look like the mother of all radar reflectors. The main advantage to the tiffy is its larger radome and thus >> t/r modules for its AESA.

Well that's only when you look at it from the front. When viewed from the side on the other hand, those intakes give the Rafale a rather emaciated look. The nose too seems quite puny.

The side aspect of the Eurofighter in contrast features classic conventional lines with those otherwise preponderant canards, appearing minimized.

If the IAF loves the M2K what do you think they will feel about the Rafale?

Well they adore their Sukhois as well with their distinctive bulky air intakes.

Though to be fair, I've always thought comparing the Eurofighter and Rafale was a lot like comparing the F-16 and Mirage-2000. In terms of both performance and looks. Intakes for the former are under the fuselage while they are on the sides for the latter. The F-16 and Eurofighter share a beautiful bubble canopy. The EF and F-16 have better climb performance, better acceleration and superior sustained turn rates, while the Rafale and Mirage have fantastic instantaneous turn rates and better control at high angles of attack. The EF and F-16 are better suited for higher speeds while the Rafale and Mirage excel at lower speed regimes. The EF and F-16 featured better munitions though (Aim-120A/B vs Super 530D, Aim-120C vs MICA, Aim-9X/Aim-132 vs MICA-IR).

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Jan 2012 23:06

philip - i hope you know that the majority of moulin rouge girls are english and aussies right?!

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Jan 2012 23:19

I agree about the puny nose. I can only assume this was for aerodynamic/stealth reasons. To me its the only drawback to the rafale. For such a small fighter its load carrying capacity is amazing. With contemplated engine upgrade its capacity will approach 20,000 lbs.Thats F-15E level

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Jan 2012 23:50

One more. Look closely for the little dog teeth radar "deflectors" on the canards, trailing edges of the wings,flaps and ventral body surfaces.

This is a graceful philly not an East German female wrestler on steroids/male hormones

Bring it on home Raffy!!!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Jan 2012 00:16

Making the Rafale's nose larger should not be such a big deal if money and time are available. It would make the perfect Dassault-HAL project to modify the Rafale following our experience with Sukhoi where we bought a few squadrons of Su-27s as-is before MKI'zing the rest.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 13 Jan 2012 00:20

If nose modification is not a big deal than its a no brainer for the Rafale. Of course the price of admission is hot tech. for Kaveri and help with ATV.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 00:21

tejas wrote:One more. Look closely for the little dog teeth radar "deflectors" on the canards, trailing edges of the wings,flaps and ventral body surfaces. This is a graceful philly not an East German female wrestler on steroids/male hormones Bring it on home Raffy!!!

Well those dog teeth are nice but its totally clean aircraft. There's no getting around the bigger issue here - external stores. After the two aircraft are loaded with hardpoints, pylons and a variety of munitions and/or fuel tanks, having 'stealthier' trailing edges on flaps and canards, cleaner intakes or a retractable IFR probe becomes practically meaningless. If anything, I'd expect an equivalent or even better RCS reduction from the semi-recessed weapon stations on the EF.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Jan 2012 00:21

Err that would affect aerodynamics to the rest of the aircraft. Its not "not such a big deal".

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 13 Jan 2012 00:28

What about those monster air intakes Viv S?

Thats what I thought too Prasad but not being an aero engineer I had a faint hope

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Jan 2012 00:32

tejas wrote:What about those monster air intakes Viv S?

Thats what I thought too Prasad but not being an aero engineer I had a faint hope

AFAIK, the size of the air-intakes doesn't matter as long as the fan blades are hidden with an S-duct. I don't know to what extent the engine face is hidden in the EF. But it doesn't seem to be a straight intake like on the Flanker.

In any case the RCS of both aircraft will take a massive jump when those big external fuel tanks are added.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 00:33

Victor wrote:Making the Rafale's nose larger should not be such a big deal if money and time are available. It would make the perfect Dassault-HAL project to modify the Rafale following our experience with Sukhoi where we bought a few squadrons of Su-27s as-is before MKI'zing the rest.

I have my doubts. The nose and forward fuselage blend together beautifully to channel air into the intake. That larger nose will interfere with the airflow ahead of the intake (in fact your diagram illustrates that). And that effect will be particularly pronounced in the transonic and supersonic regimes.

Like the nose, the air intake is a structural hurdle for the Rafale. If I'm not mistaken, one of the main reasons the 90kN M88-3 engine wasn't adopted was that it required larger intakes, the airframe modification for which was judged an expensive proposition.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 00:38

tejas wrote:What about those monster air intakes Viv S?

Well the intakes do an adequate job of hiding the compressor face, they probably have at least some composite content and RAM application. Beyond that it becomes a 19/20 difference, discernible only when flying clean. Also, the movable lip on the Eurofighter makes sustained supersonic flight more efficient and its simpler design allows for a relative less complex engine upgrade.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Jan 2012 00:43

Prasad wrote:Its not "not such a big deal".

Of course it will alter aerodynamics but it's no bigger deal than sticking canards on the Su-27 to make an Su-30MKI. Such mods are to be expected in any fighter's life cycle. Look how much the MiG-21 changed between "FL" and "Bison" mods. The styling in the nose can be optimized to handle a bigger-radius nosecone. That's really no biggie. It won't guarantee an equally sexy look (which some folks may dispute

) but it will more than do the job if that's what we want. In fact, if Rafale is to be up-engined, that would be the best time to effect such changes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 01:01

Nachiket ji, I think you posted in a hurry ... when it comes to RCS shape does matter .. a lot!

Viv, If you are trying to prove that EF is stealthier than Rafale then thats a very slippery road. This has been discussed to death before. Look at the
1. wing body blending of EF vs Rafale
2. are you trying to say that those box inlets on the EF with so many edges and corners and perfect perpendicular joins have the same RCS as the Rafale?
3. The canards of the EF are control canards which continuously move to stabilize the plane ... they have way more RCS than the close couple canards of the Rafale.

It is a simple equation. What the EF loses in stealth, it makes up with a bigger radar.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 01:06

Victor wrote:Of course it will alter aerodynamics but it's no bigger deal than sticking canards on the Su-27 to make an Su-30MKI. Such mods are to be expected in any fighter's life cycle. Look how much the MiG-21 changed between "FL" and "Bison" mods. The styling in the nose can be optimized to handle a bigger-radius nosecone. That's really no biggie. It won't guarantee an equally sexy look (which some folks may dispute ) but it will more than do the job if that's what we want. In fact, if Rafale is to be up-engined, that would be the best time to effect such changes.

Actually aside from the the Harrier (which is a strictly subsonic aircraft), I can't think of any aircraft that were retrofitted with a bulbous nose. The MiG-21 had a retractable inlet cone, an enlarged intake did not require a substantial airframe redesign.

With the Rafale on the other hand, a bulbous nose will result in a large shockwave at near and beyond the sonic barrier, which will begin to starve the engine of air.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 01:16

indranilroy wrote:Viv, If you are trying to prove that EF is stealthier than Rafale then thats a very slippery road. This has been discussed to death before. Look at the
1. wing body blending of EF vs Rafale
2. are you trying to say that those box inlets on the EF with so many edges and corners and perfect perpendicular joins have the same RCS as the Rafale?
3. The canards of the EF are control canards which continuously move to stabilize the plane ... they have way more RCS than the close couple canards of the Rafale.

It is a simple equation. What the EF loses in stealth, it makes up with a bigger radar.

Actually, I'm saying the RCS difference is significant when compared to an aircraft like the Su-27/Su-30 or even a small metal airframe like the Mirage-2000 or F-16. But in a loaded configuration, the difference between the EF and Rafale is small enough to be insignificant. I mean we may as well start comparing the type of pylons and hardpoints, and thereafter the ASRAAM/MICA, AMRAAM/Meteor, Scalp-EG/Taurus, 1000L/1500L/2000L tanks, Paveway II/IV/AASM, etc and how they interact with the airframe from different aspects, not to mention the quality of the composites employed and RAM, because that will start playing far larger role than marginal differences in the design of the intake or airframe refinements.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Jan 2012 01:39

Look at the front on image here. Without modifying the rest of hte front like the cheeks and possibly the canards too, you cannot change the radome size. Not to mention changes that might be needed to the canopy due to possible visibility changes too, though I don't think that will be much of an issue here.

http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploa ... rafale.jpg

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 01:53

Viv S wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Viv, If you are trying to prove that EF is stealthier than Rafale then thats a very slippery road. This has been discussed to death before. Look at the
1. wing body blending of EF vs Rafale
2. are you trying to say that those box inlets on the EF with so many edges and corners and perfect perpendicular joins have the same RCS as the Rafale?
3. The canards of the EF are control canards which continuously move to stabilize the plane ... they have way more RCS than the close couple canards of the Rafale.

It is a simple equation. What the EF loses in stealth, it makes up with a bigger radar.

Actually, I'm saying the RCS difference is significant when compared to an aircraft like the Su-27/Su-30 or even a small metal airframe like the Mirage-2000 or F-16. But in a loaded configuration, the difference between the EF and Rafale is small enough to be insignificant. I mean we may as well start comparing the type of pylons and hardpoints, and thereafter the ASRAAM/MICA, AMRAAM/Meteor, Scalp-EG/Taurus, 1000L/1500L/2000L tanks, Paveway II/IV/AASM, etc and how they interact with the airframe from different aspects, not to mention the quality of the composites employed and RAM, because that will start playing far larger role than marginal differences in the design of the intake or airframe refinements.

Not completely true either ... we had discussed this too ... Suppose Rafale had a RCS (say x) and EF (say 2x) and all the loadout had a RCS of x. Then RCS is 2x and 3x for a loaded Rafale and loaded EF repectively. We know that the detetction range is a 4th power of the RCS. So with the same kind of a opposition radar, the ratio distances at which EF would be detected vs Rafale is 1.316/1.189 = 1.11.

That is if the EF is detected at 111 kms, the Rafale would be detected at 100kms.

You see if these things did not make a difference the EF designers would have never tried to make the weapons semi recessed even at the cost of aerodynamic performance.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Jan 2012 02:00

viv s, agreed with the shockwave issue but nowhere did I suggest a "bulbous" nose

. A "bigger" nose can be designed to fit the aerodynamics required, specially if a bigger engine and inlets are being considered. I don't have the time to illustrate this unfortunately but we are not talking about anything extraordinary. The Fishbed's nose intake was also made larger in later models as were the shock cones but they retained the essential characteristics and that's pretty much what can happen with not just the Rafale but any fighter.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 02:05

I don't think that the designers are ever going to fit a bigger nose on the Rafale ... They would have weighed that option long time back. Rafale is the way it is after years of conscious decision making. The designers of Rafale and EF chose different sweetspots of radarsize vs discreteness. Both are based on firm logic. One will be better than the other based on the situation they find themselves in and these situations are far too numerous to discuss (I would probably know 1 % of them anyways).

I prefer the Rafale because it would perfectly compliment our Su-30s in a strike role with those long legs. Besides they are perfect for IAC II. With the sea-typhoon, there is a lot to be tested. Then there is always the Kaveri angle to it.

But I hate the exorbitant price they charge for upgrades.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Jan 2012 02:14

indranilroy wrote:Nachiket ji, I think you posted in a hurry ... when it comes to RCS shape does matter .. a lot!

Shape does. I was thinking the size of the intakes themselves would increase the RCS by an insignificant amount compared to the engine fan blades, were they to be visible. What you say regarding the rectangular shape vs Rafale's curved one is true. My knowledge in these matters is limited to what I've gleaned from the Internet.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 02:15

indranilroy wrote:Not completely true either ... we had discussed this too ... Suppose Rafale had a RCS (say x) and EF (say 2x) and all the loadout had a RCS of x. Then RCS is 2x and 3x for a loaded Rafale and loaded EF repectively. We know that the detetction range is a 4th power of the RCS. So with the same kind of a opposition radar, the ratio distances at which EF would be detected vs Rafale is 1.316/1.189 = 1.11.

That is if the EF is detected at 111 kms, the Rafale would be detected at 100kms.

You see if these things did not make a difference the EF designers would have never tried to make the weapons semi recessed even at the cost of aerodynamic performance.

Hmm... actually in my opinion the Rafale would have a RCS of X, EF of 1.5X and with a loadout would have their RCS increased by 5X each. Taken in isolation the stores have a lower RCS, but slung under the airframe, scatter from both the aircraft and load would be amplified.

Even your figure of a mere 10% difference in detection range is quite modest for a substantial two times the RCS.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jan 2012 02:20

Thursday Jan 12, 2012 is over in India right? Did the meeting take place or not?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Jan 2012 02:21

indranilroy wrote:
I prefer the Rafale because it would perfectly compliment our Su-30s in a strike role with those long legs.

But the Su-30 is already perfect for the strike role and has long legs, plus two pilots for long missions. Only question mark is regarding upgrades to russkie a-to-g weapons.
The EF will come with a powerful AESA radar, IRST and HMS already integrated, great aerodynamic performance in all flight regimes, and an option for getting modern long-range AAMs which are cheaper than the Meteor (AIM-120C7 and D). By the time the IAF inducts it in numbers, most of the a-to-g weapons integration will be complete as well.

Besides they are perfect for IAC II. With the sea-typhoon, there is a lot to be tested. Then there is alwas.ys the Kaveri angle to it.
But I hate the exorbitant price they charge for upgrades.

My opinion is that the IN should stick with the Mig-29K and LCA-Navy for now. No reason to complicate their logistical problems with yet another aircraft type.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 02:21

Victor wrote:viv s, agreed with the shockwave issue but nowhere did I suggest a "bulbous" nose . A "bigger" nose can be designed to fit the aerodynamics required, specially if a bigger engine and inlets are being considered. I don't have the time to illustrate this unfortunately but we are not talking about anything extraordinary. The Fishbed's nose intake was also made larger in later models as were the shock cones but they retained the essential characteristics and that's pretty much what can happen with not just the Rafale but any fighter.

Well I'll wait for you to post a more detailed description because I can't visualize how one would go about increasing the size of the radar's antenna which is limited to the area of the front surface of the fuselage/back surface of the nose. It would either involve increasing the size of the radome (giving it a bulbous appearance) or redesigning the entire fuselage so that a larger nose can aerodynamically be adapted to it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 02:32

Viv S wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Not completely true either ... we had discussed this too ... Suppose Rafale had a RCS (say x) and EF (say 2x) and all the loadout had a RCS of x. Then RCS is 2x and 3x for a loaded Rafale and loaded EF repectively. We know that the detetction range is a 4th power of the RCS. So with the same kind of a opposition radar, the ratio distances at which EF would be detected vs Rafale is 1.316/1.189 = 1.11.

That is if the EF is detected at 111 kms, the Rafale would be detected at 100kms.

You see if these things did not make a difference the EF designers would have never tried to make the weapons semi recessed even at the cost of aerodynamic performance.
Hmm... actually in my opinion the Rafale would have a RCS of X, EF of 1.5X and with a loadout would have their RCS increased by 5X each. Taken in isolation the stores have a lower RCS, but slung under the airframe, scatter from both the aircraft and load would be amplified.

Even your figure of a mere 10% difference in detection range is quite modest for a substantial two times the RCS.

Scattering never amplifies electromagnetic waves .. many possible reflections increase the possibility that the wave after many reflections might reach back to the radar. However I don't know what would be the interference patterns. and nobody will tell me

The value of RCS of x is borrowed from Igor. He makes a simplistic assumption ... how much of the front area do the missiles present to the radar ... He doesn't think they are more than the plane itself and I strongly agree with him ... But you don't need to agree with us

As regards to 10% difference in detection range, well you must be way smarter in your analysis than engineers around the world who are trying to bring the RCS of the plane down by as much as they can inspite of detection range only decreasing by a fourth power. i.e if your new plane has a 16 times smaller RCS, the detection range is only halved. Yet people are trying recessed weapons and serrated edges! I have no way to prove all those people at Dassaut, EADS, Boeing and Lockheed wrong. But if you can I would love to know.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jan 2012 02:39

Regarding the shape of the intake, while I know the conventional wisdom is that the curved type on the Rafale is stealthier than the blocky rectangular one on the EF, I'm still not convinced by it -

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 02:40

nachiket wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
I prefer the Rafale because it would perfectly compliment our Su-30s in a strike role with those long legs.
But the Su-30 is already perfect for the strike role and has long legs, plus two pilots for long missions. Only question mark is regarding upgrades to russkie a-to-g weapons.
The EF will come with a powerful AESA radar, IRST and HMS already integrated, great aerodynamic performance in all flight regimes, and an option for getting modern long-range AAMs which are cheaper than the Meteor (AIM-120C7 and D). By the time the IAF inducts it in numbers, most of the a-to-g weapons integration will be complete as well.
Besides they are perfect for IAC II. With the sea-typhoon, there is a lot to be tested. Then there is alwas.ys the Kaveri angle to it.
But I hate the exorbitant price they charge for upgrades.
My opinion is that the IN should stick with the Mig-29K and LCA-Navy for now. No reason to complicate their logistical problems with yet another aircraft type.

We will be repeating the discussion again, won't we

... this was the reason why I didn't write much on the 2nd thread on MMRCA

Anyways here I repeat again:
Suppose you send EFs with SUs ... The EFs don't have the legs ... but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link ... so the whole contingent will have to concentrate on missions which require legs only as long as that of EFs ... Rafale's won't handicap the Su-30s this way.

And imagine Su-30s using their huge radars to scan the huge horizons with its radar while Rafales go in silently with their superb A2G loads ... My question is Su-30 is alread a fab A2a machine, its compliment should be a superb A2G machine. At the moment there is no doubt which of the 2 competitors is the best A2G platform.

As to A2A prowess of EF vs the Rafale, the jury is very much out there ... actually, a bigger half believe that as of today Rafale do hold an edge . Only the RAF pilots (meekly) and EF brochures have ever contested this claim ... so we really don't know ... but we can say for certainty that closer to the ground and at lower speeds the Rafales are definitely better.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 02:47

Viv S wrote:Regarding the shape of the intake, while I know the conventional wisdom is that the curved type on the Rafale is stealthier than the blocky rectangular one on the EF, I'm still not convinced by it -

Viv, are you just posting for the heck of it ... please read a little before posting ... a simplest Google search would have sufficed.

The F-22 has surfaces angled in a direction which never let the radar wave to return to the source. Not the case with EF. The EFs perfectly perpendicular intake shape works like a retro reflector in the form of a corner reflector.

Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Jan 2012 02:55

shiv wrote:Rafale looks like a starving woman trying to suck thick chocolate ice cream up a very narrow straw.

Loaded with Freudian sub text. So what really happened? You can come clean--your secret is safe on the internet