VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

[Rakesh]

Agreed, it may be worthwhile idea for us to invest in joint 6th gen program, but I fail to understand what threat do we envision in our neighborhood that will need the Rs 50,000 crore follow on order for 36 x Rafales now.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7266&p=2382656#p2382656

I would suggest you read the above post (by brar_w) about 6th generation programs. The only country that is doing any serious work on a 6th generation program is the Khan.

No one else is doing anything of significance, other than talk and some signed agreements (i.e. Tempest and FCAS).

If anything, Balakot has shown that the M2Ks, MKIs and Bisons performed spectacularly, proving to be more than a match for whatever PAF threw at us (JF-17s and F-16s). I don't see the PAF investing Rs 1,00,000 crore in a new type to keep up with us or them having 18 squadrons of 4th gen fighters unlike the IAF. With the planned induction of additional Mig-29s and Su-30s as well as the Rs.10,000 crore M2K upgrade, we will retain both the numerical and technological edge over the PAF. Similarly, the PLAAF can be kept at bay by accelerating our Su-30MKI upgrade.

And the Air Chief thought otherwise.

Rafale would have been better in Balakot, says IAF chief Dhanoa
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 070_1.html

So, I'd rather throw the money at additional LCA squadrons and MKI upgrades versus paying Rs. 50,000 crore for just two more squadrons of gold plated planes that we don't even get the technology for.

Well the investment has already been made at Hasimara and Ambala. It would be foolish to not capitalize on that investment. And if the news reports are true, then another 36 Rafales are indeed being negotiated.

Secondly, the Rafale will serve as a break-down-the-door type aircraft. In a dense air defence environment, you need an aircraft like the Rafale. The Su-30MKI or the Tejas cannot do that. Neither can the Mirage 2000-9, MiG-29UPG, Jaguar IS/IM/IB, the MiG-27UPG or the MiG-21 Bison. Break down the door, sanitize the airspace and then send in your strike packages. Otherwise the attrition losses will be unacceptably high.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh the further order for 36 Rafale means a choice has been made.
No to F-18

I agree Ramana-ji. Much needed boost for the IAF.

[Rakesh]

Buy 36 more as an interim silver bullet and be done with it. No more. And I'm not even sure if another 36 are necessary. The rafale is the epitome of a non vlo fighter but its usefulness beyond a few numbers is unconvincing, not when faced with a near future where a vlo platform will be needed and not when it's cost is so prohibitive. Not to mention that we'll soon see a fleet of advanced Tejas and upgraded MKI.

We don't want to be stuck in the 2030s with exorbitant 4gen fleet when 5+gen platforms start becoming more common.

And yet the IAF is holding a competition for 114 fourth generation MRCA aircraft. And if you ask all the OEMs in the contest, they are confident that their wares will be able to hold their own against a VLO fighter. The F-21 has F-35 tech in it!

While 5+ gen aircraft are indeed becoming more common, the IAF is confident that the Chinese J-20 is really not a 5th generation aircraft. It got detected by a Su-30MKI flying over Tibet

The IAF is confident that the Rafale will be more than a match for the J-20. Otherwise they would not be inducting 36 now and possibly talking about inducting another 36 more. They know their threat environment better than anyone else.

[Rakesh]

Wasn't Sq 20 the Lightnings similarly resurrected some time before it actually got Su30MKI inducted in it..??

http://mail.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Gall ... w.jpg.html

Those are indeed Su-30MKIs in the link posted.

[Nikhil T]

And the Air Chief thought otherwise.

Rafale would have been better in Balakot, says IAF chief Dhanoa
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 070_1.html

So, I'd rather throw the money at additional LCA squadrons and MKI upgrades versus paying Rs. 50,000 crore for just two more squadrons of gold plated planes that we don't even get the technology for.

Well the investment has already been made at Hasimara and Ambala. It would be foolish to not capitalize on that investment. And if the news reports are true, then another 36 Rafales are indeed being negotiated.

Secondly, the Rafale will serve as a break-down-the-door type aircraft. In a dense air defence environment, you need an aircraft like the Rafale. The Su-30MKI or the Tejas cannot do that. Neither can the Mirage 2000-9, MiG-29UPG, Jaguar IS/IM/IB, the MiG-27UPG or the MiG-21 Bison. Break down the door, sanitize the airspace and then send in your strike packages. Otherwise the attrition losses will be unacceptably high.

With due respect Rakesh saar, I think you're misinterpreting the Air Chief's remarks. Here's what he said, based on the link you shared:
1. Air Chief: "In the Balakot operation, we had technology on our side, and we could launch precision stand of weapons with great accuracy"
-> Translation - M2Ks were sufficient to break the door and sneak past Paki air defences.

2. Air Chief: "In the subsequent engagements, we came out better because we upgraded our MiG-21 Bisons, and Mirage-2000 aircraft. The results would have been further skewed in our favour had we inducted the Rafale aircraft in time."
-> Translation - The un-upgraded M2Ks and Bisons were able to hold off the numerically superior PAF air strike package. As further validation, last week he commented in the India Today conclave that he didn't believe that PAF had night strike capability (which is why they came in the morning) and he didn't believe they missed on purpose (our air defences engaged them, forcing them to drop in haste). When he says the results be skewed in our favor if we had Rafales, he means if Rafale were flying CAP instead of MiG-21s.

Back to your point about breaking-the-door in a Balakot style strike, I'm not able to understand why 50 x upgraded M2Ks and 36 x Rafales (i.e. total 86 a/c or 5 squadrons of cutting edge 4th gen aircraft) would be insufficient for this purpose.

This apart from
1. The planned induction of Rs. 45,000 crore S-400 which would provide air defence envelope over Pakjab/Sindh and engage any PAF 3rd gen or 4th gen aircraft that would be foolish to interfere with a technologically superior IAF strike package.
2. The planned MKI upgrade - which again I'm not sure why it wouldn't include the "break-the-door" capabilities on atleast some of the 272+ jets?

[nachiket]

https://twitter.com/Veteran__007/status ... 3793784833 --->

The Rafale will be India's most capable fighter aircraft. Quick math with the current best Su-30MKI:

Loitering Capability: 1.5 times of Su-30
Range: 780-1055 km vs 400-550 of Su-30
Sorties: 5 per 24 hours against 3 by Su-30
Availability: 75% against 55% of Su-30

The twitter user appears to be a retired Naval pilot so not a layman. But these numbers being quoted are absolutely bizarre.

First of all the availability of a particular type in a particular AF is not just an airframe and system dependent statistic like range and payload. There is no way to say right now even before the Rafale is inducted what the availability of the fleet will be like in IAF service several years down the line. I am sure when the Su-30MKI was inducted the IAF wasn't expecting the availability of that fleet to be 55% a decade+ into service. But shit happens.

Secondly, I am assuming those ridiculous range figures are actually combat radius? Otherwise they would make zero sense. It is surprising for a retired fighter pilot to make a mistake like that. And again, even if it is combat radius, there is no reference quoted for where he got those figures from nor any details about what payload the respective aircraft are supposed to be carrying or what the mission profile is. Same issue with the loiter time.

I am sorry but I have to call garbage on this.

The Rafale is a fantastic aircraft and will be a great addition to the IAF but let's not get carried away.

[Rakesh]

With due respect Rakesh saar, I think you're misinterpreting the Air Chief's remarks. Here's what he said, based on the link you shared:
1. Air Chief: "In the Balakot operation, we had technology on our side, and we could launch precision stand of weapons with great accuracy"
-> Translation - M2Ks were sufficient to break the door and sneak past Paki air defences.

2. Air Chief: "In the subsequent engagements, we came out better because we upgraded our MiG-21 Bisons, and Mirage-2000 aircraft. The results would have been further skewed in our favour had we inducted the Rafale aircraft in time."
-> Translation - The un-upgraded M2Ks and Bisons were able to hold off the numerically superior PAF air strike package. As further validation, last week he commented in the India Today conclave that he didn't believe that PAF had night strike capability (which is why they came in the morning) and he didn't believe they missed on purpose (our air defences engaged them, forcing them to drop in haste). When he says the results be skewed in our favor if we had Rafales, he means if Rafale were flying CAP instead of MiG-21s.

Saar, when I am referring to breaking down the door...I am talking about an enemy that has its entire defence system fully alert and active. That was not the case with Pakistan on Feb 26th. It was business as usual for them. They never expected the strike. Breaking down the door is taking out the enemy's SAM systems, their air assets (if any present) and other systems that would be used to guard the airspace at a given point in time. What the Rafale does is breaking down that door with the alert enemy having very little to no reaction time. The Spectra EW suite uses active cancellation.

French fighter jets - 'undetected' by Russian radar - take off for Syrian bombing
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/94 ... us-strikes

In a shock development, it also appears that the French fighter jets involved in the strikes went undetected by the radar of Russian air defence systems since the Russian General Staff claimed that only British and American missiles had been detected.

In Balakot, the Mirage 2000s had to cross the Line of Control, enter PoK airspace and drop the Spice bombs.

Exclusive: 'We Didn't Miss' - Air Force Pilots Who Flew Balakot Mission
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/balakot ... ve-2058547

One of the pilots said he had flown approximately eight kilometres across the line of control to get into a position to fire the Spice bomb.

With the Rafale, it would have been different. There is no need to cross the LoC. Launch the weapon (i.e. SCALP) from your own airspace and the weapon will do the rest. So when the Air Chief is talking about the results being further skewed in the IAF's favour, he is referring to the capability on the Rafale that is presently not there on any of the other IAF fighters.

Secondly, with regards to CAP. The Meteor on the Rafale outranges the AIM-120C-5. The PAF would have a challenging time to get a lock on any of the IAF fighters if the Rafales were on CAP duty. Again, the results would have been further skewed in the IAF's favour. There would have been no IAF losses that day.

Back to your point about breaking-the-door in a Balakot style strike, I'm not able to understand why 50 x upgraded M2Ks and 36 x Rafales (i.e. total 86 a/c or 5 squadrons of cutting edge 4th gen aircraft) would be insufficient for this purpose.

What happens post 2032, when the upgraded Mirage 2000s retire? In 2032, the Mirage 2000Is will be 47 years old. The 86 Mirage 2000Is and Rafales will reduce in strength to just 36 Rafales. So more than 36 is required. Otherwise this whole exercise of getting just 36 Rafales is a waste of money. But do not take my word for it.

Just look at the senior IAF leadership who is clamouring for additional Rafales. They have made the investment at two airbases to house two squadrons each. So two additional Rafale squadrons make perfect sense.

This apart from
1. The planned induction of Rs. 45,000 crore S-400 which would provide air defence envelope over Pakjab/Sindh and engage any PAF 3rd gen or 4th gen aircraft that would be foolish to interfere with a technologically superior IAF strike package.
2. The planned MKI upgrade - which again I'm not sure why it wouldn't include the "break-the-door" capabilities on at least some of the 272+ jets?

With regards to Point #2, do we know what capabilities are coming with the Super Sukhoi upgrade? I know of BrahMos-A which has an advertised claim of 300 km. But not sure if it is cost effective to use BrahMos-A against every target (i.e. JeM camp). What other stand-off weapons are available with the Super Sukhoi upgrade? What other stand-off weapons are available in the present Rambha fleet?

[Rakesh]

The twitter user appears to be a retired Naval pilot so not a layman. But these numbers being quoted are absolutely bizarre.

First of all the availability of a particular type in a particular AF is not just an airframe and system dependent statistic like range and payload. There is no way to say right now even before the Rafale is inducted what the availability of the fleet will be like in IAF service several years down the line. I am sure when the Su-30MKI was inducted the IAF wasn't expecting the availability of that fleet to be 55% a decade+ into service. But shit happens.

Secondly, I am assuming those ridiculous range figures are actually combat radius? Otherwise they would make zero sense. It is surprising for a retired fighter pilot to make a mistake like that. And again, even if it is combat radius, there is no reference quoted for where he got those figures from nor any details about what payload the respective aircraft are supposed to be carrying or what the mission profile is. Same issue with the loiter time.

I am sorry but I have to call garbage on this.

The Rafale is a fantastic aircraft and will be a great addition to the IAF but let's not get carried away.

Nachiket, I only highlighted the last two points in the tweet, because I remember about the 75% availability as per the PBL agreement and Air Marshal Vinod Patney (retd) - former VCAS - stating that the Rafale can do five sorties in a day. But I saw this video again and the Air Marshal states that the Rafale indeed has a radius of action 1.5 times than that of the Su-30.

The Rafale carries less internal fuel than the Su-30, so that is puzzling. So we need to know the basis of these IAF figures and claims. Or is the 1.5 times with an in-flight refueling? Now this retired naval pilot is also saying that the exact same thing - that the Rafale has a loitering capability 1.5 times than that of the Su-30.

Watch the video below from 2:35 to 7:45

[sankum]

A retired government official has already said on tv that when 36 Rafale were orderred total plan was to have 148 Rafale.
So in future more Rafale wil be orderred in lots of 36 or 114 local production. So finally IAF will have minimum 8sq by 2035 when AMCA wil take over.

[Rakesh]

Sankum, you just saw this on TV or is this some old news? And who was this retired govt official?

[Rakesh]

From Dassault Aviation's website on the Rafale.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ance-data/

Fuel (internal) - 4.7 t (10,300 lbs)
Fuel (external) - up to 6.7 t (14,700 lbs)

So a total of 11.4 tons of fuel. Or 10,342 kg. Or 22,800 pounds.

=============================================================

Now here is Su-30MKI. The specs is about the Su-30M variant, but I doubt it will be that much different.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su_30mk/

The aircraft normally carries 5,090 kg of fuel in three integral fuel tanks in the fuselage and a single integral split tank, with each half installed in the outer wings. The maximum fuel capacity of the aircraft is 9,400 kg. The aircraft is equipped with a flight refuelling probe and a buddy-buddy refuelling system. The combat range of the aircraft on internal fuel is 3,000 km. With a single in-flight refuelling procedure the combat range is extended to 5,200 km.

5,090 kg = 5.6 tons or 11,221 pounds. Now I am assuming this is the internal fuel capacity.

And as stated above, the maximum fuel capacity is 9,400 kg. This is with external tanks?

9,400 kg = 10.36 tons or 20,723 pounds.

[abhik]

^^^
All this has been debunked many times before already no? Admiral saar, (gratuitous advise from me), seems like you are soo in love with Katrina that you only see warts every other girl and won't accept anything wrong in with your girl

[Rakesh]

I did not know Air Marshal Vinod Patney’s claims on the Rafale were debunked. When did that happen?

[sankum]

It's an old TV news at height of Rafale controversy before election and the retired government official was part of negotiating team. High ranking official and I don't remember his name.

[Karan M]

1. Su-30 availability as of 2017 was 68%, this 55% figure is due to the dorks at PRINT led by Shekhar Gupta.
Jan 2017
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/a ... 2017-02-15

SERVICEABILITY: Every HAL supplied platform has 65 per cent serviceability and Sukhoi 30 MKI maximum serviceability of 68 per cent. We have given a proposal to MoD to become Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for Sukhoi in India.

2. Su-30 range, is a function of payload, speed, altitude. Its 1500km radius at high alt with 4x AAMs, 2x fired midway and it returns. If you want to make it 1/3rd, i.e. 500km, then obviously, its with a very high payload and loiter + reserve.
https://i37.servimg.com/u/f37/15/54/62/79/flight10.jpg
A high Rafale range can be achieved only by adding heavy fuel tanks. While these extend range, they will also automatically limit certain options (maneuverability, payload, signature).
A clean Su-30 actually has a higher fuel fraction than a Rafale, if you add to the Su-30 numbers, basically both aircraft are in the same ballpark FF wise, and the real "edge" comes from the extra fuel the Rafale can carry via tanks.

Su-30MK: 34.9%（Empty weight: 17,700 kg，Internal fuel: 9,500 kg）
Rafale: 31.4% ~ 33.6%（Empty weight: 9,500 ~ 10,220 kg，Internal fuel: 4,680 ~ 4,800 kg）

3. Sorties, this is a function of how much resources we dedicate to the task.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 905916.cms

NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force’s pan-India exercise Gagan Shakti-2018, for practising war-time drills witnessed the IAF pushing the limits of its every fighter aircraft, including the Tejas, which entailed conducting six sorties per day on all of them, totalling to about 9,000 sorties. For the Tejas, this is a good development as the IAF usually sticks to around three sorties per day on every Tejas.

A senior IAF official dealing with Gagan Shakti, which was conducted between April 8 and 22, explained that fighter aircraft, including the Tejas, Sukhoi-30 and MiG-29, undertook ‘surge operations’. These operations mean generating maximum number of sorties in a 24-hours cycle. “We have carried out our trials and we will be able to generate six sorties per Tejas per day for all the eight Tejas,” said the official, adding that these number of sorties were conducted on every Tejas during the exerc ..

And:

Officials added that the high serviceability (80%) of the aircraft was possible during the exercise due to a dedicated maintenance team. “The Air Headquarters was also monitoring the situation and we had people checking from where spares can be made available. So we ensured that the aircraft serviceability didn’t go down,” explained an official. “The logistics stamina of the IAF and the ability to sustain continuous operations through day and night was put through a rigorous assessment,” said an ..

[Rakesh]

Thank you Karan Saar.

[Karan M]

LockMart did an analysis of how the JSF fared against peers. There, all fighters including the Rafale were carrying 3x fuel tanks, + 6 AAMs and the F-35 and Su-30 MKI were clean (no tanks) but carried 4 and 8 AAMs respectively, basically the mission profile was :

Weapons load, took off, returned after a minute of combat:

Rafale had a mission radius of 896 nmiles, F/A-18 816, F-35 751 nm, EF 747 nm, Su-30 MKI 728, Gripen 508

Rafale vs Su-30 here, is 23% more but only because the Su-30s are clean. In real life combat, they may have to punch off tanks midway, lose fuel, actual ranges may be lower (opponent may not be kind enough to emerge only when your tanks are dry).

This is a Rafale presentation, as you can see very similar numbers for both the Rafale and F-18, 920 nm. 6x AAM + 3x FT (2000 Ltr). The LM modeling is hence, fairly accurate IMHO (it said 896 nm).
http://d30p9ca83oqyng.cloudfront.net/de ... e_null.jpg

Net - the Su-30 has a respectable range, loiter.

[Karan M]

Thank you Karan Saar.

If I edit your post to remove the saar, will you ban me.

[Rakesh]

100%

[Karan M]

(Sulks and goes back to kave complex)

[JayS]

Thanks Karan for the data points on the range.

Looks like those are not the only incorrect numbers thrown. The Retired AM says Meteor has max range of 180km and NEZ of 150km...!!! That just not acceptable number for NEZ.

He says Rafale better than even F35, because maintenance issues on F35 are more severe. Is that the only parameter of evaluation..?

IAF folks are overselling Rafale. Is even the French taking so much efforts..??

[nachiket]

LockMart did an analysis of how the JSF fared against peers. There, all fighters including the Rafale were carrying 3x fuel tanks, + 6 AAMs and the F-35 and Su-30 MKI were clean (no tanks) but carried 8 and 4 AAMs respectively, basically the mission profile was :

Weapons load, took off, returned after a minute of combat:

Rafale had a mission radius of 896 nmiles, F/A-18 816, F-35 751 nm, EF 747 nm, Su-30 MKI 728, Gripen 508

Rafale vs Su-30 here, is 23% more but only because the Su-30s are clean. In real life combat, they may have to punch off tanks midway, lose fuel, actual ranges may be lower (opponent may not be kind enough to emerge only when your tanks are dry).

This is a Rafale presentation, as you can see very similar numbers for both the Rafale and F-18, 920 nm. 6x AAM + 3x FT (2000 Ltr). The LM modeling is hence, fairly accurate IMHO (it said 896 nm).
http://d30p9ca83oqyng.cloudfront.net/de ... e_null.jpg

Net - the Su-30 has a respectable range, loiter.

In hindsight it is a bit baffling that the Russians did not plumb at least the centerline and inner wing hardpoints for carrying fuel tanks on the original Su-27. Yes the idea was to have a huge internal fuel capacity so that you have good range without tanks but you can never have too much fuel. It would have been nice to at least have the option of using EFT's even though for most missions you would not use them.

If it is possible, the IAF should look into making the modifications for having wet pylons as part of the Super-30 upgrade. A Flanker with 3 EFT's would have humongous range which no fighter in the world besides the F-22 perhaps might be able to match. But I don't know if it is even possible to modify it in that way.

[JayS]

Sankum, you just saw this on TV or is this some old news? And who was this retired govt official?

I kind of remember rtd AVM SBP Sinha also saying this. That the deal was broken in two pieces of 36 + 114. I am bit surprised to see latest push for another lot of 36. Though original requirement was 126 + 63 options. So the total of 36 + 36 + 114 comes quite close to the original number of 189. So who knows. Its difficult to predict Modi's moves.

[JayS]

LockMart did an analysis of how the JSF fared against peers. There, all fighters including the Rafale were carrying 3x fuel tanks, + 6 AAMs and the F-35 and Su-30 MKI were clean (no tanks) but carried 8 and 4 AAMs respectively, basically the mission profile was :

Weapons load, took off, returned after a minute of combat:


Rafale vs Su-30 here, is 23% more but only because the Su-30s are clean. In real life combat, they may have to punch off tanks midway, lose fuel, actual ranges may be lower (opponent may not be kind enough to emerge only when your tanks are dry).

This is a Rafale presentation, as you can see very similar numbers for both the Rafale and F-18, 920 nm. 6x AAM + 3x FT (2000 Ltr). The LM modeling is hence, fairly accurate IMHO (it said 896 nm).
http://d30p9ca83oqyng.cloudfront.net/de ... e_null.jpg

Net - the Su-30 has a respectable range, loiter.

In hindsight it is a bit baffling that the Russians did not plumb at least the centerline and inner wing hardpoints for carrying fuel tanks on the original Su-27. Yes the idea was to have a huge internal fuel capacity so that you have good range without tanks but you can never have too much fuel. It would have been nice to at least have the option of using EFT's even though for most missions you would not use them.

If it is possible, the IAF should look into making the modifications for having wet pylons as part of the Super-30 upgrade. A Flanker with 3 EFT's would have humongous range which no fighter in the world besides the F-22 perhaps might be able to match. But I don't know if it is even possible to modify it in that way.

Su-34 has Centerline EFT. Of coarse its possible to modify it for EFT. But may not be without the help of Sukhoi. It will not only need internal plumbing for wet pylons but also changes in the fuel management system so the CG management remains within the limits that FCS needs, unless FCS is also updated.

[Bala Vignesh]

From Dassault Aviation's website on the Rafale.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ance-data/

Fuel (internal) - 4.7 t (10,300 lbs)
Fuel (external) - up to 6.7 t (14,700 lbs)

So a total of 11.4 tons of fuel. Or 10,342 kg. Or 22,800 pounds.

At 11.4 tonnes, fuel accounts for about slightly less than 50% of the MTOW of 24.5 tonnes. With an empty weight of 10t, that leaves 14.5 tonnes for fuel and payload and if you have 11 tonnes of fuel you get about 4 tonne payload, which seems wrong to me. So the total fuel including external fuel should be 6.7 tonne in which case you get 9 tonnes of payload. This would translate as 4.7 tonne internal and 2 tonnes external.

[Karthik S]

Karan or others, I have always wondered which one is better: EFTs or in-flight refueling from tankers. For all practical purposes, if Rafale or any other jet engages enemy fighters mid air, it mostly will jettison the external tanks. I understand if jets fly over sanitized airspace or carry out surgical strikes ex balakote, wherein the aggressor won't engage enemy fighters, EFTs can be useful, but even in that case, tankers can refuel just before jets enter enemy territory or can refuel when jets are back after the bombing mission.
I know tankers have HVT and you need to dedicate certain air defense fighters to protect them, even if tankers fly over our own territory close to the border, and they come with logistics etc.
Have seen YT videos have US tankers refueling jets that have EFT, not sure why to carry EFTs in the first place if the jets are to be refueled by tankers anyway. But tankers do seem provide an advantage wherein jets can takeoff with higher ammunition payloads.

[JayS]

^^ Rafale can be seen carrying 3x2000ltr EFT in multiple configurations, easy to find of google. But that's still 6000lts or ~5T load.

6.7T ~ 8400ltr fuel. From Rafale's weapons station map that I could find on google, it would have to be 3x2000ltr + 2x1250ltr = 5 EFT. With that I could carry only a handful of AAMs, so may be usful for only CAP meant for high on-station time..? But carrying so many EFT would be an incredibly inefficient way of carrying fuel. Interferance drag builds up quickly for such tight arrangement under the wing.

[JayS]

Karan or others, I have always wondered which one is better: EFTs or in-flight refueling from tankers. For all practical purposes, if Rafale or any other jet engages enemy fighters mid air, it mostly will jettison the external tanks. I understand if jets fly over sanitized airspace or carry out surgical strikes ex balakote, wherein the aggressor won't engage enemy fighters, EFTs can be useful, but even in that case, tankers can refuel just before jets enter enemy territory or can refuel when jets are back after the bombing mission.
I know tankers have HVT and you need to dedicate certain air defense fighters to protect them, even if tankers fly over our own territory close to the border, and they come with logistics etc.
Have seen YT videos have US tankers refueling jets that have EFT, not sure why to carry EFTs in the first place if the jets are to be refueled by tankers anyway. But tankers do seem provide an advantage wherein jets can takeoff with higher ammunition payloads.

That's a pretty broad question and without you setting a context to it, its not going to be a single answer. Obviously both have pros and cons and I am pretty sure you already know most of them. You know the mathematical concept of a well-posed problem..? Set the proper boundary conditions and then only there could be unique solution to the question.

[nam]

He says Rafale better than even F35, because maintenance issues on F35 are more severe. Is that the only parameter of evaluation..?

IAF folks are overselling Rafale. Is even the French taking so much efforts..??

When the best fighter in your inventory is M2000, you would fight for anything French. M2000 is to IAF, what F16 is to PAF!

IAF rigged the entire the MMRCA process to get Rafale in. Drop the cheaper options on "technical grounds" and leave the Rafale compete with EF on cost, knowing very well what the result will be!

I am not surprised.

If IAF had F16, they would be fighting for F35!

[sankum]

Rafale can carry two conformal external tanks of 1150 litre each and external payload has been raised to 10.5 T.
Total is 8300 litres is 6.6T+ internal 4.7T= 11.3T with 3°2000lt EFT.
This is 44% fuel fraction for 25.5T MTOW.
Two Meteor can be carried on underbelly stations and two CCM on wingtip.
Still 2.5T external payload can be carried on two mid wing stations which can be 6 air to ground munition on multirack.

[srai]

KaranM, Good data points for baseline comparisons. A lot of folks tend to pick and choose their numbers to make something look better than what it is.

Nachiket, probably better to go with conformal fuel tanks on Su-30MKI upgrades. Less restrictive.

LockMart did an analysis of how the JSF fared against peers. There, all fighters including the Rafale were carrying 3x fuel tanks, + 6 AAMs and the F-35 and Su-30 MKI were clean (no tanks) but carried 8 and 4 AAMs respectively, basically the mission profile was :

Weapons load, took off, returned after a minute of combat:


Rafale vs Su-30 here, is 23% more but only because the Su-30s are clean. In real life combat, they may have to punch off tanks midway, lose fuel, actual ranges may be lower (opponent may not be kind enough to emerge only when your tanks are dry).

This is a Rafale presentation, as you can see very similar numbers for both the Rafale and F-18, 920 nm. 6x AAM + 3x FT (2000 Ltr). The LM modeling is hence, fairly accurate IMHO (it said 896 nm).
http://d30p9ca83oqyng.cloudfront.net/de ... e_null.jpg

Net - the Su-30 has a respectable range, loiter.

In hindsight it is a bit baffling that the Russians did not plumb at least the centerline and inner wing hardpoints for carrying fuel tanks on the original Su-27. Yes the idea was to have a huge internal fuel capacity so that you have good range without tanks but you can never have too much fuel. It would have been nice to at least have the option of using EFT's even though for most missions you would not use them.

If it is possible, the IAF should look into making the modifications for having wet pylons as part of the Super-30 upgrade. A Flanker with 3 EFT's would have humongous range which no fighter in the world besides the F-22 perhaps might be able to match. But I don't know if it is even possible to modify it in that way.

[srai]

Tejas 6-sorties/day
vs Rafale 5-sorties/day
vs Su-30MKI 3-sorties/day

Tejas rules them all

Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/Veteran__007/status ... 3793784833 --->

The Rafale will be India's most capable fighter aircraft. Quick math with the current best Su-30MKI:
Loitering Capability: 1.5 times of Su-30
Range: 780-1055 km vs 400-550 of Su-30
Sorties: 5 per 24 hours against 3 by Su-30
Availability: 75% against 55% of Su-30

...
3. Sorties, this is a function of how much resources we dedicate to the task.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 905916.cms

NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force’s pan-India exercise Gagan Shakti-2018, for practising war-time drills witnessed the IAF pushing the limits of its every fighter aircraft, including the Tejas, which entailed conducting six sorties per day on all of them, totalling to about 9,000 sorties. For the Tejas, this is a good development as the IAF usually sticks to around three sorties per day on every Tejas.
...

[LakshmanPST]

the PLAAF can be kept at bay by accelerating our Su-30MKI upgrade.

Well, Dhanoa ji thinks otherwise... Watch this video from 1:11:00--->
https://youtu.be/ooE8vLRfvVo

He clearly says that we need Rafale to take care of J20 and J31 of PLAAF...

[sankum]

For CAP mission with 4 Meteor and 4 Mica and 2 CFT and 3 EFT of 2000 litre we have fuel fraction of 49 % and TOW of 23.2 T.
The fuel fraction is 50 % more than Su 30 for CAP.

[nachiket]

.

Nachiket, probably better to go with conformal fuel tanks on Su-30MKI upgrades. Less restrictive.

Don’t know about that. It is a large and heavy aircraft with not a terribly good TWR. Better not to carry around more weight you can’t get rid of.

[JayS]

For CAP mission with 4 Meteor and 4 Mica and 2 CFT and 3 EFT of 2000 litre we have fuel fraction of 49 % and TOW of 23.2 T.
The fuel fraction is 50 % more than Su 30 for CAP.

I totally forgot about the CFT.

Just to point out, the externally carried fuel in EFT's is only about half as effective or even lesser than the internal fuel in terms of the range they can give.

Roughly speaking Rafale with 4.7 + 2T in CFT + 5T in 3EFT is equivalent to 4.7 + 2 + 2.5 = 9.2T internal fuel

Su30MKI can carry 9.5-10T fuel internally.

We can say roughly that the inefficiency that Su-30NKI has due to more fuel guzzling engine, is more than compensated by the far more cleaner aerodynamic profile (less drag) that it would be flying with 8 missile payload (or even for 12 AAM missiles).

All in all, Su30MKI and Rafale cannot have too varying Combat radius in the pure A2A configurations as described above.

[srai]

.

Nachiket, probably better to go with conformal fuel tanks on Su-30MKI upgrades. Less restrictive.

Don’t know about that. It is a large and heavy aircraft with not a terribly good TWR. Better not to carry around more weight you can’t get rid of.

IMO, Best use of external tanks whether CFT or EFT on pylons is for long range strike. With heavy fuel and bomb load your plane is not very maneuverable to being with.

For CAP, you would want to use up as much of your external fuel source as possible to get to your CAP destination so that if you need to conduct air-to-air combat you don’t waste too much fuel by dumping/jettisoning. You want to be at “optimal” weight when on station.

[Snehashis]

Sankum, you just saw this on TV or is this some old news? And who was this retired govt official?

Former Defence Secretary Mohan Kumar said that to IE.

It was the Modi Government which started renegotiating the deal. We decided to go for 148 aircrafts though the initial deal was for 36 aircraft in a fly-away status. The government will go for another deal for the remaining aircraft which will be built in India. The report that the decision to buy 36 aircrafts pushed the price of each fully fitted, combat-ready aircraft up by 41.42 per cent is completely baseless.

The Modi Government worked out the deal afresh and we've decided to buy 148 aircraft. The initial deal was for 36 for which the price has gone up due to additional design and development of 13 India Specific Enhancements (ISE).

[srai]

^^^
Long live MWF

[ArjunPandit]

^^reminds me of a dialogue from sacred games..'sab mar jayenge, bus XYZ bachega'
i this saga sab planes mar jayenge bus rafale bachega....