India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Apr 2011 19:44

Can any of the tech savvy BRFites comment on which one of the two in the shortlist will be easier to MKI? Assuming that both vendors give us equal elbow room.

Not an easy question, but nonetheless, curious!

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 30 Apr 2011 19:46

For all the talk about performance at Leh on this thread, I surmise that was a very important barometer for the IAF to consider. After all, most of the hostile border areas that India has to worry about are not at sea-level.

For take-off performance at high altitude, a large delta wing will be way more efficient than the other standard configuration of the others. (gurus - correct me if I am wrong). Hence the Rafale, EF and Gripen will outclass the others. Have there been any news releases about the performance of the MKI from Leh (i.e. what a nominal configuration looks like?). Having the MKI provided the IAF with an excellent baseline to start with. If the EF and Rafale came in and trounced that, why would we not want one of these excellent birds?

I however disagree with the prevailing notion that this is Dassault's to lose at this stage. I am guessing (with no knowledge at all) that this is EF's to lose. They (EADS) will want to get into the strong partnership with India and start with the EF, but follow on with the MRTT and then the A400. I think we are about to see a strategic realignment with Europe. The French have the M2k upgrade and Rafale but that's where it ends. With EADS as a partner, India can go a lot further than just the MMRCA deal.

manum · Post by **manum** » 30 Apr 2011 19:46

jai wrote:I am now getting greedy heh heh why not get both ?? 100 of each ..would be awesome from every angle and we will have best of both worlds..technology, awesome a2a and a2g and ew...not to forget double quick induction and double benefit to the local aerospace industry ....

That will get complex, Imagine creating separate facilities to build two types of fighters, MKI'ing them both...and loosing on few bargains due to greed or whatever...Two will be too much to adapt to...Headache...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2011 19:55

Devesh Rawal wrote: Having the MKI provided the IAF with an excellent baseline to start with.

As regards Leh - we may have had a good "baseline" in the MiG 29 even before the MKI. Apart from the absolute altitude of Leh there is another point that is not often mentioned. India's experience of air combat with Pakistan has shown that a lot of battles take place at very low levels above the ground - sometimes less than 500 meters. The odd thing here is that "500 meters above the ground" in the Himalayas is still 5000-6000 plus meters up in the air - so we are talking of air war at 15,000 plus feet rather than 1000 feet above sea level as we saw over the plains of Punjap or Rajasthan.

Once again I urge people to read Prodyut Das's article that I have linked in the "design Your Fighter" thread. Fighter performance degrades significantly at altitude. At very high altitudes a lot of "maneuverable" fighters cannot outfly a Canberra type aircraft. Nobody knows this better than the IAF and I bet both my testimonials an am willing to become a hijra if the IAF has not taken these factors into consideration

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 30 Apr 2011 19:59

If Rafale is chosen then we might see 90 kN class Kaveri-Snecma engine being used (atleast on the later planes).

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Apr 2011 20:03

@Devesh

Do the French have the M2K upg as yet?

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 30 Apr 2011 20:05

I think, the heartburn is also due to the fact that, in all probability, if the LCA-Mk2/PAK-FA is delayed, MMRCA will be the work-horse acquired in greater numbers. I remember some vendor stating that they are expecting the eventual number to be upto 200. Top it off with the related life-cycle costs. The company winning this has secured a revenue-stream for next 3-4 decades. Unkil would have won ONLY on the basis of overwhelming technical superiority that would offset the unreliability brigade. If F-16/F-18 failed to make the cut at technical criteria level, there was no chance of going any further (CISMOA or not).

manum · Post by **manum** » 30 Apr 2011 20:29

Marten wrote: +1 to the above, no argument with that. If I can make a brief OT comment.
May I however respectfully point to a double standard at BRF: calling someone Burkha Butt once is not ok as it has supposed legal risks for BRF, but use of ass-saaf-kiyanahi is as common as Kim-wipes. ...
Gudduji, the edited post was clearly in reaction to the post where hearsay about IAF picking the red Ferrari when asked to pick a sports car. imho, each of us has the right to his/her opinion (without the offensive language of course), and the reaction was in the opinion of the poster in sync with the original post except for whatever was considered personal. However, if the gist of one post was wrong, the other as well was in bad taste.

J-Gun saar: Why hasn't the original post been edited? Any insinuation that the IAF looked at the prettiest toy rather than the best one for its purpose is equally full of BS. imo, this insinuation that the IAF is not a professional force should not be allowed at least on Bharat Rakshak.
If this isn't a fair comment, please feel free to strike it/delete it. I'd like to know where the Webmasters/Moderators stand on this issue though.

+1 to the above. but I don't think calling someone Barkha dutt is a legal risk, specially to BRF, if here its all personal opinions...I found the journalists analogy deeply flawed, as if he is too burdened with favours from NDTV, Gripen and F16...I mean being worried about LM having spent 25 m $ rather than counting the benefits of process is highly questionable for a person whose career lies in defense...here we are of different professions with no relation whatsoever to defense industry, at least me...So if i compare the avenue from which he sees the facts and says what he said.

if he has supernatural powers to come threaten a member, I am sure some of us will also get less politically correct humans...I am not trying to hide my biases here...but I respect the mods for being gracious and pointed...and I'll be careful in future, but please consider our sides too...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Apr 2011 20:38

shiv wrote: As regards Leh - we may have had a good "baseline" in the MiG 29 even before the MKI. Apart from the absolute altitude of Leh there is another point that is not often mentioned. India's experience of air combat with Pakistan has shown that a lot of battles take place at very low levels above the ground - sometimes less than 500 meters. The odd thing here is that "500 meters above the ground" in the Himalayas is still 5000-6000 plus meters up in the air - so we are talking of air war at 15,000 plus feet rather than 1000 feet above sea level as we saw over the plains of Punjap or Rajasthan. <SNIP>

I guess, this is where the awesome power of MiG-29 comes into play. The article by AM Masand bears testimony to the power available with the a/c. Where others woukd become flying bricks, Fulcrum can still pull tricks out of the bag.

BTW, is there any article/stats on Dog-fights/WVR Combat which shows at what altitude such combats have happened? And have been practiced by various AFs of the world - especially, western AF? Is there some optimum band ( in terms of altitude) where a/c can achieve max. performace.

Finally, how will a/c which are supposed to excel in sub-sonic and trans-sonic regimen fare at such altitude? Could the spectre of WVR combat or even BVR envolving hard-maneuvering favor something like Eurofighter with high T/W ratio?

Thanx.

Baikul · Post by **Baikul** » 30 Apr 2011 20:59

At the risk of being OT, I am happy that we haven't chosen American fighters for many reasons, one of them being piskological.

Like others here, I have worked with and for Americans. IMO, you will never get their respect, nor be treated as an equal if all you do is agree with them, or be eager to please. Never. You need to poke 'em in the eye every now and then, even the ones who are genuine friends to you. That's just who they are, and that's how they behave with each other as well.

I'm not saying we haven't done it in the past, I'm not even saying we are their equals in military projection, but I'm sure as hell glad I've seen us do it now, over a key project. A decent poke in the eye.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Apr 2011 21:01

Jaganullah,

Respect your comment. My response in Nukkad.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 30 Apr 2011 21:16

Avid ... unable to send you a personal message here ... Want to email you my response to your points ... Do pls send me your email at [email protected].

Thanks
Vishnu

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Apr 2011 21:22

I doubt that the IAF are looking for a Ferrari. They would want the latest techonlogical version of James Bond's Aston Martin

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Apr 2011 21:25

Somehow in all this hoopla, can anyone here explain this to me.

What additional capabilities /incremental over a SU-30 , if you upgrade to an AESA radar that a Typhoon /Rafale will bring to the table for the $10b deal. Why not just crank out 126 MORE SU30s and given the sunk costs and everything, producing that 126 will actually be cheaper than a new Typhoon /Rafale and you probably get a plane with superior field performance!

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Apr 2011 21:34

@vina

That is the question which I have always pondered and found no answers yet.

I would be shooting in the dark to provide any answer. Except that there are unpublished limitations in the SU-30 and a gap to be filled in IAF's deterrence and offensive doctrine?

It would be easier to order more SU-30s and ramp up production to 24 per year and hence avoid the pitfalls of a depleting airforce?

Or with the increasing threat perception from the chinkis something to counter their SU-30MKKs? Or a need to progress to a 4+++? And a meaningful ToT rather than a ToP (Transfer of Production) to boost our in-house capabilities.

Since the intent of the MRCA tender was to replace the M2Ks and the JAGs, a better technological superior DPSA? (The LCA was supposed to replace the Mig-21s)

In this context, we should remember, that after WWII, deterrence has paid a significant role in reigning in agression from anyone else. The loss in a war would be incalculable compared to what we spend. So maybe there is a tilt in the balance for a different a/c?

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 30 Apr 2011 21:34

vina wrote:Somehow in all this hoopla, can anyone here explain this to me.

What additional capabilities /incremental over a SU-30 , if you upgrade to an AESA radar that a Typhoon /Rafale will bring to the table for the $10b deal. Why not just crank out 126 MORE SU30s and given the sunk costs and everything, producing that 126 will actually be cheaper than a new Typhoon /Rafale and you probably get a plane with superior field performance!

Lower operational costs, quicker turnarounds, lower rcs, (possibly) better supersonic agility, (possibly) better sensor fusion. However if these are enough to overcome the upfront cost advantages of getting more MKI's is doubtful.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2011 21:34

rohitvats wrote:
BTW, is there any article/stats on Dog-fights/WVR Combat which shows at what altitude such combats have happened? And have been practiced by various AFs of the world - especially, western AF? Is there some optimum band ( in terms of altitude) where a/c can achieve max. performace.

Finally, how will a/c which are supposed to excel in sub-sonic and trans-sonic regimen fare at such altitude? Could the spectre of WVR combat or even BVR envolving hard-maneuvering favor something like Eurofighter with high T/W ratio?

Thanx.

Rohit - no specific articles that i know of but lots of pointers from various sources. Here is a pic of the B-36 "Peacemaker"

This aircraft was alleged to have been more agile at its operating altitude than all the fighters of its daty. The same is said fro the british Vulcan bomber which was said to be able to outfly many fighters at its high operating altitude. Prodyut Das says the same of the Canberra. Planes optimised for low level performance may fare very poorly at high altitude and may be as maneuverable as a brick. Wing loading matters as does engine power.

Jasjit Singh wrote in one of his books that it was believed after WW2 that air warfare would only be high flying nuke bombers and to beat them they made needle like supersonic aircraft with AAMs (Delta Dart, MiG 21) But actual air combat (Korea, Vietnam, Indo Pak wars and Isreal) called for agility at low altitude.

But over the Himalayas it is a different ball game,. The plane that is agile at low altitude may not behave similarly. But the west and Russia have little experience of air warfare scenarios over the Himalayas.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2011 21:35

vina wrote:Somehow in all this hoopla, can anyone here explain this to me.

What additional capabilities /incremental over a SU-30 , if you upgrade to an AESA radar that a Typhoon /Rafale will bring to the table for the $10b deal. Why not just crank out 126 MORE SU30s and given the sunk costs and everything, producing that 126 will actually be cheaper than a new Typhoon /Rafale and you probably get a plane with superior field performance!

Fuel consumption per sortie?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Apr 2011 22:01

vina wrote:Somehow in all this hoopla, can anyone here explain this to me.

What additional capabilities /incremental over a SU-30 , if you upgrade to an AESA radar that a Typhoon /Rafale will bring to the table for the $10b deal. Why not just crank out 126 MORE SU30s and given the sunk costs and everything, producing that 126 will actually be cheaper than a new Typhoon /Rafale and you probably get a plane with superior field performance!

That was the reason I was supporting the gripen/f-16. I couldn't see any logic of getting a more expensive to acquire/maintain/upgrade plane when we could have conveniently just got 126 Su-30s from 2 more parallel assembly lines, one in Russia and one at HAL in less than 5 years flat! Oh! then all eggs would have been in the same basket! Well US/Russia/France/China are doing quite well with all eggs from the same basket. The guys who are struggling (read UK/germany/Australia) are the ones who have spread it all out. Also what if the new basket has the same characteristics as the old one. UK is finding a lot of difficulties to get fighters to their pilots!!!

Yes the EF and Rafale were the best fighters in the MMRCA. But what was our requirement. If the requirement is to get the best, then why not the Su-30s. If it is for a step lower than heavy, then 25 tonners didn't make sense to me.

And please people should stop beating that TOT crap. No critical TOT would have come no matter which plane we bought. Nobody is foolish enough to cut the branch he is sitting on. So I don't believe that EF and Rafale will get any more ToT than any of the other birds. Ya, the rafale might teach us how to cut the joins on the aelirons in a jagged shape for more stealth which would degrade with the age of the aircraft.

I am happy that the down-select has been done. I am also happy that our AF will have a world-beating aircraft from the MMRCA. I am pretty sure that the IAF must have made the right decision, but I can 't see how

.

Well, given the two, my vote is with the Rafale. It's a more complete package IMHO and deployed planes have lesser rports of trouble. I really hope that we do come to the point of upgrading the Rafales 10 years down their deployment the french don't ask for a pound of flesh as they are doing with the Mirages.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Apr 2011 22:07

imo HAL's production stds need to improve progressively not just in Tejas mk1 but flowing into Tejas Mk2 and into the "stealthy" AMCA/UCAV level. at present it cannot manufacture a plane with the tolerances of the rafale/EF, it has never made any such product MKI included. and we know the kind of stealthy techniques ef/f18/rafale uses is only now in the works for pakfa. Rus is never going to share all of that stuff, but will share some.

the hope probably is combining the learnings of the Tejas, MRCA and PAKFA manufacturing, we will have to crawl up to the "5th gen VLO level" by around 2020.

help on desi aesa radar work, seeker and avionics stuff is also expected.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Apr 2011 22:08

New Deal means New source of Bribe Money for power that be , Old deal with addition to numbers means no source of new money but just crumbs , Dilli Billi needs fresh oxygen and new deal gives them just that

IAF must be one big logistics nightmare that any air chief gets as part of his job , quite an envious position

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Apr 2011 22:19

And please people should stop beating that TOT crap. No critical TOT would have come no matter which plane we bought. Nobody is foolish enough to cut the branch he is sitting on. So I don't believe that EF and Rafale will get any more ToT than any of the other birds. Ya, the rafale might teach us how to cut the joins on the aelirons in a jagged shape for more stealth which would degrade with the age of the aircraft.

Indranilji

I beg to differ. When I first sat in the cockpit of the Mig-21 in '82, I was pleasantly surprised at the western avionics that surrounded me. The same thought as you have expounded crossed my mind for a moment. And I was told that it was done to increase the a/c's survivability, punch and improve pilot efficiency. Ditto for the Mig-27 a couple of years later! Whoever did that knew all about the interfaces.

Do not discount the fact, that whichever MRCA we select, we may become effective partners in its further development, which would mean being involved in R&D and effective ToT.

And BTW, what branch are they both sitting on? A dying branch.

Do they have the money to sustain thier programmes financially? And at an effective cost? Their respective branches are going to crack anyway!

Agree with you Singhaji.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Apr 2011 22:23

We have almost always fielded foreign aircraft and in good numbers. In which aircrafts next iteration or successor design did we play a role till date?

manum · Post by **manum** » 30 Apr 2011 22:25

what about new fighters mean new doctrine, new tactics, and something more to learn from...I mean, IAF is a competitive and one of best force is also because it can compare its notes of different platform it has used over years...It might be just a ordeal of exploration, the last one, before we start getting our own fighters which have juice of understanding we have gained from different league of fighters...
I also think Rafale and Typhoon are last platform of their own category, after this fighter firms will move to stealth arena or UAV arena...so its good to be part of threshold technology, which is about to be transformed in a decade or two, along with FGFA...This is our best bet to get it...and I cant see any other way to get it...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Apr 2011 22:29

And what will be unmanned aircraft?!!! They will fly under same laws of physics. They will use the same knowhow that all the countries have to themselves, i.e. the know-how developed with building manned aircrafts!

manum · Post by **manum** » 30 Apr 2011 22:33

Unmanned aircraft still look like a manned aircraft...with opaque cockpit...We still need to get away from imagery of humans sitting in front looking ahead...now aerodynamics needs to be re-explored...keeping any shape and form, given no human is going to be inside the fighter...

Even the psychology of masculine dog-fights will change for forever...We are looking towards a dark territory all their to be conquered...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Apr 2011 22:36

Look my question is simple (reiteration of Vina's question)

Why should I buy a medium or light aircraft when I have a superb multirole heavy fighter. It should be decidedly economical to acquire/operate/upgrade my medium fighter. Becuase otherwise, I can operate my heavy fighter sub-par to get my medium-fighter!

In the case of the EF/Rafale vis-a-vis the Su-30 it is the opposite!!

Rajan ji: do you think that with all the halo around the avionics of the Rafale/EF, would it be able to beat the the 2 pairs of eyes and 2 brains in the Su-30s ever so slightly outdated cockpit in a real combat scenario?

So please answer a simple a question:
Why should I pay more to do less work than what a Su-30 can?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Apr 2011 22:39

manum wrote:Unmanned aircraft still look like a manned aircraft...with opaque cockpit...We still need to get away from imagery of humans sitting in front looking ahead...now aerodynamics needs to be re-explored...keeping any shape and form, given no human is going to be inside the fighter...

Even the psychology of masculine dog-fights will change for forever...We are looking towards a dark territory all their to be conquered...

Manum ji, the laws of aerodynamics won't change, technology acquired in that field won't change, requirements won't change, propulsion won't change.

The layout may be different, but every country will only build on whatever they know and they are not going to throw it away.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Apr 2011 22:58

Guddu wrote:+1 to the above, no argument with that. If I can make a brief OT comment.
May I however respectfully point to a double standard at BRF: calling someone Burkha Butt once is not ok as it has supposed legal risks for BRF, but use of ass-saaf-kiyanahi is as common as Kim-wipes. ...

my reply here.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1079864

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2011 22:59

indranilroy wrote:Look my question is simple (reiteration of Vina's question)

Why should I buy a medium or light aircraft when I have a superb multirole heavy fighter. It should be decidedly economical to acquire/operate/upgrade my medium fighter. Becuase otherwise, I can operate my heavy fighter sub-par to get my medium-fighter!

In the case of the EF/Rafale vis-a-vis the Su-30 it is the opposite!!

Rajan ji: do you think that with all the halo around the avionics of the Rafale/EF, would it be able to beat the the 2 pairs of eyes and 2 brains in the Su-30s ever so slightly outdated cockpit in a real combat scenario?

So please answer a simple a question:
Why should I pay more to do less work than what a Su-30 can?

Your premise is wrong that a Rafale or EF can necessarily do less than what a Su-30 can do. Nor are you considering the technology upgrade HAL will retool for via the assembly of the Rafale & EF. Precision manufacturing to the highest tolerance will be critical for future programs.

But lets get to capabilities.
Please go to Flightglobal and read on the Rafale's integrated FBW, autonav and Terprom capabilities. These make it a phenomenal striker. The Su-30 MKI does not have Terprom which if i remember, both Rafale and EF have. The use of GIS data with Terprom tightly integrated into the Navigation system makes the Rafale perfect for strike roles, flying at extreme low levels (radar horizon reduced). It was designed to penetrate heavily defended SAM networks as part of the French nuclear deterrent. Hence the entire focus on low observability built into the airframe. The Su-30 MKI OTOH relies on TFR (which can trigger warnings) or otherwise, medium high alt strikes with PGMs like the KAB-500, KH-59MK, Kh-31 & in the future Nirbhay & Brahmos. Having said, that, the Rafale option may well turn out to be more cost effective against heavy integrated IADS as it would need less jamming support thanks to its discrete terrain hugging capabilities, and the phenomenal AASM - which it can target upto six, on the fly, in a single sortie. The light fighters are nowhere as capable, when carrying a heavy load.

Furthermore, two pilots, or even 1 pilot + WSO for the MKI puts more strain on the IAF training infrastructure. While exact numbers are not likely to be released, its likely the MKI has higher MMH/FH than the EF and Rafale which were designed a generation later, and will hence incorporate more iterative improvements in maintainability. Less ground crew, simply put. Again, an investment which pays off over time.

Similarly, the EF is quite comparable to the Su-30 in Air to Air, though it lags in Air to Ground which capabilities can be integrated over time. It needs avionics upgrades and software releases not airframe improvements and these are possible.

What you & many of the Gripen advocates simply dont understand is that the Gripen was never good enough to go head to head and win, on a consistent basis, against the kind of fighters the PLAAF is now fielding. The Flanker series has been reverse engineered by the PLAAF and even with their lower baseline technology, the sheer size of the radar aperture and the massive thrust available allows for PLAAF Flankers to do reasonably well in BVR & the Flanker is no slouch in WVR as well, with HMCS and R-73E/Local Chinese missiles. Just look at the J-20 nose.

Nor was the Gripen reasonably equipped to deal with a representative threat IADS. The two American fighters were good there, but the airframe performance of the Viper has suffered over the years as more and more weight has been added on, Pakistan operates but one variant before, and the Hornet would fare third best to Rafale and EF in A2A. Never mind, that with the LCA, the IAF has a light fighter covered.

So basically, MMRCA
- Cheaper logistical footprint (including personnel) than MKI
- Risk mitigation (preventing overreliance on Russia)
- Tech infusion in manufacturing & offsets to Indian industry
- Provides capabilities that are world class and in some cases unique - eg Spectra on the fly targeting with AASM, low level strike capabilities in discreet mode, FLIR+TV for discrete attacks, and for the Typhoon as well, there are some pretty nifty things built into the aircraft. Sensor fusion as on the Rafale is nothing to sneeze at. Its taken decades of effort and the MKI too will have it, as will the LCA (our progress on that front can be guaged from several programs) but the manner in which Rafale & EF have integrated capabilities of this sort, make them able to handle tasks which would otherwise require two pilots. Reportedly, even the latest Block F-15s are not as capable.

manum · Post by **manum** » 30 Apr 2011 23:03

indranilroy wrote:
manum wrote:Unmanned aircraft still look like a manned aircraft...with opaque cockpit...We still need to get away from imagery of humans sitting in front looking ahead...now aerodynamics needs to be re-explored...keeping any shape and form, given no human is going to be inside the fighter...

Even the psychology of masculine dog-fights will change for forever...We are looking towards a dark territory all their to be conquered...
Manum ji, the laws of aerodynamics won't change, technology acquired in that field won't change, requirements won't change, propulsion won't change.

The layout may be different, but every country will only build on whatever they know and they are not going to throw it away.

The laws wont change, but if there is no human involved inside the machines, their application will get more extreme...and it should...

Requirements will change, why wont they, if we start seeing possibility of no fatigue factor, no g's limitation as per human tolerable value, once we realize the potential why wont they change?

And why propulsion wont change, Jet-engine is not an eternal technology, computers are not from 1900's....Already development is on for solar powered UAV...alright we'll see jet-engines for next 50 years, but in the same period we'll see different technologies replacing the older ones...Things will change...sooner than you think specially in military...

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Apr 2011 23:04

Us aviation fanboys often forget about the 'operating costs', at least I do and it is not just money the man hours required to keep the AC meet it's operational requirements do contribute to the overall figure.

I remember Phillip saar asking as to why P-8I when we have the Bear and I asked the same to my father; he said the costs of operating the Tupolev are crazy in fact the IN finds IL-38 with it's SD suite far more suited to it's requirements (for most of it it's poor load bring back capacity are to be blamed for this, iirc it carries over 60 tonnes of ATFK-50). The Bear does not fit into IN's mandate for deep inside it's a intercontinental bomber.

He still teases his friends as to how despite it's size the Bear can outrun the Kirans.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2011 23:19

About the only thing "missing" in the Rafale is its radar size. If they had scaled up that nose for a larger set, then the aircraft would really be set. The EF on the other hand has everything in terms of airframe raw performance but is still not a finished product, lot of works remains to be done to finesse individual systems and A2G modes. The interesting thing is that the Captor radar is probably the only Mechanical scanned radar able to match APG-79 AESA levels. With an AESA, its performance would be even better.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Apr 2011 23:42

rohitvats wrote:BTW, is there any article/stats on Dog-fights/WVR Combat which shows at what altitude such combats have happened? And have been practiced by various AFs of the world - especially, western AF? Is there some optimum band ( in terms of altitude) where a/c can achieve max. performace.

Finally, how will a/c which are supposed to excel in sub-sonic and trans-sonic regimen fare at such altitude? Could the spectre of WVR combat or even BVR envolving hard-maneuvering favor something like Eurofighter with high T/W ratio?

Thanx.

rohit, from my reading of past air wars, most dogfights have taken place at 10,000 m or lower. modern fighters have a very wide band of altitude and velocity where they are effective, and a specific zone where they are most effective. starting from a few 100 m off the ground (remember the maneuvers at airshows which take place within visual range of land-lubbers)
most of these would however be far less maneuverable at higher altitudes. it was the 2nd gen of jet fighters, which were meant to be straight flying interceptors which had very good acceleration at altitude but poor turning performance.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 May 2011 00:20

Karan M wrote:About the only thing "missing" in the Rafale is its radar size. If they had scaled up that nose for a larger set

Boss how diffilcult is it modify the fore section to allow for a Radar antenna of higher aperture ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 May 2011 00:22

for the rafale, it will affect the airflow into engine inlets.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 May 2011 00:24

Argh... looks like even in case of fighter AC the 'curves' are expensive.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 May 2011 01:08

Rafale MkII.

Extend the AC in length, widen it so air flows into the engines, get a more powerful engine .............................. Fit a bigger radar.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 May 2011 01:13

Karan, you are trying to prove how good the EF/Rafale are. I have no problems understanding that. My first sentence was EF/Rafale are the best of the lot in MMRCA and comparable to the Su-30MKI. Better in somethings and worse in others. We have talked about this earlier and I have never contended that the pick of the lot is obviously between EF and Rafale. Also your point about having to train two people per plane being a logistical pressure is quite valid. However, this is something which the IAF chose and prefers even for the next generation.

What I don't understand is IAF's to-be operational structure. Beyond 2020 IAF plans to now maintain approximately 280 Su-30s, 120 EF/Rafales (probably the 3 of the 4 most expensive fourth gen planes to maintain, the 4th being the F-15), 250 FGFAs and then nothing all the way till 140 LCAs! Is this a good economical set up of operation?

AMCAs joining in from 2025-2030 from the look of things be the first planes to bridge the huge gap between the Su-30s/MMRCA/FGFAs and the LCAs

The world over, AFs seem to exhibit a pyramidal structure of much more numerous lower/middle planes are pressed in after the frontline planes have provided some kind of air superiority. For a given amount of money to spend this hierarchical structure makes perfect economic sense to me. While the IAF is completely upside-down. It will by 2030 have 720-850 frontline planes and about 200 odd planes to come in later. I kind of don't understand this.

And your point of EF/Rafale being cheaper to maintain: time will tell. At present, from news coming out from UK/France, and other evaluations from elsewhere, it doesn't seem to be the case. But your point is valid that how do we compare it against the operational cost of the Su-30. It is not competing anywhere, and the guys operating it will never divulge the numbers.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 May 2011 01:47

manum wrote: The laws wont change, but if there is no human involved inside the machines, their application will get more extreme...and it should...

And to build this high-G machines will require us to know exactly where in the structure should be strengthen ad what is the optimized increase. This is design knowhow which the countires have with them now with building the manned planes. India still hasn't got this and is looking for consultancy on this for the LCA. That knowledge will not be shared by anybody!

manum wrote: Requirements will change, why wont they, if we start seeing possibility of no fatigue factor, no g's limitation as per human tolerable value, once we realize the potential why wont they change?

And why propulsion wont change, Jet-engine is not an eternal technology, computers are not from 1900's....Already development is on for solar powered UAV...alright we'll see jet-engines for next 50 years, but in the same period we'll see different technologies replacing the older ones...Things will change...sooner than you think specially in military...

Yes they would, but you can't build a solar powered supersonic fighter which can pull more than 9Gs. This is governed by simple law of conservation of energy. Even if we reach 100% conversion ability, we will at most be able to keep a glider with enormous wings airborne indefinitely.

Anything that you build to travel fast, will have to carry energy in a very compact form, i.e. their specific energy should be very high, and there has to be a quick conversion technique from this latent energy to kinetic energy. We know of only chemical energy, physical energy and nuclear energy. Physical energy always follows that limitation of 1:1 conversion. May be the world starts seeing nuclear engines. But if that doesn't happen, you will continue to see an engine which 'burns' some chemical really fast which would provide a lot of heat and for handling that heat you will see the developments of materials of what you see in a jet engine. Nobody is going to give us that either.

You can see why the bottlenecks and that is exactly where India/China/Brazil/Japan are all labouring. Nobody will give them those critical tech, on which to build from for tomorrow.

However, Karan is right, that HAL would probably get the tooling required to make these fancy fighters, which is a step forward. Please let go of that dream of ToT. Nobody will give it to us till the technology becomes irrelevant, in which case we (who strive for sparkling jewels) would never want it.