India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

[SaiK]

Three nice videos of the rafale :
Rafale M on the CdG for the Libyan campaign

@ 1:20ish the second Rafale landing.. at the end is that the way it would be for all a/cs? why did it wiggle and wobble a little bit when at nearing zero speed?

[VishalJ]

Katrina bathed in Gold slowing-down on 09 ▸

[Viv S]

Viv S:

I think you are confusing a few thing. It is not that Rafale is not capable as an A2A platform. It is just that it was not designed to be primarily an A2A platform as the EF was. The EF still is an incomplete platform when it comes to A2G capabilities.

The Eurofighter is offering a radar that's almost twice as powerful with greater azimuth/elevation values, comparable RCS and sensors (may well be better), and a platform that can out-climb, out-accelerate and out-run the Rafale, so yes ... the Rafale is not as capable as an A2A platform.

The Rafale was an incomplete platform when it comes to A2G capabilities until late 2010, when the integration of the Damocles finally enabled it to self designate targets. By next year the Paveway-IV and Litening-III will be fully qualified on the EF, and you'd have a 'complete' platform, in principle. The other critical requirement - an E-Scan radar is going to be complete within the IAF's time-line as well. When a system is supposed to be operational for the next 30-40 years, there's no sense in rejecting a better contender, because the other one reached the necessary standard slightly earlier.

Another aspect to keep in mind is that strike packages in the future will contain more varied elements. With mobile SAM units becoming common, any serious strike package requires A2A, A2G and SEAD capabilities. While it would be wonderful if a single aircraft could do all. But except for truly stealth aircraft which can ignore the SAMs and even the A2A issues, most other platforms will need to be account for all.

Another very important aspect is ECM and jamming. It would be wonderful to have electronic packages coming from two completely different vendors which completely different design and algorithm philosophies. From a counter-ECM point of view countering two different sets of ECM signatures becomes a lot more complex than countering a single set. In fact I would say that it is wonderful that the IAF has the MKI platform with the strength of Rhamba's legs to do anything they want with it. Unless the strike package is relying very strongly on stealth, the MKI is a wonderful companion to have.

In wartime, fighting will probably take place unprecedented pace. The availability of the MKI, while planning for the future today, has to be taken as a luxury. One can't opt for an type today, and assume that aircraft from a different unit will be on call when a strike is called for, especially when an alternative is available without any of those relative deficiencies.

[shiv]

Three nice videos of the rafale :
Rafale M on the CdG for the Libyan campaign

@ 1:20ish the second Rafale landing.. at the end is that the way it would be for all a/cs? why did it wiggle and wobble a little bit when at nearing zero speed?

Could be crosswind.

[shiv]

Katrina bathed in Gold slowing-down on 09 ▸

Very very pretty. Those coconut palms in the background scream "Tropics!"

[chackojoseph]

So EF and Rafale had AESA during the tests.

[Hiten]

a French report about the Rafale - liked it very much, language notwithstanding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqbG7Qyl5Aw

[andy B]

Glad to see the English Rose still has some loyal fans...Viv S, Austin...oh and me

[arthuro]

Here are some classic reports of rafale superiority over the Typhoon in AtA :


1) rafale vs Typhoon in UAE from Lcl Grandclaudon (squadron commander):

The Typhoon were inferiors.

Concurrently, November 16, the Rafale gave, according to the french pilot, a memorable beating to the RAF Typhoon - the most recent version - which were also deployed in the UAE for the ATLC. To put it bluntly, Lieutenant-Colonel Grandclaudon said the two air battles - battles with IR-guided missile and cannon - which opposed Rafale and Typhoon gave a score of 7 wins for the first and 0 for the second, the only Rafale considered as having been destroyed flew below the allowed flight floor ! Obviously this statement has immediately raised an outcry among British pilots, relayed by the media and the Anglo-Saxon specialized blogosphere, including claims that the Typhoon did not fly as such during the fighting, but simulated "red" attackers, MiG-29 and Su-27 in that case. So, the 1/7 Provence squadron leader made a point to recall that 2 of his Rafale were also"red chest" (MiG-29 index "Charlie") when they shot down 4 "blue" Typhoon - flying as Typhoon - while being reduced to use virtual russians AA-10C missiles to be guided by the Rafale until the impact on their target, which forbade to shoot multiple targets at once . For Fabrice Grandclaudon, the limitations of the "red" plastron role don't prevent a weapons system to show its real capabilities, because the pilots are taking advantage of the real human-machine interfaces and sensors on board, one of the Rafale has benefited from a refresh of its tactical situation by his teammate via Link-16. In other words, even if some of them simluated Su-27, the British pilots virtually shoot down were using the sensors and the avionics of their Typhoon and not those of a Su-27! And the french pilot to recognize, with great sportsmanship, that the Typhoon pilots who had been opposed to the Rafale the week preceding the ATLC were young and relatively inexperienced, as the French already benefits from lessons learned from 3 operational detachments in Afghanistan (one year of presence in all) and 4 of its pilots had participated in Red Flag 2008.

Some advantages that make the difference.

However, he heavily emphasized the performance of the french system in the field of arms data fusion, from his point of view the main reason of the superiority obtained. Instead of each sensor to display its studs (aircraft detected) on a specific screen, forcing the Typhoon pilot to operate an intellectual gymnastics , annoying in combat stress, to check if the plot of its corresponding screen of electronic warfare was or was not the one visible on the radar screen or IRST, the Rafale's systems present to the pilot a single plot on a screen, the system automatically compares the plots provided by the various sensors on board and decides if it is or not the same plane. The french pilots have also appreciated the agility of the antenna of the electronic RBE2 radar - The Typhoon has for now only a mechanical antenna - allowing to refresh the situation in the whole volume monitored. But they insist, for close combat, on the perfect controllability of their Rafale, thanks to the excellence of FBW, to the extreme limits of the flight envelope.. To point the nose toward the target and to design it to the weapons system in the absence of a viewfinder-HMD while operating at very low speed. What are not necessarily capable of the main opponents of the Rafale ...
Well obviously, one should not rejoice in excess. The extremely positive results of these meetings have been obtained in special circumstances. The pilots had been set specific roles by the commander of the COMAO device and were therefore not free to exploit in depth all the potentials of their weapons system. The results have been different perhaps in other circumstances (nevertheless, some time ago, another meeting between Typhoon and Rafale, in Corsica, was also turned into "massacre" at the expense of the first 8 losses to 0 ). But, simply put, the EC 1 / 7 pilots are particularly satisfied with their stay in UAE. Their demonstration has , aptly, made a strong buzz [noise] among the aviators of the region and troubled the Anglo-Saxons until now convinced of the utter superiority of their planes. A disturbance also compounded by the loss - virtual of course - of an F-22 gun shot by an UAE Mirage 2000-9 flown, this time, by a French experimented pilot. Really, when everything goes wrong ... P

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ews/page92

Comments from captain Romain :

Let’s talk now about the results of this exercise. Your squadron commander speaks of " to have put sheets" to the British participants equipped with Eurofighter with a ratio of 7 victories for 1 defeat, with degraded armament on the side of the Rafale. What is called degraded armament and which were the rules of engagement?

During an ATLC engagement, 2 Rafale engaged, using their whole system but simulating a weapon that requires taking more risk than normal, 4 Eurofighter. The 2 Rafale killed the 4 Typhoon which used all their normal capacities, without loss.
The rules of engagement were "beyond visual range".
(For the experts, the Rafale had then simulated the use of a semi-active missile while the missile normally used by the Rafale is an active missile, which allows to take cover more quickly after a shot.)

What are the differences between the two weapon systems, whether in terms of sensors and situation awareness for the pilot?

All have always dreamed of hundreds of Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000 pilots became reality in the Rafale. It is the result of a long common adventure between Dassault and the French Air Force. The Rafale is the culmination of decades of experience in military aviation.
Finally, the Rafale fighter is a very complete aircraft:
The rafale is extremely maneuvering and thus awesome in dogfight. For example, confronted with a Eurofighter, engaged in a within visual range combat with a neck to neck start, we know we need a few dozens of seconds to validate a 'gun kill'.
In BVR air combat (beyond visual range, ie at ranges of several dozens of kilometers), the Rafale system provides synthetic information coming from multiple sensors. This information is therefore more accurate. We can do without 1 or 2 sensors during a whole combat while remaining extremely dangerous for the enemy. This gives us access to new tactics of particular interest.
And with an greater extension than the previous generation aircraft, the Rafale carries twice more air-ground weapons.
The AASM, the new auto-powered GPS French bomb, gives a Rafale the ability to replace several Mirage while being more efficient and taking less risk.
The Eurofighter is a plane built for aerial combat and it fares worse than the Rafale, which is a versatile aircraft (air combat, bombing, reconnaissance).

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ws/page107

Now in Corsica in pure VWR gun dogfight :

Enemy Brothers
Air&Cosmos - June 2010


Since birth, both were scheduled to compete. The wrestling (commercial) which has now engaged the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale on the international scene has its roots in the early 80s, while Europe is seriously considering a joint development of a new multinational European fighter aircraft. France, United Kingdom and Germany are the main actors in a drama that will last many years. These last two countries, which have already collaborated in the Panavia consortium for the development of the Tornado are looking to replace a portion of their tactical fleet. For its part, France is trying, too, to have a fighter that can replace almost all of its combat aircraft. But from the beginning, the situation appears complex, whereas the English call for an air superiority aircraft class 11-12 tonnes, Paris argues for a device of only 9 tons. Moreover, the problems of industrial shares weigh down the prospects of cooperation including France, whose aeronautical companies ardently defend their plans to support the maintenance of their skills. In 1985, France announced it will develop alone its future combat aircraft. For their part, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain will start the Eurofighter program. While France wants to start building a really multirole aircraft, the nations in the Eurofighter consortium finance the development of a superiority aircraft, designed for air to air combat. To date yet, the 'Typhoon has only very limited air-ground capabilities compared with the Rafale.

More thrust for the Typhoon

On paper, the Typhoon has some undeniable advantages: more powerful than M88, its two reactors give it a better weight/thrust than the Rafale. According to the Eurofighter pilots, this additional power would be particularly appreciable during simulated combat below 20,000 ft, where the density of air allows the engines to be fully expressed. In the battle beyond visual range (BVR), the Typhoon also has an greater "extension" than the Rafale. This is because of the the physical characteristics of the radar, which antenna "sees" futher than the RBE2-PESA, but also because of the dynamic performance of the American missile AIM-120 AMRAAM . Designed exclusively for medium-range interception, it certainly does not have the versatility of the Mica, but it is superior in terms of range. Facing a Rafale, these theoretical advantages, however, must be nuanced.
In BVR combat, although the lengthening of the radar and missiles of the Typhoon are superior, the french Rafale fighter's radar signature is, according to many pilots, much less important than the Eurofighter's one. It is therefore an asset. Even better: the sensors fusion which enjoys the Rafale is also a crucial advantage in BVR combat, because it offers the pilots a much better understanding of the tactical situation during combat, and this, 360 degrees around the aircraft.
Once the "merge" is reached (when BVR combat turns into short-range), the Rafale has still strong chances of victory against the Typhoon. In the opinion of French pilots who have confronted the European aircraft, it's above all the quality of the electric flight controls [FBW] of the French fighter who makes the difference. In dogfight, Rafale can quickly point its nose to the threat, while less degrading its energy than the Eurofighter does. And this partly because the maximum angle of attack of the Rafale is "clamped" around 300, which allows it to evolve in a controlled manner even at low speed.
This difference in terms of maneuverability is also illustrated by the position of the canard on the two planes: placed well in front of the fuselage on the Typhoon, they play the role of an additional control surface used to "steer" more quickly the nose of the plane to take the incidence.
Conversely, the Rafale ducks are located very near the delta wing and are used primarily to pick up the airflow to slow up the loss of lift on the wing, thus giving the pilot a full control of the aircraft at low speeds.

A first indisputable skirmish

The Armée de l' Air has been able to experience this superiority in dogfight in September 2009, during an exercise organized by the French and British headquarters, during a deployment on the Solenzara airbase in Corsica .
Few days , the EC-1/7 stands next with the Royal Air Force transformation squadron on typhoons. The English have thought of everything, and introduce to the French pilots the simulated engagement patterns they wish to practice facing the Rafale. The French pilots push back a smile: the conditions of the exercice are, on paper, custom-made for the Typhoons , they plan within visual range fights , 1 vs 1, under 20,000 ft and at 350 knots. Whatever. The 'Provence' squadron takes up the gauntlet ... The 2 planes take off, then meet up at 18 000 ft to start the exercise. The aircraft are flying on the same trajectory with about 2 km of lateral separation. "Turn Away" with this announcement, the pilots turn 45 ° outward, to move away from each other. A few seconds later, the "turn in" and the planes turn toward each other to meet face-to-face in the sky. Once both aircraft is within visual range , its the ultimate ad: "Fight's on!". The first skirmish is indisputable. It need less than 40 seconds and only 3 crossing for the Rafale pilot to have its gun in firing position. However, the pilots flying the two planes are far from beginners. While the English is considered a Typhoon specialist in air-to-air, the "Provence" pilot has also a solid experience in within visual range combat.

Nine wins, one defeat

This initial result is not a fluke: the two next passes end also to the advantage of the Rafale. In total, 4 different engagements will take place in Corsica, for a total of 9 wins against 1 defeat for the french fighter. A nice demonstration of force that inspires the pilots the following moral: without mastery, power is nothing ... It is however an area where the Typhoon is victorious: the one of exports. While the Rafale is still looking for a first client, the Typhoon has already been sold to Saudi Arabia and Austria, and remains opposed to the Rafale in Switzerland and India.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ws/page101

[Viv S]

^^^

You know you could have posted a just the link or a short excerpt, like me ...


Since induction, the Indian Navy had flown the Sea Harrier against all of the IAF's aircraft and achieved good results, especially against the Mirage-2000. INAS 300 had two opportunities to test their capabilities against the French Flotille 12F operating the vaunted Rafale-M during the "Varuna" exercises in 2002 and 2004. Most of the missions would involve the Sea Harrier playing as the attacker against a fleet of ships defended by Rafales operating from the Charles-de-gaulle. The initial outcome of these missions was somewhat predictable - the Rafales would easily pick up the Sea Harriers almost as soon as they took off from the Viraat, and call for a BVR-kill, ending the mission ! When these BVR calls became rather frustrating, missions were switched to WVR-combat which surprisingly proved to be the Rafale's undoing! Close-in, the Harriers were mostly not even visually picked up by the French pilots who hadn't noticed them until it was too late, also being unable to outturn their opponents for the most part. However, it was concluded that this was due to the precedence assigned to BVR by the French and their comparative lack of training for WVR engagements and not much due to the Sea Harrier itself. Pilots of INAS-300 concluded that had they piloted Rafales instead, they would be easily able to make mincemeat out of the Harrier under any condition.

http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/viraat_2.htm


In WVR, the Rafale-Ms were given a bloody nose by the geriatric Sea Harrier. Didn't hear that one in the French press somehow. The Su-30MKI also reportedly got butchered at Red Flag, or so it seemed until the real facts emerged.

Bottomline, until you know the real conditions of the exercise and the limitations on each aircraft (the MKI flew while handicapping itself by operating its radar in training mode only), its always smarter to stick by the statistics until you've heard both sides of the coin.

For example, the Rafales felt they were underdogs because they had to simulate a Russian missile (referred to as 'degraded equipment') instead of the TFTA MICA against the EFs. Well a brief google search tells me the AA-10C has a max. range of 130kms, instead of the 60kms that MICA would give in the real world. Unless the exercise was also simulating a lower kill probability for the Alamo. Now win-loss aside, the point is they didn't mention that little nugget of wisdom in that otherwise enlightening article. Which leads to reach for the salt shaker before I carry on examining the remaining claims.

Here's what we do know - in a loaded A2A configuration, the Captor-M will always outperform the RBE-2 PESA (both the Singaporeans and UAE are on record with their concerns about an underpowered RBE-2), and the Aim-120C5 will always out-range the MICA.

Also, from all available information, it appears the EF scored higher than the Rafale in flight trials by a decidedly impartial authority - the IAF's technical evaluation committee.

[arthuro]

First of all most credible sources place the rafale ahead the typhoon in the MMRCA competition :

“Rafale figures a notch higher than Typhoon in terms of performance and involves easier adaptability as it is logistically and operationally similar to Mirage-2000, used extensively by our boys during the Kargil conflict in 1999. The French government has also cleared the technology transfer, including the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar,” sources in the IAF told Deccan Chronicle.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... -merit-126

Even before the results were known all sources indicated that the rafale bested the typhoon in tech eval :

"M-MRCA Selection To Showcase Independence & Professionalism": Indian MOD
Livefist , April 2

"If you think extraneous factors are going to guide our decision, then you may be surprised by the result." The words of a senior MoD officer who spoke to select journalists recently about the Indian medium multirole combat aircraft (M-MRCA) competition. As the decade-stretched competition plods toward a decision, tentatively scheduled in the next few months, the near unanimous sense -- from rumours, reports, leaks, hearsay, background briefings -- is that the big European twins, the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon -- are the IAF's two most preferred aircraft, and in that order [It was news station Times NOW's senior editor Srinjoy Chowdhry who first suggested this in a report last year].

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/04/m- ... wcase.html

It is also worth to note that the rafale have always beat the typhoon when they were confronted in export competitions technical evaluation (Korea, singapore, dutch evaluation,switzerland, brazil, mmrca).

As far as rafale vs Typhoon exercises are concerned the rafale proved superior to he Typhoon both in BVR and WVR by a significant margin. And that is not only due to the pilots as stated in your article but rather the rafale itself as explained in details by rafale pilots (better sensor integration, sensor fusion, more comprehensive sensor suite...)

[Viv S]

First of all most credible sources place the rafale ahead the typhoon in the MMRCA competition :

They don't. The Deccan Chronicle is the only one that's made that claim. And its article also puts the number of technical benchmarks at 630 (they were 643), and quotes an unspecified IAF 'source' who's worked up about (the limited in actuality) commonality between the Mirage and Rafale.

The Eurofighter, followed closely by Rafale, "came closest" to meeting the 643 technical attributes specified by India during the long-drawn field trials held by IAF test pilots both in India and abroad under different weather conditions. "The other four fell below the base line of minimum air staff qualitative requirements to be met," said the official. It is, of course, no secret that India remains unhappy with US for supplying more F-16s to Pakistan on the pretext of the war against terror. Neither is the defence ministry, led by Antony, convinced about the "utility and benefits" of the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA), the foundational military agreements being pushed by US.

Times of India

The multi-role combat aircraft, manufactured by a joint venture between Britain's BAE Systems, Italy's Alenia Aeronautica and the German-Spanish giant EADS, has come top in the Indian Air Force's technical assessment of rival bids, beating the American F16 and F18s, the Russian MiG 35 and its closest rival, the French Dassault Rafale.
A senior Indian official has told The Sunday Telegraph that its air force's technical findings have been forwarded to the defence ministry, where a final decision is expected to be made in the next few months.
"There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead," the official said.

The Telegraph


Shiv Aroor (Livefist) on the other hand hasn't come out with his merit list technical evaluation. Just hinted at it in -

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/co ... nking.html
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/mm ... -poll.html

Nothing said explicitly, but clear hint at the Eurofighter leading the race.

It is also worth to note that the rafale have always beat the typhoon when they were confronted in export competitions technical evaluation (Korea, singapore, dutch evaluation, brazil, mmrca).

Where the Typhoon lost because it had a non-existent air-to-ground capability at the time, while it will be just as capable as the Rafale at strike by 2014-15, once the AESA in operationalised.

From the Singaporean competition-

Although the passive electronically scanned array (PESA) RBE2 radar offers many advantages, its range was inadequate, and to remedy this France is reviewing its 2004 order for 59 Rafales, and is likely to reduce this to 51 aircraft "for the same overall cost", with the sacrifice of eight to 12 aircraft paying for radar development work.

For Eurofighter’s Typhoon, the problem was different. It has been widely acknowledged that the aircraft performed well in Singapore’s evaluations, with performance, agility and radar performance coming in for particular praise. The Typhoon also demonstrated impeccable serviceability during the evaluation, and was able to demonstrate everything that the Republic of Singapore Air Force wanted to see, including supercruise, when its competitors could not.

The aircraft was able to climb to operating altitude without making a tortuous series of turns to avoid Malaysian airspace, on one occasion blasting off from Paya Lebar and flying to 26,000ft (7,930m) before reaching the airfield boundary.

Typhoon’s problem was that BAE Systems put in what insiders called "a shambolic performance" during the early part of the bidding process, and that the Singaporeans were concerned about delivery timescales and the inability of the Eurofighter consortium to define the Tranche 2 capability package, putting Singapore’s required air-to-ground capabilities in doubt.

Integration of an initial air-to-ground capability is now making rapid progress, however, and like Dassault, Eurofighter has flown captive Meteor test rounds under Typhoon.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... efeat.html

As far as rafale vs Typhoon exercises are concerned the rafale proved superior to he Typhoon both in BVR and WVR by a significant margin. And that is not only due to the pilots as stated in your article but rather the rafale itself as explained in details by rafale pilots (better sensor integration, sensor fusion, more comprehensive sensor suite...)

Sensor fusion with its comprehensiveness and all sounds cool. But, the basics come first - in this case, the core performance of the aircraft - in particular the radar. Having a good man-machine interface and top end sensor fusion, will allow the pilot to exploit information optimally. Getting that information before the enemy still remains the priority. Sensor integration/fusion itself is something that software upgrades can progressively deal with.

[arthuro]

I know there are other sources but he one I quote are more credible than yours in my opinion.

As for singapore (from the international Herald tribune):

Moussez said that in dogfight exercises, the Rafale had outflown F-15, F-16 and F-18 opponents, and in technical and performance evaluations "we have systematically won against the F-15 and the Eurofighter Typhoon."
Yet it lost to the F-15 in competitions to sell to South Korea and Singapore. Moussez said it was outflanked in the former case on political grounds and in the latter case on costs, noting that the dollar had depreciated 30 percent over the period of the Singapore competition.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=96119

To date the Typhoon was proved inferior to the rafale even in AtA. As for AtG it is a no brainer. Even fully developed, which is wishful thinking considering the number of upgrades to be funded to become competitive the typhoon will not come close to the rafale in terms of punch and range.

Simply put the rafale is a more performant and developed fighter and it is available now at lower costs. The typhoon needs an AESA, CFTs and AtG weapons integration to compete with the rafale. The issue is that those upgrades are unfunded and India will have to pay the price for them while those upgrades were already funded by the french state. In the mean time the rafale is preparing for a new roadmap according to A&C (to be revealed at the end of the year). So while the typhoon is struggling to catch up and remain attractive against the rafale, the rafale is already heading to the next step.
CFT, AESA, AtG weapons integration...We are talking about it for years but I fail to see the momentum to try to compete with the rafale.

[Viv S]

I know there are other sources but he one I quote are more credible than yours in my opinion.

As for singapore (from the international Herald tribune):

Moussez said that in dogfight exercises, the Rafale had outflown F-15, F-16 and F-18 opponents, and in technical and performance evaluations "we have systematically won against the F-15 and the Eurofighter Typhoon."
Yet it lost to the F-15 in competitions to sell to South Korea and Singapore. Moussez said it was outflanked in the former case on political grounds and in the latter case on costs, noting that the dollar had depreciated 30 percent over the period of the Singapore competition.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=96119

Errr... brother, that's not a credible news source confirming that result, its a credible news source quoting a French colonel saying the Rafale whooped everybody else. See the distinction. He also said "the principal criterion is political. It has little to do with aircraft performance," thereby rejecting the entire trial phase. No offence intended, but if the Rafale loses to EF in this competition, we may end up hearing the same thing about the Indian evaluation process.

To date the Typhoon was proved inferior to the rafale even in AtA. As for AtG it is a no brainer. Even fully developed, which is wishful thinking considering the number of upgrades to be funded to become competitive the typhoon will not come close to the rafale in terms of punch and range.

Number of upgrades to be funded to become competitive = 2.

1. Conformal fuel tanks
2. Captor-E

Both of which are in development (though info on the CFTs is scarce) and will be available to the IAF in time. The RAF is set to integrate an AESA by 2013 onto the EF. And from the report by Ajai Shukla, it appears an AESA was test-flown for the IAF evaluation team, which led to it being short-listed while the Gripen was rejected. Point being, that the IAF is convinced that EF can deliver an AESA on time.

Simply put the rafale is a more performant and developed fighter and it is available now at lower costs. The typhoon needs an AESA, CFTs and AtG weapons integration to compete with the rafale. The issue is that those upgrades are unfunded and India will have to pay the price for them while those upgrades were already funded by the french state. In the mean time the rafale is preparing for a new roadmap according to A&C (to be revealed at the end of the year). So while the typhoon is struggling to catch up and remain attractive against the rafale, the rafale is already heading to the next step.
CFT, AESA, AtG weapons integration...We are talking about it for years but I fail to see the momentum to try to compete with the rafale.

Care to elaborate about the lags in air-to-ground weapon integration? The Paveway-IV + Litening-III, analogous to the AASM + Damocles set on the Rafale, the bread and butter of air to ground missions, is set for qualification within an year. The Storm Shadow/Taurus is so far on the shelf with no real commitment from the IAF towards an order. In any case, the aircraft have been wired for both and qualification is pending flight trials. The IAF will be able to employ them should it ever decide to place an order for either. The only type of munition that the EF is NOT likely to see is an AShM whereas the Rafale has the Exocet integrated (though only on the Marine variant unless I'm mistaken). If Indian money will be expended anywhere, it will be on the integration on Indian weaponry - Nirbhay ALCM, Sudarshan PGMs and possibly the HELINA.

The Rafale offer to the IAF did not include the 'next step' whether it be GaN or newer engines, and will be judged on its performance delivered to the IAF in 3 years time, not theoretically available a decade or more down the line.

[Karan M]

^^ Yet to see any Eurofighter flight evals around its low flying capabilities, with and without using TFR (ie covert/discreet versus RF) or even any reports around what is definitively being offered to the IAF. Without CFT, the EF is behind the Rafale, little doubt about that at least in the A2G mission. IIRC, the Rafale can carry two Scalps and some 2-3 droptanks plus a couple of Micas in the A2G mission. But the EF cannot thanks to the landing gears getting in the way. Similar payload configs suggest the Rafale has a greater ROA in the strike mission.

The IAF specific fit on the EF also seems to be a mish mash. Supposedly India will get Tranche 3 with P1E capabilities plus AESA but no mention of CFTs. On a couple of forums, there are guys noting CFTs are not part of the Indian fit, but can be incorporated ie, India pays for them. Personally, I prefer the EF, but like Rakall noted, the Rafale appears to be a better complement for the Su-30 MKI & FGFA. While the radar range is an issue, at 10% less than that of a F-16 Block 60, it still comes to around the 180- 200 km mark for a 5 sq mtr target, which is a fairly respectable performance & should be able to support the Meteor. Latest reports on Chinese homebrewn Flankers suggest they have managed to get to this performance level in the frontal arena (i.e. 5 Sq Mtr for a clean airframe). AESA should be able to handle their jamming in a much more effective fashion & Spectra + RBE 2 AA should allow for a long range Meteor shot.

Also, the EF offered to India incorporates the standard AESA - if so, the swashplate AESA is mentioned in a PDF linked earlier in this thread as a future development, which means scan angles on both fighters are similar. Range on the EF AESA should be quite superior though, with range increase of even 50% over the current Captor-M itself translating to a hefty performance. The Captor M is the best MSA (non ESA) FCR developed so far with performance beyond the RDY-2 and Zhuk-ME.

Rafale pilots mention they can detect a Typhoon at twice the range of a Rafale. It has not been mentioned whether its on a loaded or lightly loaded config, but eitherway seems to support the assertion the latter has a smaller RCS. It most certainly is a more compact airframe though, with the cockpit being as tightly designed around the pilot as the LCA's!

The Rafale does not have a towed decoy. They claim it compromises the Rafales signature. The DASS does have a towed option though only the UK (?) seems to have exercised it. The Rafale has a FLIR, LRF and CCD. The FLIR to come back by 2012. The Pirate is an IRST but with Imaging capability, offsetting to some extent the lack of CCD. No LRF though. Kinematic ranging instead but would require complicated flight profiles/datalink data sharing to work presumably, while more passive than the tried and tested LRF method.

Both lack true SEAD capability. The French have quasi-SEAD in the form of AASM. 50 km is good enough against PAF Aspides but not against Chinese S-3xx and Hq-xx missiles.
Typhoon has Brimstone, good for shorter precision strikes. But Rafale may integrate Brimstone as well. Aviation Week says France is contemplating adding it via a UOR request (Urgent Operational Requirement)

Both will/do field Paveway variants, India will anyways integrate Litening 3 on both for designation. India will also adopt Griffin LGB and Sudarshan variants for carriage as these are the other LGB types in service/contemplated.

On political factors, dealing with the French (price apart) is more predictable than dealing with 4-5 European nations, all with their own green, HR, vatican/NGO/conversion and what not lobbies. The French can also be a nuisance (e.g. Sarkozy around Orissa riots time) but they haven't ever imposed sanctions on India and are a fairly known quantity.

On the offsets and TOT side EADS may be able to offer far more in terms of offsets than Dassault (EADS is huge), but negotiating workshare for the EF assembly itself is going to be tricky.

Both EADS and Dassault/Safran have things going on with Indian aerospace. EADS with flight consultancy for the LCA, C3I consultancy for the AEW&C, work on EW suite with DARE. Safran with the Kaveri engine tieup.

Hard choices all around.

[arthuro]

1) A french air force officer who speaks with his credibility at stake in the international Herald Tribune his incomparably more credible than an unnamed source. This unnamed source is in reality John Lake, a british lobbyist for the Typhoon. Bottom-line is that the typhoon didn't make the short cut as it didn't fulfill the technical criteria while the rafale did. And the rafale also scored better in Korea, Netherlands, Brazil and according to various reports in switzerland.

2) Nor the AESA nor the CFT are funded. The typhoon AESA was pre-funded by industry but that was just hoping for state members to make a follow on for the development. That did not happen which means that the industry will have to fund it and that the Indians will pay the high price for it while rafale AESA is already developed and fully funded by french state.
As for the CFT, they is absolutely no funding. Zero.
So to sum up all the typhoon upgrades necessary to hope to compete with the rafale are uncertain while in the rafale camp... Everything is ready for delivery...And with an new technological road map looming large...

3) You compared Typhoon AtG capabilities with rafale which is grotesque. The AASM is nothing comparable to Paweway IV not even operational on Typhoon and already integrated with the rafale. With AASM you can engage 6 targets at more than 6O km in one pass and even 90° off bore sight. So when attacking different targets the Typhoon will have to get very close and reposition after each shot while the rafale can stay at safe distance and destroy all targets in one pass. That is a massive difference. Note that the rafale already has the Paveway IV and GBU12 also...which are less capable but cheaper.

Then the rafale has a full range of weapons and additional sensors that the Typhoon is lacking...And even if we assume that hypothetically it will eventually get those capabilities by 2020 or more (and the indians will have to pay for it) The typhoon needs to trade weapons for fuel or reverse unlike the rafale.

-In a deep strike config with two cruise missiles he rafale will carry 6000L of external fuel against 1000L for the bigger heavier typhoon. That 6 time more !!!
-In a CAS config with 6 Paveway IV (or AASM for the rafale) will also carry 6000L external vs 0 (!!!) for the typhoon. That is again a massive difference.

That is why on top of the fact that rafale has much more AtG weapons already integrated, it is "by design" massively superior to the typhoon in AtG as a platform. When you realize that it dominated the Typhoon both in BVR and WVR you understand that it will need some massive investments to become competitive. Knowing that there is no funding secure (unless indians pay or it) to achieve something operational there are reason to be pessimistic.

The rafale has a comprehensive new set of sensors (RBE2 AA, OSF-IT, DDM-NG) and improved enginesready for delivery and coming as standard for export unlike the typhoon where it is unclear what is in the offer or not and who is going to pay for it.... You can add a 360° AESA jamming for the rafale suite and you will understand that without a significant decisions to go ahead with typhoon improvements the it will remain a full generation behind.

to Karan M, brimstones are not integrated on the typhoon with no sign going forward while french MoD expressed interest with integrating brimstones on the rafale. Also there is no proofs to say that the current captor M is the best MSA, the RDY-2 is of the same generation and should not be discounted.

[Karan M]

Arthuro,

I try to remain as objective as possible, with respect to both aircraft. So while I gladly accept the correction that Brimstone is not yet on the Typhoon, I must point out it was mentioned as a planned upgrade for T3B- which of course is not confirmed/or has been cancelled for the time being.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/vie ... f=1&t=1610

Same way, the Rafale does not have Brimstone yet either, reports have mentioned that it may come about.

Second, in this, I am afraid you are very mistaken:

Also there is no proofs to say that the current captor M is the best MSA, the RDY-2 is of the same generation and should not be discounted.

As matter of fact, there is ample evidence. The RDY's range is oft quoted as 130 km, the RDY2 was 10-15% better, ie 150 Km. Since its being negotiated for an IAF upgrade, i am not going to dig out too many details.

In contrast, the Captor-M can track fighter sized targets (again, most mention the 5 Sq Mtr benchmark) at ranges above 185 km.
http://translate.google.co.in/translate ... captor.htm
http://www.airpower.at/news07/0512_4stormo/index.html
Backed up by this interview of an Italian AF pilot wherein he notes:

This also includes a sensor which assess performance, the Italian pilot clearly very positive. And Nuzzo - Gunnery Instructor at the Tornado ADV - compares: "Just the radar range was compared to the Tornado ADV more than doubled.

It speaks volumes that the Captor M is a more powerful radar than the RDY-2.

The RDY can track 8 targets in TWS mode. The Captor-M, 20. Both offer similar multitarget capability. But the Captor-M comes across as a more modern, updated design, while Thales moved onto the RBE-2 & then the RBE-2 AESA. In contrast, the latest Captor-D is supposedly an update to allow a transition to AESA.

Overall, I do think the Captor-M is a more powerful radar and the best MSA FCR produced till date.

[arthuro]

Karan M,

Many things are proposed as upgrades for the Typhoon. But none of them are fully funded and none of them have a clear roadmap to reach an operational status, so it is more about "hypothetical" possibilities than something certain. So the AESA, CFT, TVC, AtG weapon integration discussion is fine but that's nothing really concrete. On the other hand the rafale offer a new generation sensor suite and it is funded, developed, tested and approved by french MoD after operational tests. That is a big difference. For the same price you will invest to make the typhoon competitive you already could get the rafale to the next level.

As for the Captor all these performance statements are not verified and no concrete datas are available. It is a speculation exercise, that's all. When I said that I disagree there was no disrespect in my statement. Also one point, you mix the number of target to be tracked versus the taget tracked in "locked" mod. The captor can't lock 20 targets at the same time. As far as I remember it is 6 the correct number. I remember that the rafale could track two more targets than the captor M which is normal as it has an ESA.

[arthuro]

AASM :

The Libyan campaign has emphasized unique advantages of the French AASM-250 autonomous guided weapons. Previously criticized in the media as an excessively expensive weapon, AASM proved its worth offering operational flexibility, in providing small fighting formations the effects achied by much larger strike forces. The weapon was developed to meet a wide range of offensive air missions, including Counter Air Defense/(Suppression of Enemy Air Defense – SEAD), Air Interdiction and Deep Strikes, and anti-ship missions, as well as Close Air Support (CAS) including precision attacks in urban environments.

Relying on the AASM extended stand-off range, the French Rafales were tasked to suppress and destroy Libyan SA-3 air defense sites during the initial phases of the conflict. During these strikes, Rafales utilized on-board sensor fusion, to integrate data obtained from on-board sensors and external sources, delivered over Link-16. This capability enabled pilots to generate strike coordinates based on real-time data, and feed it to the weapon in flight. The French fighters succeeded to hit the active sites with AASM, launching the weapons from long distance, outside the SA-3 launch envelope. Since each individual weapon is programmed with specific target coordinates, multiple weapons can be employed from the attacking aircraft, against different targets. Each weapon can be reprogrammed before launch, enabling it to engage several targets simultaneously.

A significant advantage of the AASM is the ability to retarget the weapon from the cockpit, just before launch. A Rafale carrying six weapons, each loaded with six different targets prior to takeoff. The pilot can select different targets for each weapon, or decide to engage the same target twice, in case the targets is not destroyed by the first strike. Such re-attack option increases mission success, by avoiding the high risk and costs involved with repeat missions, following battle damage assessment. Overall, Sagem claims a mission success rate of over 90%, compared to 70%, achieved by unpowered (gliding) laser guided or geo-targeted weapons. The later are have inherent limitations in mission planning, restricted by gliding envelope and laser designation ‘basket’ effecting flight envelope, trajectory, impact angle and penetration.

When employed against air defense assets, the combination of the weapon’s stand-off range and re-attack capability means an air defense site would be taken out of operation for longer periods, delivering higher success rate in SEAD operations and precision attacks of high value targets. Another important capability, particularly in today’s hybrid warfare, is the weapon’s flexibility in striking ‘time critical targets’. During the recent attacks in Libya, a Rafale pilot clearly demonstrated such method, when spotting a Libyan Soko G2 Galeb aircraft flying near Misrata. As the Libyan plane landed at the base, the Rafale pilot acquired its coordinates as a ‘target of opportunity’, fed the data to the weapon and launched the GPS/INS guided AASM against the target. As the weapon dropped, it homed in on the exact spot and destroyed the Libyan aircraft on the tarmac.

Operational with the French Air Force, and French Naval Aviation, AASM is produced made by Safran subsidiary Sagem DS. The weapon was first deployed in Afghanistan with the French Rafale in 2008. The baseline AASM kit comprises of the INS/GPS guidance system, designed for standard 250 kg (500 pounds) bombs. The AASM family will eventually include 125, 500 and 1,000 kg (250, 1000, and 2000 pounds) versions. Since the French forces have received only the initial deliveries of 3,500 weapons ordered, chances are that the used inventory could be replenished by extending current production runs. It is assumed that new weapons could be delivered at considerably lower costs than the original ones, as the manufacturer has stepped up the learning curve. Nevertheless, the cost of a basic AASM is still expected to remain around $300,000 a piece (€200,000).

The weapon uses a booster/sustainer rocket engine accelerating it to the designated cruising speed and altitude, from where it is designed to continue through an autonomous operation, in day or night and in all weather conditions. It can be released at low altitude, and can also be fired up to 180 degrees off-axis in relation to the aircraft’s flight path, (‘backwards’) attacking targets from any direction, from standoff distance exceeding 50 km.

AASM-250 weapons are currently fitted with inertial/GPS guidance. The addition of semi-active laser seeker, and algorithms to track fixed or mobile targets during the terminal phase, will enhance the operational flexibility of the AASM family. Two versions are currently available and undergoing qualification for firing by the Rafale multirole fighter – the inertial/GPS and soon to be fielded inertial/GPS/infrared. These optional terminal guidance kits are designed as ‘add-on’.

Currently under development, will increase attack precision and enable engagement of fast moving targets. The infra-red seeker enables the weapon to hit small targets with distinctive signature, overcoming target location errors y undertaking a terminal correction just before impact. The semi-active laser seeker, along with associated moving target algorithms enable engagement of any surface target (stationary or moving) illuminated by a target designator, even targets travelling at high speed. The laser terminal guidance version of the AASM is expected to enter volume production for the French air force and navy starting at the end of 2012.

The AASM-125 was successfully tested in February 2009 on a Mirage 2000. The AASM-1000 is under development, as are new features such as airburst and data link. The AASM has also been selected to equip the Moroccan Mirage F-1s and are considered a likely choice for Air Forces considering the French Rafale (India, Brazil). Sagem is also addressing other platforms as well, including opportunities to arm Mirage 2000s in foreign service.

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110506_aasm.html

for the record :

The French defense procurement agency (DGA) has performed a successful test firing of the AASM modular air-to-ground weapon, fitted with terminal laser homing capability, enabling the guided weapon to engage fast-moving surface targets. This firing test demonstrates the AASM Laser’s ability to offer 1-meter accuracy against high-speed, agile land or maritime targets.

The test was carried out at the DGA’s missile test range in Biscarosse by a production Rafale fighter deployed by the DGA’s flight-test center in Cazaux. The moving target was represented by a laser spot generated by a ground illuminator, simulating a vehicle moving at a speed of 80 km/h. The AASM was fired from an extreme off-axis angle (90°) at a range exceeding 15 kilometers. Using its algorithms for detection and slaving of the trajectory to the laser spot, the weapon maneuvered itself to hit the designated target, impact was at a very low angle, within less than one meter of the designated spot.

The first test of a laser equipped AASM was conducted in July 2010, dropping a 250kg weapon at a stationary target from a range of 25km. The laser terminal guidance version of the AASM is expected to enter volume production for the French air force and navy starting at the end of 2012.

Sagem is on contract to develop and qualify the add-on laser guidance for AASM, under a delivery contract for 680 guidance kits, part of a framework contract awarded by DGA in 2009, covering 3,400 AASM units for the French Air Force and Navy.

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110506_laser_aasm.html

[Karan M]

Arthuro,

As for the Captor all these performance statements are not verified and no concrete datas are available. It is a speculation exercise, that's all.

On the contrary, there's ample evidence to suggest that the Captor-M is far more powerful than the RDY2. I deliberately left out links with more details on the RDY2 as I have no wish to dig up details on systems which may both be inducted into the IAF, but the data speaks for itself. I would rate the CaptorM as probably the best air to air MSA to go into series production, even above the AWG-9, which is by now, functionally obsolete. The RDY2 while a good radar is comparable to the Zhuk-ME and Elta EL/M-2032. Both are multifunction radars but not as expressly designed for air superiority as the Captor-M was clearly focused on. As matter of fact, the Captor M is deemed sufficient for A2A requirements, only the export market is driving the development of an AESA. Compare & contrast to the RBE-2 which needs AESA not just for export but to properly support the Meteor.

When I said that I disagree there was no disrespect in my statement.

And care to point out where I said you were disrespectful? All I said was I am being objective, as I recognise both aircraft have a way to go, ie pluses and minuses. Eg you speak of OSF-IT, but tell me where is the thermal channel for OSF-IT? AFAIK, its yet to be developed. Similarly, the DDM NG on the Spectra is a launch warning system, but the aircraft as of yet does not have a full MAWS.

http://rafale.freeforums.org/post951.html

Similarly, I have asked for evidence as to the A2G capabilities of the Typhoon. Is it able to handle the same handling & payload configurations a Rafale can, when in strike mode. Flightglobal carried an excellent article on the Rafales well integrated weapons system, showing its mature and can already handle strike missions well.

Also one point, you mix the number of target to be tracked versus the taget tracked in "locked" mod. The captor can't lock 20 targets at the same time. As far as I remember it is 6 the correct number.

Where did I mix the number? You seem to be a bit confused.

The Captor M can TWS at least 20 targets, the RDY2, 8. Those are facts, at least as per published literature. The Captor reference was given previously. Out of its TWS targets, the Captor M can attack 4-6 (the actual numbers are unknown), the RDY2 can engage 4.

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

So care to tell me where I said the Captor can "lock 20 targets at the same time", I said it can TWS 20 targets. Ie track while scan for situational awareness.

Anyways, locking onto 20 targets is all fine and well, but for a mechanical radar, it will be hard pressed to actually guide more than 2 missiles to widely spaced portions of its envelope. If you actually see the more candid public brochures, they specify the multi target engagement for a limited scan volume (azimuth and elevation). The Captor-M claims superiority in this respect versus other MSAs, by having specially developed high speed motors for high speed scanning to overcome its limitations as a MSA to some extent. Don't know whether it actually manages to pull it off though. The RBE-2 may actually have an advantage here today, in that it is an ESA and can fire at targets within its electronic scanning limits as its beam repositions almost instantly. But when both have AESA, this advantage will disappear.

Also, the Captor-E is now stated to come with swashplate AESA, allowing for a wide field of view. It will have a significant advantage over the Rafale if so.

I remember that the rafale could track two more targets than the captor M which is normal as it has an ESA.

There is a huge debate over how many targets the RBE2 PESA can actually track. Per Dassault literature, it has a special situational awareness mode in which it "follows" 40 targets, out of which it tracks 8 for missile firing, and out of which it can engage 4, since the Rafale can support only 4 Mica MCG datalinks. Other literature notes the 40 as "tracking". So its up for debate. At any rate, the actual number of targets displayed on screen may be less with only the nearest or most threatening shown, to avoid cluttering the display & confusing the pilot (after sensor fusion of course). So this point is academic at best.

[Karan M]

I had asked earlier for details on what exactly is on the Typhoon & Rafale, systems etc. These two forums with posts, are the best ones i have found so far on the respective aircraft.

Eurofighter Typhoon by Scorpion82.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/vie ... f=1&t=1610

Dassault Rafale by TMor
Sensors
http://rafale.freeforums.org/post951.html
Loadouts and weapons
http://rafale.freeforums.org/dossier-ra ... s-t56.html
DOSSIER RAFALE : Airframe, fly-by-wire, CAG
http://rafale.freeforums.org/dossier-ra ... g-t31.html
Engines
http://rafale.freeforums.org/dossier-ra ... s-t33.html
All topics
http://rafale.freeforums.org/technical- ... n-f15.html

[Karan M]

AASM :

Have to admit, this is significant capability in terms of attacking time critical, high value targets, eg mobile missile launchers, Rafales with AASMs on loiter could be a game changer.

How many AASM can a single Rafale carry??

[BENNY]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNMuybyT ... r_embedded

[arthuro]

I checked for the RDY-2 (on your link) and it seems it is 24 detected, 8 tracked and four engaged. Could you provide a link for the captor M ? I must admit I am not a specialist on those particular radars but in the same time I know that those figures can vary greatly depending on site (I talk about range in this case). The best would be a link from manufacturer, at least for the number of tracked aircrafts. Also perhaps we don't understand each other as I don't necessary know some acronyms in english like TWS as it is not my mother language.

To answer you on AASM a rafale can carry 6 on two triple hard points as on pictures below.
(second one en route to Lybia)

http://www.safran-group.com/IMG/png/famille_aasm-2.png
http://infos.fncv.com/public/2011/libye ... ements.jpg

[arthuro]

rafale with CFT (2*1300L), 6000L external fuel and heavy AtG weapons :









Typhoon view from mirage 2000 HUD (first picture) and Rafale HUD (others) :

[VishalJ]

Katrina bathed in Gold slowing-down on 09 ▸

Very very pretty. Those coconut palms in the background scream "Tropics!"

Thanks Shiv, Yes they do.
More of those on the way featuring YooroPhyterr

Here's my latest upload, M88s Lit-up Katrina and all her sexy curves going Vertical - http://www.airliners.net/photo/1920174/L/

[Juggi G]

Indian State TV Discussion On M-MRCA Contest

[youtube]wNMuybyTtJ4&feature=youtu.be&hd=1[/youtube]

A panel discussion on the IAF's M-MRCA fighter contest on Defence Watch, a weekly segment on Indian state-run television news broadcaster Doordarshan News (DD News). Interestingly, the anchor of the segment, popular defence commentator Maj Gen (Retd.) Ashok Mehta, suggested in an opinion piece last week that the Dassault Rafale had been covertly decided as the winner of the M-MRCA competition, and that a certain "high level back channel Italian connection" had swung it.

Courtesy Shiv Aroor

[SaiK]

^^masters in making a thread out of thin air! I thought we are to keep the 4 a/cs out of this discussion here.

[Manish_Sharma]

Arthuro as I had posted this link in previous thread also, it gives miraculous payload capability of Rafale compared to others:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... page1.aspx

Rafale has excellent payload for its small size. Officially Rafale C can carry a incredible 20900 pounds of payload despite the fact that it is slightly smaller than Typhoon which can carry only 16500 pounds.

The payload of Rafale C is also officially MORE than F-18EF ( F-18EF is 42% larger than rafale C, but F-18ef carries only 17700 pound officially).

And this is not all. When Rafale get its uprated M88-3 engine and when the new 3000 liter (792.6gals) center line external fuel tank is being qualified for use, rafale external payload weight will further increase to almost 23000 pound !!! Thats almost the same as the 24000 pounds achieve by the 50-65% larger F-15E.

Rafale C MTOW will soon be increase to 60,000 pounds. Rafale C is about 20680 pound when empty. Its MTOW to empty weight ratio is 2.9 times !!

F-15E MTOW to empty ratio is 2.56 or less. F-15E probably rank second.

No other airplane is close or even close. eurofighter Typhoon MTWO to empty weight is only 2.14 !

B-2 bomber may have highere MTOW to empty weight ratio. But B-2 is a subsonic load carrying bomber. For fighter plane comparison Rafale C MTOW to empty weight ratio is HIGHEST among all supersonic fighre aircraft.

What magic have they done to achieve this capability compared to others?

Do you have some chart where it compares Range with Typhoon? I have been searching Range and payload comparison with Typhoon chart but couldn't find it.

Rafale's having more wetpoints and payload versus Typhoon is going to be a big boost.

The only minus seems to be smaller nose for radar, the reason given usually is to reduce its radar cross section. In that case Why have they left out refueling pod fixed outside? Doesn't that add to radar crossection?

[NRao]

Like many French things, that "center line external fuel tank" is a collectors item!!

Even the covers for the inlets ......................

Nice.

[Ashwini]

Here's my latest upload,
M88s Lit-up Katrina and all her sexy curves going Vertical - http://www.airliners.net/photo/1920174/L/

Super!

[ramana]

Manish, Extensive use of composites.

[Taygibay]

From earlier :

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

The Telegraph

As demonstrated by the Lybian campaign!

Sorry for the abrupt landing! *

Winks @ Vishal & Arthuro.

Talk properly to you all tomorrow, good night/day, Taygibay.

* That Rafale M at 120ish may have
also been ridden at tad fast and harshly? It happens.

[ramana]

The AASM looks like a family of weapons with great flexibility.
Now we know what IAF meant by re-attack capability. So what was done is to package the basic dumb bomb with a variety of electronic sensors that communicate with the launch aircraft and couple that with a boost motor to give stand-off range. But $300K is too much for point target defeat on large scale.

Soon after Desert Storm there were conceptual designs in US for mating a boost motor to an LGB for stand-off or give high velocity for penetration. Guess they fell to wayside.

[srai]

...

What magic have they done to achieve this capability compared to others?

...

Rafale is designed to perform roles previously filled by an assortment of dedicated platforms and replace them:

* Jaguar - close air support
* F-8P Crusader - carrier-based air superiority jet aircraft
* Mirage F1C/R/T - interceptor/reconnaissance/ground attack
* Mirage 2000-5/C/N/D - multirole/interceptor/strike (nuclear/conventional)
* Etendard IVPM - Nuclear Strike
* Super Etendard - carrier-borne strike fighter

That's why it's a "true omni-role" combat aircraft because it was designed from the onset as one.

On the other hand, EF was originally designed primarily for air-superiority role.

[SaiK]

Is it too early to ask for what was in RFI at least?

[k prasad]

Judging by the thread till now, comparing the 'attack strategies' of each of the babe's supporters on the other, I think the attack on Tiffy is broader than that on the Kat . As I see it, the only two quibbles against the Kat seem to be a smaller nose and thus, a less powerful radar and a comparative weakness in A2A capabilities.

Are there any other lines of attack that I seem to have missed?? Oh, and possibly Dassauly not having as big an existing offsets base as the other shortlistee's maker(s).

Is it too early to ask for what was in RFI at least?

Was it classified?? I don't remember... esp since it was waaaay back.

[SaiK]

Per one of the hindu links, the article said, Kat had a great turn rate, but IAF was all ape on the avionics and electronic integration on Tif, where it's sensor integration caught them spellbound. Does that mean Kat just exposed her weapon racks with her agility and Tif could not do so, and conversely Kat could not show off her sensory integration like Tif?

[krishnan]

The fight is not over yet. Russia , Sweden and US have asked the MoD to give them proper reason why they were rejected. Also dunno how important this is..

Vendor protests after elimination from a tender would usually be rejected as a pro forma exercise. This time, however, a MoD procedural error could provide vendors with a lever to claw their way back into contention.

The MoD's Technical Oversight Committee (TOC), which must review the IAF's technical evaluation and flight trials to ascertain that procurement procedures were followed in full, had not completed its work before the MoD sent out the rejection letters.

[k prasad]

Per one of the hindu links, the article said, Kat had a great turn rate, but IAF was all ape on the avionics and electronic integration on Tif, where it's sensor integration caught them spellbound. Does that mean Kat just exposed her weapon racks with her agility and Tif could not do so, and conversely Kat could not show off her sensory integration like Tif?

That would be interesting indeed, now wouldn't it, since the Kat has always been hyping up its sensor fusion and complete pilot awareness yada yada yada. Do you have that link btw??

Most pilots I spoke to at AI were mighty impressed by what the Tiffy could do, and they would take her name as their preferred date