MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[MarcH]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... r-raf.html

Newspiece of Eurofighter a2g testing and green flag 2008.

[Doddel]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... r-raf.html

Newspiece of Eurofighter a2g testing and green flag 2008.

I cannot find any info in that source of any A-2-G - missiles... just bombs. So I guess it can't.

Please quote the part if its there...

[Viv S]

He asked for a source. Source please...

Please inform us... What are IAFs requirements? (source required)

When will EF be able to perform a naval strike? When will it be able to perform an A-2-G strike with a missile? And of course... Don't answer if you don't have a source.

With regard to what the Eurofighter's current and future configuration.... look it up. There's nothing very secret or unknown about it.

With regard to the alluring prospect of Rafales popping off Scalp-EGs by the dozen (or for that matter EFs doing the same with the Storm Shadow) - its a superfluous capability given that the IAF will already have a domestic ALCM in the Brahmos and another cheaper alternative on the way in the Nirbhay by 2014-15.

[Viv S]

I cannot find any info in that source of any A-2-G - missiles... just bombs. So I guess it can't.

Please quote the part if its there...

'Just bombs' are what most air to ground missions employ. A million dollar cruise missile isn't something you shoot off at every mujahid behind a rock. They are to employed very very selectively. And yes, the Eurofighter will have the Storm Shadow/Taurus integrated into its units operated by European air forces by the time its deliveries to India are due and long before the HAL makes any deliveries of aircraft. But its not something that IAF has expressed interest in.

[MarcH]

I cannot find any info in that source of any A-2-G - missiles... just bombs. So I guess it can't.

Please quote the part if its there...

No it can't. And I never claimed it can. But the article gives a good impression what the Tiffy is able to do. You will even find typical loadouts in it. And why it hasn't been deployed to Afganistan yet, to participate in the big life fiering exercise going on over there.

[Singha]

indeed - integration with a vast variety of J-series or EU weapons is not needed or planned - India has no plans to buy taurus, storm shadow, brimstone, mjoelnir, AASM-series, J-series etc etc. at best if a EU choice is made it will come preintegrated with iris-t, amraam, meteor, CCIP bombs, rocket pods and paveway-4. we will need to pay to integrate Astra and sudarshan. russian weapons will never see service on MRCA and perhaps neither will israeli weapons. it will only be EU/US to start with followed by indian weapons later.

[Viv S]

When I search for the missile HELINA it seems to be the missile HAL.

Missile HAL huh?

The Nag has a flight speed of 230 metres per second... mach ~0.7 with full rocket power... Don't you think the missile will slow down the EF at flight?

A future variant of the Nag doesn't mean the missile is simply hoisted out of the NAMICA today and slung under a fixed wing aircraft tomorrow. The Brimstone's airframe for example was derived from the Hellfire-II.

[Doddel]

When I search for the missile HELINA it seems to be the missile HAL.

Missile HAL huh?

I left the source...

Nag will be configured to be used on the Advanced Light Helicopter(ALH) and the HAL Light Combat Helicopter(LCH). This version will be known as HELINA (HELIcopter NAg).

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_(missile)

[Doddel]

Missile HAL huh?

Sorry should be NAG... not HAL. I edited my post

[manoba]

What is an F-16 worth.................. frozen chicken Clicky

The art of diplomacy and role-playing of Lord of war.

Reuters's Special report: Weapons and the art of diplomacy

[NRao]

What is an F-16 worth.................. frozen chicken Clicky

India paid Russia USSR in bananas!!!!!! In the 60-70 Russia supposedly paid $1 per banana. There were shortages in India and attendant price escalations.

Ancient trading practices - called bartering.

[manoba]

Thanks. Didn't know that.

A perfect example of banana republic.

[koti]

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... _analysis/

hope its not a repost.
The previous opinion that EF does not justify its cost stays verified.

[NRao]

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... _analysis/

hope its not a repost.
The previous opinion that EF does not justify its cost stays verified.

Never mind about the re-post.

What is amusing is this from the article:

This plane is new and has just been expensively upgraded.

It will be scrapped soon.

and

RAF pilots won't be ready to do bombing missions until 2016

I am not sure if I should believe such reports.

But it is THE authority in the UK that is producing such reports.

((Thanks God for the LCA.))

[Singha]

imo UK can no longer find the budget to keep up a large AF hence the cutbacks to harriers, jags, tornadoes ongoing and in future early retirement/sale of older EF. a typical modern fighter a/c can serve for around 35 yrs with upgrades, and so can the EF if the user is willing to fund.

[vcsekhar]

Not at all. The EF doesn't have to make 'compromises' in a strike role anymore than the Rafale requires a compromise in air superiority/interceptor role. Yes its range and and payload are somewhat lower than the Rafale's but hardly low enough to be a disability. And the specific type of mission that the Rafale outperforms the EF at (long range strike), is the one that the MKI excels at.

I dont know what gave you the idea that the Rafale is compromised with respect to the EF in A2A, I have spoken to some of our pilots who have exercised against the Rafale and they had a very very high opinion of its CCM (A2A) capabilities. In fact this was one of the few aircraft that they were not able to best. They were able to match it in BVR but not in close combat.

So take what you read in the forums against the Rafale with a pinch of salt.

cheers.

[Doddel]

I believe the importance of the tactical datalink is not discussed enough. Seems like it is forgotten by many when comparation of the fighters are made. The gripen datalink will give it some interresting advantages in both A2A and A2G over the competitors. This datalink communicates directly between a/c - a/c and ground and cannot be jammed. Often only the radars and IRST is compared, but the TIDLS will increase the radar/IRST effectiveness and detection range and much more (because several radars can work collectively as an array). Because of this even a gripen without radar is highly dangerous in BVR. The datalink should also be important as ToT. Mayby this system can be installed in other IAF fighters and be connected with ground radar stations. Does anyone know how India is thinking/planning about datalink?

There are a lot of sites and more interresting info describing TIDLS. Some of the advantages are:

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions.
...
The TIDLS is fundamentally different from broadcast-style links like Link 16. It serves fewer users but links them more closely together, exchanging much more data, and operating much closer to real time.
...
Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind.
...
A basic use of the datalink is "silent attack." An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar. After launch, the shooter can break and escape, while the other fighter continues to pass tracking data to the missile. In tests, Gripen pilots have learned that this makes it possible to delay using the AMRAAM's active seeker until it is too late for the target to respond.

http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/2008/02 ... y-its.html

Combine the datalink with AMRAAM, and sneakier tricks are possible. An adversary detects a Gripen tracking him on radar, 70 miles away. What he does not see is the other Gripen, closer in, silent and in the weeds, ready to launch an AMRAAM guided by its colleague. As the fighter pilot's maxim has it, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying hard enough."

The Gripen datalink is distinctly better than the NATO Link 16, or the simpler IDM used by the F-16A/B Mid-Life Update, according to Weimer. These links do not show the fighters' weapon and fuel status or indicate which targets have been locked up. Even so, datalinks have already achieved some surprising upsets in recent air combat exercises-including fights where F-15s were mauled by Belgian F-16 MLUs and RAF Tornado F.3s.

source: http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/day2/topsto10.htm

One more advantage is that the gripen much less dependant of AWACS, which are high priority targets in a combat situation. This would give Gripen a big advantage over especially Rafale since it has no 2-way datalink. (I guess this means that it can only receive data and no data is ever transmitted from the a/c?) The French tactics is centered around AWACS - Am I correct? This makes the Rafale sensitive against an adversary that have the technology/power to shoot down AWACS. The Rafale will be equiped with an inferior Meteor because of this, so this should make the Rafale less potent in BVR with AWACS and much much less potent without.

Gripen also have the Link-16 to be able to work effectively with NATO.

[Doddel]

I dont know what gave you the idea that the Rafale is compromised with respect to the EF in A2A...

Compared to EF
Rafale has:
- Slower max speed
- Less potent METEOR
- Less capable datalink
- Lower maximum ceiling

Compared to Gripen
Rafale has:
- Less potent METEOR
- Much less capable datalink
- Higher IR signature (2 engines => More IR signature. Larger size => more drag => More IR signature))
- Much more dependent to AWACS
- Number disadvantage (because of gripens lower cost, lower support cost, short turn-around)

RCS? Not much info because of classification but the refueling probe of the Rafale is a joke..

cheers

[vcsekhar]

Interesting, my replies in red.

I dont know what gave you the idea that the Rafale is compromised with respect to the EF in A2A...

Compared to EF
Rafale has:
- Slower max speed (has no real difference in air combat, except to reach combat area, but more than that fuel consumption at max AB is the biggest limitation to speed.)
- Less potent METEOR (Again, lots of problems with BVR combat and electronic interference and jamming, so a lot of times you cannot take a BVR shot)
- Less capable datalink (You say that, but, nobody knows for sure)
- Lower maximum ceiling (maybe, but when did you see aircombat at 50K feet)

Compared to Gripen
Rafale has:
- Less potent METEOR - see above
- Much less capable datalink - see above
- Higher IR signature (2 engines => More IR signature. Larger size => more drag => More IR signature)) (this is a possible advantage of all single engines against dual engines, but if you see the rafale literature, they talk about the extensive work done to reduce IR signature)
- Number disadvantage (because of gripens lower cost) (Possible)

RCS? Not much info because of classification but the refueling probe of the Rafale is a joke.. (Well, the fixed refueling probe has a reason and ask a pilot on a mission about a failed probe extension and you will get the answer, it has happened.)

cheers

cheers...

[Doddel]

Compared to EF
Rafale has:
- Slower max speed (has no real difference in air combat, except to reach combat area, but more than that fuel consumption at max AB is the biggest limitation to speed.)

Are you sure it is not important? But the max speed is greater and it is an advantage. How much can be debated. A higher altitude and speed gives longer missile range. A high speed also increases the possibility to dodge and escape missiles.

(Again, lots of problems with BVR combat and electronic interference and jamming, so a lot of times you cannot take a BVR shot)

Well... Do you mean that Rafale is dependent on electronic warfare and jamming? A lot of the times you can and then it is nice to have a the best missile. Do you mean that BVR capability is not important?

- Less capable datalink (You say that, but, nobody knows for sure)

It is a fact that Rafale only have a 1-way datalink. As I described in one of my earlier post this should be a big disadvantage for Rafale. I can provide you with sources if you want to.

- Lower maximum ceiling (maybe, but when did you see aircombat at 50K feet)

It is an advantage to have the possibility to go to a higher altitude. A higher altitude translates to longer missile range.

Compared to Gripen
Rafale has:
- Higher IR signature (2 engines => More IR signature. Larger size => more drag => More IR signature)) (this is a possible advantage of all single engines against dual engines, but if you see the rafale literature, they talk about the extensive work done to reduce IR signature)

Of course they have... because it's important. Don't you think that SAAB hasn't worked on reducing IR sign?

RCS? Not much info because of classification but the refueling probe of the Rafale is a joke.. (Well, the fixed refueling probe has a reason and ask a pilot on a mission about a failed probe extension and you will get the answer, it has happened.)

We are discussing A2A, not failed probes. The probe will increase Rafales RCS - that is a fact.

[Doddel]

(Again, lots of problems with BVR combat and electronic interference and jamming, so a lot of times you cannot take a BVR shot)

AESA is very hard to JAM. A group of gripens with AESA sharing radar data with the datalink (TIDLS) will be even harder (impossible?) to jam.

How do you JAM a gripen thats using another gripens radar to track? Or if the gripens are using there radar in passive mode triangulating and tracking the position and speed of the jammer?

In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.

http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/2008/02 ... y-its.html

[vcsekhar]

You make some Very Good points, my replies to you in Blue.

Compared to EF
Rafale has:
- Slower max speed (has no real difference in air combat, except to reach combat area, but more than that fuel consumption at max AB is the biggest limitation to speed.)

Are you sure it is not important? But the max speed is greater and it is an advantage. How much can be debated. A higher altitude and speed gives longer missile range. A high speed also increases the possibility to dodge and escape missiles. Also, if you read air combat history you will see that close to 0% of all air combat and missile launch occur at supersonic speeds.

I am pretty sure that it is not greatly important in combat, Nobody launches a BVR missile at max ranges, the escape limits for opposing aircraft are high as they have a long warning time. They normally wait until the adversary is well within the range to launch. The other problem is that the higher you are the better you show up on the IR scanners against the cool sky.

(Again, lots of problems with BVR combat and electronic interference and jamming, so a lot of times you cannot take a BVR shot)

Well... Do you mean that Rafale is dependent on electronic warfare and jamming? A lot of the times you can and then it is nice to have a the best missile. Do you mean that BVR capability is not important?
No I dont mean that the Rafale is dependent on EW and Jamming, i mean that there are lots of electronic techniques that are used to avoid BVR's at long ranges, so the very long ranges are not so important. I was speaking to a air force guy recently and brought up this point precisely, and the response was "there is no reliable way to ID'ing a guy at 100KM, you have an idea with IFF but unless you know 101% that they guy is a bogey you cannot launch", IFF can also fail on your own a/c during flight, you may have problems with radar (linked to iff) so the possibilities are high. The only way to know for sure if you are tracking the bogey from take off to missile launch. For example the famous F15 kill of a serbian Mig29 in bosnia, this Mig29 was an old a/c without functioning RWR and any ESM, it was tracked by AWACS right from take off and the F15's were vectored to it by AWACS.

- Less capable datalink (You say that, but, nobody knows for sure)

It is a fact that Rafale only have a 1-way datalink. As I described in one of my earlier post this should be a big disadvantage for Rafale. I can provide you with sources if you want to.
Yes, i agree, but this is dependent upon tactics and how to best make use of what you have, and what is to say that the data link will not be updated. Also what is to say that the RFQ does not contain a provision for a two way data link. Nobody knows as the RFQ is confidential.

- Lower maximum ceiling (maybe, but when did you see aircombat at 50K feet)

It is an advantage to have the possibility to go to a higher altitude. A higher altitude translates to longer missile range.
Once again, it is possible, but not very likely. the higher you are the more easy it is for ground and air based radars to catch you, this is the reason why most fighter ranges are specified for High-Low-High profiles.

Compared to Gripen
Rafale has:
- Higher IR signature (2 engines => More IR signature. Larger size => more drag => More IR signature)) (this is a possible advantage of all single engines against dual engines, but if you see the rafale literature, they talk about the extensive work done to reduce IR signature)

Of course they have... because it's important. Don't you think that SAAB hasn't worked on reducing IR sign?
True, but how do you explain that every major airforce has twin engined fighters as the top of the line, F22, F15, Mig 29, Su-27, Pakfa, J20, EF, Rafale. if the IR was so much of a problem dont you think that everyone would have gone for a single engined plane?

RCS? Not much info because of classification but the refueling probe of the Rafale is a joke.. (Well, the fixed refueling probe has a reason and ask a pilot on a mission about a failed probe extension and you will get the answer, it has happened.)

We are discussing A2A, not failed probes. The probe will increase Rafales RCS - that is a fact.

This is true, however, small incremental reductions in RCS are not very useful, the probe should not add say 2 m2 of RCS to a plane, dont you think that the french had the probe RCS in mind when they designed the Rafale? they designed the rafale to be low RCS overall so they (most likely, i dont know for sure) probably weighted the benefits and the disadvantages and decided that the fixed probe was better for them. this is why stealth planes have an RCS two orders of magnitude lower than the non stealth planes

[vcsekhar]

(Again, lots of problems with BVR combat and electronic interference and jamming, so a lot of times you cannot take a BVR shot)

AESA is very hard to JAM. A group of gripens with AESA sharing radar data with the datalink (TIDLS) will be even harder (impossible?) to jam.

How do you JAM a gripen thats using another gripens radar to track? Or if the gripens are using there radar in passive mode triangulating and tracking the position and speed of the jammer?

In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.

http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/2008/02 ... y-its.html

This is correct that AESA is hard to jam, but that does not mean that the RWR's wont detect and find the direction of the emitter and the pilot can take evasive action or offensive contermeasures.

Also i have been checking up a bit and the Rafale does have a two way datalink to communicate with other aircraft in the flight, so most of what you say for the gripen also holds for the rafale.

[pragnya]

Doddel, these are the 2 links wrt Rafale datalinks. i don't understand when you say they are only one-way when they can communicate with air/ground control assets. are you saying the data is communicated to all by the aircraft in question and not the otherway?? then what would be the meaning of 'situational awareness'?? can you clarify?? thanks.

4 - The real-time Data-Link

A secure high-rate Data-Link is provided to share data in combined air operations with other friendly assets, i.e. other aircraft in the formation, airborne and surface command and control centres, forward air controllers, etc.

The RAFALE’s interoperability as part of a multinational operation has been demonstrated on countless occasions, and NATO (L16) as well as non-NATO solutions can be provided to meet various customers' requirements.

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

Tactical Data Link

Thales has developed a complete range of Tactical Data Link (TDL) solutions. Onboard the Rafale, these solutions offer a secure source of tactical data, including situation awareness, command & control, electronic warfare, orders and reports, flight pass and fighter-to-fighter information. Among other key players in combined air operations, this data is used with fellow aircraft in the formation, airborne and surface command and control centres, forward air controllers, etc.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/NewsAr ... x?id=11665

[Doddel]

Also i have been checking up a bit and the Rafale does have a two way datalink to communicate with other aircraft in the flight, so most of what you say for the gripen also holds for the rafale.

So I guess it is true that it uses a 2-way link between a/c. So that makes it more comparable to EF. According to all my info that datalink cannot be compared to gripens datalink as I have written earlier. If the datalink is comparable to gripens. Please provide the source. It would be nice to know the capabilities.

Meteor will be 'network-enabled'. A two-way datalink will allow the launch aircraft to provide mid-course target updates or retargeting if required, including data from offboard third-parties. The datalink will be able to transmit missile information such as functional and kinematic status, information on multiple targets, and notification of target acquisition by the seeker.[5] The two-way datalink is compatible with Eurofighter and Gripen but not with Rafale which is fitted with a one-way link originally designed for use with MICA.

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

At least the datalink for firing missiles is just 1-way-datalink.

[Henrik]

Doddel, these are the 2 links wrt Rafale datalinks. i don't understand when you say they are only one-way when they can communicate with air/ground control assets. are you saying the data is communicated to all by the aircraft in question and not the otherway?? then what would be the meaning of 'situational awareness'?? can you clarify?? thanks.

4 - The real-time Data-Link

A secure high-rate Data-Link is provided to share data in combined air operations with other friendly assets, i.e. other aircraft in the formation, airborne and surface command and control centres, forward air controllers, etc.

The RAFALE’s interoperability as part of a multinational operation has been demonstrated on countless occasions, and NATO (L16) as well as non-NATO solutions can be provided to meet various customers' requirements.

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

Tactical Data Link
Thales has developed a complete range of Tactical Data Link (TDL) solutions. Onboard the Rafale, these solutions offer a secure source of tactical data, including situation awareness, command & control, electronic warfare, orders and reports, flight pass and fighter-to-fighter information. Among other key players in combined air operations, this data is used with fellow aircraft in the formation, airborne and surface command and control centres, forward air controllers, etc.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/NewsAr ... x?id=11665

I think Doddel is refering to the Rafale's missile datalink that is one-way only.

[Viv S]

Not at all. The EF doesn't have to make 'compromises' in a strike role anymore than the Rafale requires a compromise in air superiority/interceptor role. Yes its range and and payload are somewhat lower than the Rafale's but hardly low enough to be a disability. And the specific type of mission that the Rafale outperforms the EF at (long range strike), is the one that the MKI excels at.

I dont know what gave you the idea that the Rafale is compromised with respect to the EF in A2A, I have spoken to some of our pilots who have exercised against the Rafale and they had a very very high opinion of its CCM (A2A) capabilities. In fact this was one of the few aircraft that they were not able to best. They were able to match it in BVR but not in close combat.

So take what you read in the forums against the Rafale with a pinch of salt.

cheers.

I said that the EF is NOT compromised at A2G in the same manner that the Rafale isn't compromised at A2A roles. That's hardly a criticism of the Rafale.

[Doddel]

Doddel, these are the 2 links wrt Rafale datalinks. i don't understand when you say they are only one-way when they can communicate with air/ground control assets. are you saying the data is communicated to all by the aircraft in question and not the otherway?? then what would be the meaning of 'situational awareness'?? can you clarify?? thanks.

I am not just talking about situational awarness. Gripens "link" goes beyond that. It cannot be jammed, and the radar performance are by themself increased in performance by working collectively.

Thanks for providing sources. So I guess it has a 2-way datalink between a/c. But strange that it hasn't for missiles.. Maybe someone can clarify why it is so. But, it doesn't say much of what type of info that is exchanged/transmitted between the a/c. Is it possible to perform a "silent attack" that I described earlier? Can the missiles be handed over with a 1-way missile link?
Can the radars be used as a unit as described below? Can they share incomplete data? How resistance is it to jamming?

To be a bit more clear, the source describes gripen C/D (A/B?) datalink. Not NG. To NG it will be more sophisticated.

The display reflects complete sensor fusion: a target that is being tracked by multiple sources is one target on the screen.
...
But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish Air Force calls "samverkan," or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: "Communication is possible without explaining everything."

"Radar-samverkan," the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation. The target's signals will often identify it as well.

The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.

Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

[Viv S]

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... _analysis/

hope its not a repost.
The previous opinion that EF does not justify its cost stays verified.

Lewis Page is one of the worst critics of the Eurofighter (and any and all high profile RAF purchases) and constant campaigner against cuts to the RN (not that one can blame him for that seeing as he's a former Royal Navy officer).

[Doddel]

(Don't really like this system with colors )

I am pretty sure that it is not greatly important in combat, Nobody launches a BVR missile at max ranges, the escape limits for opposing aircraft are high as they have a long warning time. They normally wait until the adversary is well within the range to launch. The other problem is that the higher you are the better you show up on the IR scanners against the cool sky.

Speed is absolutely not all but it is an advantage. Are you sure that a meteor launched at long range will be detected? Especially if it is fired from a gripen from with the radar switched off "silent attack". The missile seeker will be switched on when it is too late to react. With a higher launch speed the max range will increase.

No I dont mean that the Rafale is dependent on EW and Jamming, i mean that there are lots of electronic techniques that are used to avoid BVR's at long ranges, so the very long ranges are not so important. I was speaking to a air force guy recently and brought up this point precisely, and the response was "there is no reliable way to ID'ing a guy at 100KM, you have an idea with IFF but unless you know 101% that they guy is a bogey you cannot launch", IFF can also fail on your own a/c during flight, you may have problems with radar (linked to iff) so the possibilities are high. The only way to know for sure if you are tracking the bogey from take off to missile launch. For example the famous F15 kill of a serbian Mig29 in bosnia, this Mig29 was an old a/c without functioning RWR and any ESM, it was tracked by AWACS right from take off and the F15's were vectored to it by AWACS.

If the a/c is identified in some way BVR launch can be made. Maybe some other a/c is ID'ing the a/c. In the middle of a war ID 100% is not required. Range is and will always be an advantage.

True, but how do you explain that every major airforce has twin engined fighters as the top of the line, F22, F15, Mig 29, Su-27, Pakfa, J20, EF, Rafale. if the IR was so much of a problem dont you think that everyone would have gone for a single engined plane?

Why should I explain that? I was just stating that one of the advantages of gripen over Rafale is that the IR signature is smaller. There are other advantages too. A small IR signature is an advantage.

[MarcH]

Those articles have already been debuffed by the British MoD. Just read the original NAO report before jumping to conclusions. Btw, a good amount of the cost ascalations were caused by the British MoD themselves. For example did they drag out T2 and T3 orders because they were BROKE thanks to Iraq and Afganistan. This lead to idle production lines that, guess what, increased costs.

The report that the RAF has no pilots with a2g clearance isn't true either. Numbers are included the interview with Craig Penrice and the official answer of the Britsh MoD.

For all this link stuff. The Datalink in the Rafale is exactly the same MIDS link 16 Module as in the Typhoon. The only one way data link is the missile data link. Tiffy and Gripen have here the advantage in employing the Meteor over Rafale.

TILDS is a high volume datalink to communicate with a limited amount of other participants. MIDS is a datalink that provides informations from all participants in the network, but is limited in volume.
Best situational awareness is ensured if you have both. This is the case for Gripen C/D.

[pragnya]

No, it's the Rafale's missile datalink that is one-way only.

I am not just talking about situational awarness. Gripens "link" goes beyond that. It cannot be jammed, and the radar performance are by themself increased in performance by working collectively.

i doubt if the datalink could not be detected/jammed. i agree it may be better resistant but surely not jam-proof. infact the fact that the datalinks could be compromised was the reason why F-22 did not go for conventional datalink like Link 16 and instead use stealth qualified IFDL which can only be shared with other raptors.

Thanks for providing sources. So I guess it has a 2-way datalink between a/c. But strange that it hasn't for missiles.. Maybe someone can clarify why it is so. But, it doesn't say much of what type of info that is exchanged/transmitted between the a/c. Is it possible to perform a "silent attack" that I described earlier? Can the missiles be handed over with a 1-way missile link?

IMO the french due to no sale of RAFALE have been having funding problem which is why they are going blockwise improvements. from F1 to F3 so far. they are working to integrate Meteor which i guess needs some radar software upgrade too like in the case of EF -

Eurofighter is also reminding people that upgrade programs are still funded despite potential cuts in orders from primary customers and a tight export market. The SRP-14 radar software upgrade arrives in 2014 and includes the two-way data link for the Meteor ramjet-powered air-to-air missile.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ll&next=10

however in F4 standard they hope to achieve it -

The batch ordered in 2009 will also have improved protection suites and Thales’ RBE2-AA AESA radar, replacing the mechanically-scanned RBE2 array on previous aircraft. Full integration with Thales’ Damocles surveillance and targeting pod is expected to be complete by 2010, and efforts to include MBDA’s Meteor long-range air-air missiles are ongoing. Some sources refer to Rafales fielded with all of these modifications as Rafale F4s, but the type has not been formally defined yet.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Fra ... ime-05991/

besides needless to say the french may not be needing them themselves what with MICA still doing fine for their requirements. besides i guess their main focus is on AESA getting operational. if at all, they are looking it (Meteor integration) for their sales pitch particularly wrt arab nations like UAE who want the best toys whether they need or not.

it is also important to also note the french have ordered 200 Meteors (delivery from 2018) -

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Fra ... les-06713/

on the other hand Gripen has been a test platform for the Meteor. no wonder they would be first off the block.

take it FWIW.

[Doddel]

i doubt if the datalink could not be detected/jammed. i agree it may be better resistant but surely not jam-proof.

It has a range of 500 km and is highly resistant to jamming; almost the only way to jam the system is to position a jammer aircraft directly between the two communicating Gripens.

http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/2008/02 ... y-its.html

It is not practical to place a jammer between the a/c... so it is almost impossible to jam it.

[pragnya]

It is not practical to place a jammer between the a/c... so it is almost impossible to jam it.

i will keep my fingers crossed on that.

ODLs are pretty common nowadays. all have the same capability though Gripen with TIDLS will have the 'advantage' of METEOR early compared to the rest which would be an advantage till others catch up.

OTOH with the advent of awacs and datalinking of all fighters battling it out there, the point (for me) remains moot wrt a group of fighters on their own though i admit this gives an advantage for a period. also a point to be noted is 'when' the Meteor will truly become operational and are they really game changers?? remains to be seen.

on a side note even SU 30MKI does the same thing - acting as 'mini awacs' due to its high power radar and sharing the radar info with 4 others. however the ODL is not as good.

The Su-30MKI can function as a 'mini-AWACS' and can act as a director or command post for other aircraft. The target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to atleast 4 other aircraft. This feature was first seen in the MiG-31 Foxhound, which is equipped with a Zaslon radar.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#8

also interesting to note P-8Is will have BEL made ODLs called Data Link-2.

The Indian-designed Data Link-II -- a communications system developed by BEL -- will enable exchange of tactical data and messages between Indian Navy aircraft, ships and shore establishments.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... e-aircraft

[arthuro]

Bottom line is when the gripen C/D visited Reims AFB (close to st dizier, the nest of the rafales) in 2007 and were pitched against the rafale they were dominated in almost every aspects.

report made about this swedish detachment in 2007 (from Air fan magazine)

In an article of Air Fan of May 2007, Gripen came to France in exchange with F1CR Reims. Beyond reconnaissance missions, the Gripen have mock dogfights and BVR with the Mirages F1. I did not specify the outcome, nobody doubts ... [28]

however, the Gripen has been against the Rafale, and here it seems that our Swedish friends had nice cold sweat ...

Thus combined raids were conducted according to Air Fan (two or four in F1CR reco Gripen escorted by two plus two Rafales sweep in with the AWACS, with four in 2000-5 CAP) and interceptions Gripen / Rafale in altitude. Swedish aviators knew little french new jet they fear above all the ability to shoot long distance with the Mica IR. Swedish aviators "who have participated with Rafale in combat have also discovered huge reserves of power available to that aircraft, even heavily loaded"


Also, according to a pilot, 1 / 33, connoisseur of the Rafale, which flew aboard Rafale and Gripen.
"Gripen is about the capacity of 2000-5 Mk2, a little smaller. But in terms of fusion of information, payload capacity, and technology of the weapon system, there 'is a gap between the Rafale and JAS39 "

Other comments: "Visiting the EC 1 / 7, the Swedish pilots were obviously surprised by the capabilities of carrying the Rafale and the fusion of diffferent sensors "

... against F1CR , I do prefer not to comment ... we will simply say that for dogfightieng, they are dropped completely, and BVR

[karan_mc]

BAE Systems targets £6bn India fighter deal

Few days ago i was wondering when Brits are struggling to train pilots ,how they can afford JSF

The irony is that Britain no longer has aircraft carriers. It will be at least ten years before new British carriers are built, which will carry US-made Joint Strike Fighters (JSF). The cost of each JSF is expected to rise to more than £100 million, much higher than the £60 million Typhoon.

The advantage of the deal with New Delhi would be that the detailed design work needed to convert the Typhoon for carriers would be borne by the Indians.

Come lets milk India

[kmc_chacko]

I didn't understand why Brits are more interested in JSF than Naval EFs

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^
You have to go back to the origin of EFT for that. EFT was primarily designed with an air superiority role in mind. Unlike Rafale which was designed from day one for carrier role. EFT was meant to be for the four European nations what F-15 was to USAF. Also EFT can be best described as 4.5 generation. F-35 will be a 5th generation multi-role aircraft. Its stealth, avionics make it a far better fighter compared to EFT. Though F-35 cost will be an issue in this age of austerity.

[NRao]

BAE Systems targets £6bn India fighter deal

Few days ago i was wondering when Brits are struggling to train pilots ,how they can afford JSF

The irony is that Britain no longer has aircraft carriers. It will be at least ten years before new British carriers are built, which will carry US-made Joint Strike Fighters (JSF). The cost of each JSF is expected to rise to more than £100 million, much higher than the £60 million Typhoon.

The advantage of the deal with New Delhi would be that the detailed design work needed to convert the Typhoon for carriers would be borne by the Indians.

Come lets milk India

Here is another:

Russia spat delays BrahMos air version

[SaiK]

Well, IAF as an user must learn these economic aspects as well. Since, cost aspects also is a strategic driver to get weapons on board.

Modification rights can be purchased, that we had (or sold it back to Russians/ddm link?). HAL could have done this modification perhaps? I dunno what are the complexities in terms of internal strengthening?

This argument is really silly considering $30 b on the pak-fa that is to happen. Apply this aspect there as well, for all the back-end changes.

The faster AMCA happens, it is good for India, especially every aspect of defence and security.