India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

[srai]

...

a) Rafale DOES have an IRST - google for OSF please. This should start you off - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... afale.html . Note that they wouldn't remove an IR channel without having an equally effective alternative.

You may want to read up on this. Current OSF has NO IRST. Production of the IR channel has stopped after 48 examples because of obsolescenses. Replacement system yet to be developed.

...

answers in blue

Fox Three n°14
Passive interception

The Rafale is the only fighter equipped with an integrated system optimised for target identification and battle damage assessment at stand-off distances. The Front Sector Optronics is composed of a powerful TV sensor to identify targets and to determine the number of hostile aircraft within an incoming raid, and of an eyesafe laser rangefinder for telemetry. When used in conjunction with the long range Mica IR mis-sile, the FSO allows entirely passive interceptions to be car-ried out without radar emissions. In the air-to-ground mode, the FSO is used to accurately determine target coordinates before attacking with precision weapons such as the AASM (Air-to-Surface Modular Armament) or LGBs (Laser Guided Bombs). A new generation infrared sensor for passive search and track of airborne targets and for night identification could be integrated into the FSO at a later stage. Such an infrared sensor operating in the 8 to 12 μm band has been fielded in the French Air Force F2 Standard Rafales, and an updated variant working in the 3 to 5 μm band is being studied for the future growth of the FSO. The FSO has been in service since 2005 and is now combat proven.

[k prasad]

a) Rafale DOES have an IRST - google for OSF please. This should start you off - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... afale.html . Note that they wouldn't remove an IR channel without having an equally effective alternative.

You may want to read up on this. Current OSF has NO IRST. Production of the IR channel has stopped after 48 examples because of obsolescenses. Replacement system yet to be developed.

Quite right... I'd already mentioned that in my comment itself - the Rafale already HAD an IRST. Getting a new one now shouldn't be too much of a problem. If the french removed it, it wasnt without reason. One wouldn't remove the only IR sensor on an aircraft unless the alternative existed. So I guess we needn't be worried on that front.

c) A powerful radar isnt just because it puts out more watts. If you can have a more sensitive receiver, you won't need to. Radar power is a function of so many things. Which is why they don't give you the output power, and let you calculate the range from it. They tell you the range for typical targets, because its not a simple 1-to-1 relation between the power and range. Other factors do play a role. Second, even stray emissions are a danger. Third, a less powerful radar doesn't mean a less lethal system, which is what i've been trying to state.

It just means less flexiblity. The British are dead serious about the electronic attack mode of the Captor E, a capability so far not projected for Rafale. And since both AESA antennas are based on the same modules from UMS I see no reason why the 40% larger Captor shouldn't keep it's performance advantage.

I wonder. I so do wonder. The earliest timeframe these guys are looking at for the Captor E is 2015. The problem is the continuing question of how serious the Brits are about hte Captor E by itself, let alone its EA mode. Rafale has been touted with the active cancellation of SPECTRA for quite some time already. So it isn't like the Kat is far behind. Also, as I mentioned, its not just component performance, but overall system performance.

So there's David and theres Golliath. Looks like the two contenders are taking two routes. It would be interesting to see how they do it. Moreover, as I mentioned, the TR module alone isnt it. Theres a lot more to radar performance. The question still stands. Lets see. The real questions for both contenders are a) how mature the Captor E would be by 2016. As also about the level of commitment that the partners have in it and b) How much truth is there in the claims of the SPECTRA's effectiveness (or is it just vaporware on brochure?)

d) You are right about the bigger collector aperture of course. The question is, by how much.

Well, both aircraft follow different philosophies. So far I can't decide which one I would pick. Sometimes I just get the impression people dismiss the Tiffy way too quick, and not based on technical merits.

Haha.... looks like all of us are having the same problem on this thread - about the right way to compare vanilla nad strawberry ice-cream. I get what you mean about the dismissing too quick. I think its something thats happening with both contenders - people are dismissing the EF's EA and EW capabilities vis-a-vis the Rafale SPECTRA, and on the other side, the aerodynamic performance of the Rafale and its radar are dismissed .

[MarcH]

Code: Select all

But isn't the IRST and OSF on Rafale two seperate "things"? I mean the OSF (square thingy) does tracking long range with a laser range finder but only in visible light spectrum, while the IRST (bubble) does the tracking shorter range but in IR? Or have I completely misunderstood everything?

OSF originally consisted of two channels, a TV camera and the IR channel. (Therfore two bumps on the nose) After 48 produced IR sensors the French decided to stop producing. Therfore you find now three types of OSF in literature. OSF (first 48 produced) OSF IT (current production model, without IRST) and then OSF NG (with yet to develop new IRST).

Code: Select all

March, are the British serious about integrating ALARM onto the Typhoon or are they just counting on the EA capability? Its not going to work against radars in different bands.

Nope, ALARM will soon reach the end of stock life. Electronic attack will completely replace ALARM integration. As a sideeffect the Captor-E gets a wider bandwith to operate in. I guess it is enough space at hand for further modules, the ~1400 module array tested under the CEASAR programme was only 75% populated. The word is that we will see a mix between UMS MMIC's and Selex MMIC's. But that is so far only a rumor, and nothing official.

The Typhoon TDP will employ the swash-plate approach used on the ARTS program to allow the antenna to be repositioned and to counter performance degradation at high off-bore-sight angles. The industry executive says the bandwidths to be used for the TDP radar will be broader as a result of the electronic-attack requirement.

https://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_i ... 205565.xml

[Vipul]

India Accelerates Fighter Deal.

[Viv S]

I wonder. I so do wonder. The earliest timeframe these guys are looking at for the Captor E is 2015. The problem is the continuing question of how serious the Brits are about hte Captor E by itself, let alone its EA mode

Is it? The Gripen lost out on its AESA availability because it was looking at a date of 2015 at the earliest. Eurofighter on the other hand convinced the IAF it deliver the goods in the time-line set out. Also with regard to the Brits - they sanctioned a parallel program to integrate a swashplate variant by 2013. I'd say that's fairly serious.

Rafale has been touted with the active cancellation of SPECTRA for quite some time already. So it isn't like the Kat is far behind. Also, as I mentioned, its not just component performance, but overall system performance.

Active cancellation against an AESAs? Not happening in the foreseeable future (during which the world will more or less standardize on AESA radars).

Haha.... looks like all of us are having the same problem on this thread - about the right way to compare vanilla nad strawberry ice-cream. I get what you mean about the dismissing too quick. I think its something thats happening with both contenders - people are dismissing the EF's EA and EW capabilities vis-a-vis the Rafale SPECTRA, and on the other side, the aerodynamic performance of the Rafale and its radar are dismissed .

That's true to a point. Difference is that while the relative merits and demerits of the EF's EW capabilities and the Rafale's SPECTRA are still in the realm of speculation, we know that the EF's aerodynamic performance and absolute radar performance will be superior. We also know the EF is optimized for high speed BVR combat while the Rafale is relatively better suited for a low speed knife fight.

[Viv S]

Five years back everyone was fairly certain that the real competition was between the MiG-35 and Rafale. Three years back we all were sure that it came down to the Super Hornet and Rafale. EF was going to be firmly in the 'also ran' category. But its evident today that the fighter has evolved from the barely-past-production stage to the finally-multirole and three-times-as-many-orders-despite-cuts stage. Is it too much of a stretch to assume it will continue to evolve especially at air-to-ground operations?

Air to air capabilities aside, what puzzles me is the blanket assumption that the Rafale is better at strike roles and will always be so (unless a tremendous amount of money is invested into the EF).


For CAS/BAI missions - the Captor-E will be able to carry out SAR imaging and/or GMTI/GMTT while operating in a TWS mode, just as the RBE-2AA will. Which means its not hampered while flying a ground hugging profile vis-a-vis the Rafale. It can engage with the Brimstone and Paveway-IV, not very different in practice(though probably a lot cheaper) from the Rafale's AASM (+ speculated Brimstone). Hopefully we'll see the HELINA and Sudarshan integrated with which platform is selected.


Coming to ground interdiction three factors stand out -

- Its true as things stand the Rafale has a higher operational range owing to its already operational CFTs, while the EF's CFTs are still in development when I last checked and I'm a little fuzzy on the progress made so far. But, I believe the IAF will have CFT within its induction time-lines should it require it. The internal fuel capacity for both aircraft is similar.

- Five wetpoints vis-a-vis three one may ask. There is an advantage but not a crucial one in my opinion. Any mission that requires the addition of external fuel tanks and the resulting bump in RCS is better off being performed by the Su-30MKI (deep strike missions aren't likely to be assigned at a very short notice unlike say calls for air intercept or CAS).

- Storm Shadows fired from Eurofighters do just as much damage as those employed by Rafales (assuming a Nirbhay meeting the IAF's QR isn't in service by 2015-16). The same applying to the JASSMs, JSOWs, Taurus', KEPD or whichever route the IAF decides to take.


Which leaves SEAD/DEAD missions - I hope no one really expects the Rafale to actually get within 15 km of an air defence radar while flying in an ultra-low uber-cool fashion (as a graphic on one the previous pages describes). That may work against the Crotale perhaps but not against ... say the Akash (let alone a S-300 class system). Against any decent networked air defence system with overlapping radar coverage, you need a dedicated ARM that can be employed from stand off ranges or cruise missiles coupled with good intelligence. None of which helps make the Rafale's case.



Also while we're at it, one might as well address the RCS claim. Lets see, both aircraft have concealed engine faces, treated cockpits, frequency selective radomes, high composite content (particularly by surface), and RAM treated leading edges. Differences - RCS increase due to a smaller sweep angle on canards and decrease due to semi-conformal weapon stations on the EF, and a fixed refueling probe on the Rafale. While this isn't to say that both aircraft have exactly the same RCS, but its fair bet that any difference is marginal (in either aircraft's favour). Most posts on the matter refer to the French emphasis on being discrete and the 'appearance' of the Rafale. Well the Eurofighter was always intended to have reduced observability as well, right from the design stage. Also if we're being facetious, the EF's 'appearance', seems a lot more stealthy than the Rafale.

And while on the subject, BRFites will find this article on the MBB Lampyridae quite interesting. MBB was later bought by Daimler-Benz Aerospace which later merged to form EADS.

[arthuro]

Viv S,

The rafale will always enjoy a significant edge over the Typhoon by design in AtG. The main reason is that the rafale is able to carry much more external fuel than the typhoon while carrying AtG weapons.

Just some concrete exemples :

>>>In a deep strike configuration against a high value target with two cruise missiles a rafale will carry 6000L of external fuel against 1000L for the Typhoon…That 6 time more!

>>>In a CAS configuration with 6 LGB or AASM a rafale will carry 6000L and a Typhoon ZERO external fuel (!!)

So anyone can understand that the layout of weapons on the rafale allow “by design” a much greater flexibility. The lack of external fuel the Typhoon can carry will impact its operational flexibility all the time…

The Typhoon is more a defensive point fighter than a true multirole platform with a strategic reach like the rafale.

CFTs are an option for both aircraft so the gap still remains between the rafale and the typhoon, but one should not overlook the fact that their integration is time-consuming and expensive as you have to clear them in the whole flight envelop and re-right some of the FCS properties. It is not known if the CFTs are part of the Typhoon package in india, so this is just speculation to take them in your rationale.

Besides the CFTs are a less desirable solution compared to external fuel as you can drop them and suddenly become a much more maneuverable fighter.
If typhoon ever get CFTs it will not even match the rafale in terms of exernal fuel while it will make it less flexible than the rafale (you can’t drop them in a combat situation)

The rafale is intrinsically superior to the Typhoon in the AtG role. Now you also have to take into account that it is well ahead in terms of development and you get an aircraft which is head and shoulders superior to the typhoon as a multirole platform.

As far as stealth is concerned all comments from various sources from Brazil, poland, pilots (see on previous pages the sources) all indicate that the rafale is significantly stealthier than the typhoon. The rafale had a much more comprhensive stealth treatment than the typhoon with its fuselage being redisgned for stealth purpose after the rafale A leading to its blended fuselage à la F22. In comparison the Typhoon just hided the engines and applied some RAM which is a minimal treatment compare to an airframe redisign.

[Viv S]

Viv S,

The rafale will always enjoy a significant edge over the Typhoon by design in AtG. The main reason is that the rafale is able to carry much more external fuel than the typhoon while carrying AtG weapons.

Just some concrete exemples :

>>>In a deep strike configuration against a high value target with two cruise missiles a rafale will carry 6000L of external fuel against 1000L for the Typhoon…That 6 time more!

>>>In a CAS configuration with 6 LGB or AASM a rafale will carry 6000L and a Typhoon ZERO external fuel.

So anyone can understand that the layout of weapons on the rafale allow “by design” a much greater flexibility. The lack of external fuel the Typhoon can carry will impact its operational flexibility all the time…

Hmm... well the Rafale carries about 4700kg of fuel internally (which is about 5800L). So in all the Rafale should have about 11800L of fuel onboard. On internal fuel it has a range of 2100km. So with underslung fuel tanks you should get about 4272kms. Lets say with drag and all its 3000km. Also add the 350km range of the Storm Shadow/Scalp-EGs. So if pushed to it the Rafale should be able to carry out air strike over Riyadh or alternatively Jakarta and return. Add CFTs and one may as well include the capability to attack Baghdad and Brunei.

The Eurofighter on the other hand is hampered in that it can carry only 1000L (810kg) externally which gives a range of 3000km (range of 2600km with 5000kg of internal fuel). Lets reduce that by the same fraction to say 2200km. Which means it can only carry out an air strike till Abu Dhabi or Kuala Lumpur and will need CFTs to make it to Riyadh and Jakarta.

I'd have talked about Beijing and Mongolia as well except that the aircraft will need to swim through ground based air defences and wade across half the PLAAF to exploit their ranges in that direction. Also while we're at it, I think if the Rafale made a refueling stop at the friendly country of Mauritius, it might just be able to hit Antartica as well.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

CFTs are an option for both aircraft so the gap still remains between the rafale and the typhoon, but one should not overlook the fact that their integration is time-consuming and expensive as you have to clear them in the whole flight envelop and re-right some of the FCS properties. It is not known if the CFTs are part of the Typhoon package in india, so this is just speculation to take them in your rationale.

There is one in development. How much time are we talking and how expensive will it be? The IAF will get it depending only on whether it wants it or not. $12 billion buys you fairly bit of customization.

Besides the CFTs are a less desirable solution compared to external fuel as you can drop them and suddenly become a much more maneuverable fighter.
If typhoon ever get CFTs it will not even match the rafale in terms of exernal fuel while it will make it less flexible than the rafale (you can’t drop them in a combat situation)

An even better solution when you need to travel half way across the continent is to use the Su-30MKI. You get the range, you get a greater number of hard-points, you get a WSO, and you get a whopping big radar. What you don't get is the Rafale's low RCS or its lower operating cost, but unfortunately with external fuel tanks, the former is no longer a germane expectation and if you have a hankering for hitting a target that only long haul airliners commute to, cost is probably not an issue.

[chackojoseph]

French Def min is coming for strategic partnership

French minister for defence to visit India on May 26 - 27

[Viv S]

As far as stealth is concerned all comments from various sources from Brazil, poland, pilots (see on previous pages the sources) all indicate that the rafale is significantly stealthier than the typhoon. The rafale had a much more comprhensive stealth treatment than the typhoon with its fuselage being redisgned for stealth purpose after the rafale A leading to its blended fuselage à la F22. In comparison the Typhoon just hided the engines and applied some RAM which is a minimal treatment compare to an airframe redisign.

How much is 'significant'? Pilots unfortunately cannot off hand judge an aircraft's RCS which itself varies with aspect, material properties and most importantly the payload. There is a reason why dedicated facilities to deal with RCS exist.

Secondly, you're saying the Rafale is stealthier because its been redesigned? Seriously? Redesigned? With respect to what?

Coming to the point about fuselage blending, yes it employs a more blended shape at that small particular junction. It'll make only a marginal difference (just like its exposed refueling probe) to the RCS when its got 6-10 whopping great 6 foot missiles (or bombs) hanging off its pylons.

Oh and with regard to my original post, it seems I was wrong about the sweep angle on the Rafale's wings and canards being greater, while they are in fact very similar.

[arthuro]

first about rafale AtG advantage, however you twist it the rafale will bring payload further than the typhoon or will be able to loiter for longer. In each cases it brings you operationnal flexibility ie : options. The rafale will have fuel to avoid SAM site or other threats while the limited fuel for the Typhoon will allow for more direct simpler and riskier attack profiles...
Be it in long range deep strike mission or CAS the "fuel" advantage is a significant advantage and the Typhoon can't compete here.

As far as the Typhoon CFT are concerned they are NOT in developments. We only saw mock up that never flew (unlike the rafale) many years ago and some artist drawing. Development work is significant and there is no proof that those are part of the indian deal.

As for stealth the rafale redisign was done after the demonstrator rafale A which had a wing with a direct junction with the fuselage like the typhoon. The prototypes and current rafales has a smoother junction like the Neuron or the Taranis while the Typhoon wing junction is 90° degrees with the fuselage. That the main visible feature of the rafale along saw tooth RAM and s duct intake. The Typhoon stealth treatment is basically to hide the engines and apply some RAM which is very basic stealth.

Brazilian evaluation showed that the rafale was the stealthier aircraft in the competition compared to the SH and the smaller gripen NG. That is a significant clue of how rafale level of stealth (although not comparable to F35 or F22).

Polish retired air force pilot Michal fitzer also indicate that the rafale has a much lower radar signature.
The fact that Typhoon were dominated by rafale in BVR is also linked to rafale stealth features according to pilots.

I've already posted all these sources, to check again click on the link below and look what is in red.
I bring sources and you speculate.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=200

To illustrate the fuselage redisign here is the rafale A demonstrator (look at the wing junction with the fuselage similar to the Typhoon)
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France-- ... 7f3eed5536
Here is a current rafale (smoother transition, blended fuselage):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France-- ... 7f3eed5536

[Chinmayanand]

French Def min is coming for strategic partnership

French minister for defence to visit India on May 26 - 27

+

Can anyone please define a " strategic partnership" ? What the hell is that ? IS he coming with his own EUMA,CISMOA and LSA , the strategic partnership the yankees were offering ?

[Singha]

unlike the americans the french are discreet and do not carry a high-decibel press campaign; whatever he is offering will be behind closed door for sure , with only vague details in the press conf.

I think the decision to go with 5 wet hardpoints for rafale was a brilliant call and paved the way for this relatively small fighter to lock horns with much bigger beasts like SU30 in the long range strike role or long loiter air patrol mission....quite useful for naval role too where airframe numbers and sortie rates are more limited than land....you need your dog to stay in the fight longer.

"its not the size of the dog in the fight which counts; but the size of the fight in the dog"

[Viv S]

first about rafale AtG advantage, however you twist it the rafale will bring payload further than the typhoon or will be able to loiter for longer. In each cases it brings you operationnal flexibility ie : options. The rafale will have fuel to avoid SAM site or other threats while the limited fuel for the Typhoon will allow for more direct simpler and riskier attack profiles...
Be it in long range deep strike mission or CAS the "fuel" advantage is a significant advantage and the Typhoon can't compete here.

Not twisting anything at all. I've acknowledged in my last post that the Rafale has a higher external fuel carrying capacity. The point you've seemed to miss completely is regarding the IAF's operational requirements. You came up with a scenario requiring two cruise missiles as well as multiple external fuel tanks, but then completely omitted all context - what would this mission's target be, what would be the size and composition of the strike package be, and what sort of payload is going to be delivered.


Let me simplify my point - if hypothetically the Rafale's operational range was 15000km and the Eurofighter's was 12000km, would that make the Rafale a more suitable strike aircraft for the IAF, or would they be equally suitable? The IAF doesn't have to plan for a generic capability set, it has specific threat perceptions, for dealing with which the Eurofighter's range is more than adequate.

As far as the Typhoon CFT are concerned they are NOT in developments. We only saw mock up that never flew (unlike the rafale) many years ago and some artist drawing. Development work is significant and there is no proof that those are part of the indian deal.

I don't think you've got my drift. Lets state it as a question -

Question: Are CFTs available to the IAF if it should request it?

CFTs are a part of the Naval Typhoon that's on offer to the Indian Navy. So there will be no opposition to equipping the IAF's EF's with an option of CFTs. Coming to whether it is technically feasible -

The RAF Tranche 3 aircraft also are being prepared to use conformal fuel tanks, which are viewed as attractive once new weapons are fielded that would bar the use of external fuel tanks.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 81809A.xml

So, while software upgrades may be required, there is CFTs are available to the IAF.


Answer: If the IAF wants CFTs, it'll get CFTs.

As for stealth the rafale redisign was done after the demonstrator rafale A which had a wing with a direct junction with the fuselage like the typhoon. The prototypes and current rafales has a smoother junction like the Neuron or the Taranis while the Typhoon wing junction is 90° degrees with the fuselage. That the main visible feature of the rafale along saw tooth RAM and s duct intake. The Typhoon stealth treatment is basically to hide the engines and apply some RAM which is very basic stealth.

Are you telling me S-shaped inlets, 85% composite content, semi-recessed weapon stations, retractable refueling probe and RAM is very basic stealth, but blending the point where the wing meets the fuselage is advanced stealth? And while we've all seen saw-tooths on edges, like many others on this forum, I'm puzzled by what its doing on the surface of the tail section of the fuselage. Oh and its a swept wing, how can the wing junction be at 90 deg to the fuselage? Unless you're referring to the vertical plane?

Brazilian evaluation showed that the rafale was the stealthier aircraft in the competition compared to the SH and the smaller gripen NG. That is a significant clue of how rafale level of stealth (although not comparable to F35 or F22).

Polish retired air force pilot Michal fitzer also indicate that the rafale has a much lower radar signature.
The fact that Typhoon were dominated by rafale in BVR is also linked to rafale stealth features according to pilots.

:Sigh:

How do you propose to 'stealth' away the half a dozen (or more) of these equipping the fighter -





And the lovely great pylon that those ^ are suspended from -





And that's saying nothing of the bombs or cruise missiles.

Heck, any marginal RCS loss because of a lack of blending on the EF would be more than made up by the semi-recessed stations.

[Viv S]

I think the decision to go with 5 wet hardpoints for rafale was a brilliant call and paved the way for this relatively small fighter to lock horns with much bigger beasts like SU30 in the long range strike role or long loiter air patrol mission....quite useful for naval role too where airframe numbers and sortie rates are more limited than land....you need your dog to stay in the fight longer.

That may have been a brilliant call, but what was not a brilliant call was breaking off from the FEFA program hoping that working independently would deliver another winner in the Mirage-III and Mirage-2000 mold. That way the Americans would today have had a lot fewer orders while the FEFA would have been the aircraft of choice for most countries except perhaps for a few allies like Japan and possibly Australia. French involvement would have expedited the integration of air-to-ground capabilities, led to inclusion of a carrier variant and finally delivered a cheaper aircraft because of the greater economies of scale.

[arthuro]

Vivs,

rafale external fuel advantage over the typhoon is relevant whatever the AtG mission profile is (CAS, deep strike). It brings more options and thus more flexibility to an airforce. This is not stellar science to understand. And the difference is more significant that you would think. In a CAS configuration with 6 LGBs and no external fuel typhoon endurance should be roughly less than an hour compared to around three hours for a rafale with its 3*2000L tanks. This comparison should be roughly the same with cruise missiles. That is a significant difference, not just a "relative" one.

Regarding stealth it is widely accepted and reported (as shown on the my previous link) that the rafale has a higher level of stealth than the Typhoon. Of course with external stores you increase your RCS but better start from an around 1m2 RCS than a 10m2 RCS. I provided various external sources (not all french) while you are making speculation.

Rafale level of stealth might not be in the same league as F35 or F22 (but still better than typhoon) but it helps in the sense that you are detected later than other conventional fighters and thus giving you more time in elaborating tactics. It also helps your jamming efficiency. All in all it just increases your survivability without making you unvulnerable. Every bit of stealth is still good to take. That's how 2 rafales in degraded mode could defeat 4 typhoon in BVR using their full capability.

As for Typhoon CFT I stand to my point. They are NOT in development. Rafale and Typhoon are connected to recieve them at a latter stage but the real integration and design work has not begun. And there is no proof that they are part of the MMRCA deal. You can say that if the indians are willing CFT they will get them, but they will have to pay for it...They will also have to pay for the AESA radar, the AtG weapon integration whereas everything is already paid and developed for the rafale (except CFTs). For the same amount of money invested to make the Typhoon roughly on par with the rafale you could already bring the rafale to the next level. That's why the "if" argument is to take cautiously.

You will not find a single press release about current CFT design at the moment. It is just an option for the customer if he is willing to pay for it, that's all. As for the indian navy this option is mandatory as Typhoon limited external fuel capability would make it unpractical operationnaly in a naval context. So don't mix up things.

Rafale is closer in terms of develoment than the typhoon to get CFTs (it was already test flown with cfts unlike the typhoon). Just that with 6000L exernal drop tank the appeal for CFT is obviously less important.

[Juggi G]

Eurofighter Flaunts MMRCA Shortlist Feat at Czech IDET 2011 Show


Clicky

via shiv aroor

[Chinmayanand]

I think this MRCA acquisition started with Mirage in mind and will end with Rafale in hand.

[SaiK]

Juggi, that EF2K clicky popped quite a NSFW or even NSFH (home) ones.

[Viv S]

Vivs,

rafale external fuel advantage over the typhoon is relevant whatever the AtG mission profile is (CAS, deep strike). It brings more options and thus more flexibility to an airforce. This is not stellar science to understand. And the difference is more significant that you would think. In a CAS configuration with 6 LGBs and no external fuel typhoon endurance should be roughly less than an hour compared to around three hours for a rafale with its 3*2000L tanks. This comparison should be roughly the same with cruise missiles. That is a significant difference, not just a "relative" one.

I hope you do realise that CAS usually takes place near the forward edge of the battle area. Now unless the ground forces have ingressed 1000km into enemy territory, carrying a huge amount of fuel serves no purpose at all. As matter of fact, an aircraft carrying out CAS, with three external fuel tanks is a far fetched notion, to put it mildly.

You could theoretically equip the Su-30MKI with external fuel tanks as well, if its bound to make a significant difference. Why do you suppose that never happened?

Also, out of curiosity, how did you arrive at the figures of three hours for the Rafale and less than an hour for the EF? The EF without the drag of an external tank will carry about 6170L of fuel which is a little more than half of the Rafale's load (5800 + 6000 = 11800L).

Regarding stealth it is widely accepted and reported (as shown on the my previous link) that the rafale has a higher level of stealth than the Typhoon. Of course with external stores you increase your RCS but better start from an around 1m2 RCS than a 10m2 RCS. I provided various external sources (not all french) while you are making speculation.

Several French and a retired Polish pilot do not a 'widely' make. And no sir, you have not provided any usable figures. Sources should give figures and not notions. The Rafale has a RCS that's 'significantly' lower, or 'much' lower, or 'quite a bit' lower does not help one make an assessment as to what difference it will make to detection ranges once they are both loaded with munitions. Here's an example - lets say the Rafale has an RCS of 1 sq.m and the EF of 1.2 sq. m (a difference of 20%) from a particular aspect, once they are loaded they may both increase to 2 sq.m each(adjusting for the semi-conformal stations on the EF). Now while these figures are hypothetical, point is, that 20% difference in the clean state could have been described as 'significant' and 'much lower' without making a whit of difference to the final RCS. Point is without figures, quantifying the difference is pointless.

Rafale level of stealth might not be in the same league as F35 or F22 (but still better than typhoon) but it helps in the sense that you are detected later than other conventional fighters and thus giving you more time in elaborating tactics. It also helps your jamming efficiency. All in all it just increases your survivability without making you unvulnerable. Every bit of stealth is still good to take. That's how 2 rafales in degraded mode can defeat 4 typhoon in BVR using their full capability.

Is that how they did it? My impression was they did it by locking on the active emissions from the Captor-M (the passive mode wasn't implemented in service until 2008) and then out-ranging (by 50-75%) the (theoretically) Aim-120C5 equipped EF, with the R-27ER (degraded MICA?). Locking onto the LPI emissions of the Captor-E will be a very different ballgame, and the RBE-2AA will have come into play (the SPECTRA will not suffice).

As for Typhoon CFT I stand to my point. They are NOT in development. Rafale and Typhoon are connected to recieve them at a latter stage but the real integration and design work has not begun. And there is no proof that they are part of the MMRCA deal. You can say that if the indians are willing CFT they will get them, but they will have to pay for it...They will also have to pay for the AESA radar, the AtG weapon integration whereas everything is already paid and developed for the rafale (except CFTs). For the same amount of money invested to make the Typhoon roughly on par with the rafale you could already bring the rafale to the next level. That's why the "if" argument is to take cautiously.

You will not find a single press release about current CFT design at the moment. It is just an option for the customer if he is willing to pay for it, that's all. As for the indian navy this option is mandatory as Typhoon limited external fuel capability would make it unpractical operationnaly in a naval context. So don't mix up things.

No the question was, is it available - and the answer remains, yes it is. Coming to your rebuttal regarding its time taken and cost.... okay I'll humor that. How much will money is required to be invested into the EF to complete CFTs and what proportion of that bill can we see the Brits picking up? I assume you have a figure in mind since you say its enough to bring the Rafale to the 'next level'. And within what time-line do you see the CFTs integrated onto the serving EFs? And if it crosses the EF's earliest induction (first squadron), wouldn't these aircraft still be compatible with those CFTs(when its finally cleared for air operations) if they're modified to carry them like the RAF's Tranche 3?

Rafale is closer in terms of develoment than the typhoon to get CFTs (it was already test flown with cfts unlike the typhoon). Just that with 6000L exernal drop tank the appeal for CFT is obviously less important.

External drop tanks have been around for decades, yet its newer models of aircraft i.e. 4.5 generation aircraft that are or have developed and integrated CFTs. It skirts around the penalties in RCS, speed, acceleration and climb rate imposed by drop tanks while at the same time clearing two or more pylons for weapons. Not being jettisonable is a small price to pay for that advantage.

[arthuro]

CAS does not necessarly take place right near your airfield as shown in Lybia. And even if it was the case the longer you can loiter above the ennemy the longer you can provide CAS so the "persistence" factor is fully relevant.

The figures I gave for flying time come from discussion with rafale pilots two years ago at the paris airshow. A rafale with 3*2000L and AtG weapons have an endurance of about 3H in relatively good condition, while a clean aircraft of the Typhoon or rafale class have an endurance of around one hour. I assumed that with 6LGBs and no external fuel Typhoon endurance would be around "roughly" a bit less than an hour due to the added weight and drag. Those figure are just "notions" but still reflect the gap between the two aircrafts.

Regarding stealth you are untiteled to your own opinion. But you can't dismiss the result of the Brazilian air force evaluation nor you can dismiss the pilot comments who actually confronted the typhoon. All the rest is speculation. What is als true is that there is overall a wider consensus stating that the rafale is stealthier of the two even if I agree you can't bring this latest argument as a proof. At least the two first example comes from relaible sources. Note than on Keypublishing Pepe Rezende (Memeber of the Brazilian defense commitee and aviation specialist) confirmed the rafale was the stealthier aircraft.

Now CFTs. Typhoon's one are not available in the sense that they are not developed. It is an option but the customer will have to pay for their development. Show me a recent press release talking about actual development works and integration testing...I can tell you that you won't find anything.

Besides typhoon's CFTs are more a constraint due to the lack of external fuel than a "bonus". I mean it is a mandatory aditionnal cost if the Typhoon wants to be more than just a defensive point fighter. And with CFT you are not as flexible than with drop tanks nor you will reach the 6000L of rafale external fuel...

About The rafale vs Typhoon in BVR you are right to say it was also due to "passive detection" thanks to spectra. But it is incorrect to believe that spectra will not be able to pick up an AESA radar emmissions. Two reasons :

-The first one is that it already does it. it was experienced last year against USN SH block2 with APG-79. The event took place during the comemoration of the french aéronavale century at the base of Hyères near the mediteranean coast. USN SH were invited as a US carrier group was passing by. In parrallel to the commemoration events rafale M practised against SH block2 and according to DSI issue spectra managed to compensate the difference of radar range of bot aircrafts.

-The second reason is that you have the wrong impression that spectra is a monolithic thing. It evolves constantly to tackle new threats. Here is an extract from an answer from Captain Romain a rafale pilot form the provence squadron :

Cne Romain:

One must first know that France has a very high credibility worldwide in terms of jamming. So one should be particularly ill informed to think there could be a beginning of a gap in Spectra.
Spectra is a accomplished self-protection system that we are developping every day with programming, testing and with software and hardware updates: month after month ,Spectra is evolving.In my opinion, i think we are currently using only 2/3 of Spectra capacities: We still have much work to do to optimize our jamming libraries and methods of use.
Finally, just to give you an idea of what stealth is or isn't : to be 100% stealth, one should neither be seen nor to let others know they are seen ... For example, a stealth aircraft that would use its radar to fire a missile, would be suddenly no longer stealth
One of the great strength of the Rafale is here: we do not need to activate our radar to fire our missiles far beyond visual range ..

Corentin

Hello Captain,
Thank you for these clarifications! I am perhaps too curious but can you explain how the Rafale is capable of firing beyond visual range "passively", and how far?
Do other airplanes of the same generation (EF, Gripen, F-18) use, to your knowledge, equivalent techniques ?

Cne Romain:

The Rafale merges the informations coming from its sensors to give a very reliable and clear picture to the pilot. It's already a considerable advantage over previous-generation aircraft, including EF and Gripen. When the pilot decides to fire a air to air missile, the missile leaves the aircraft taking automatically into account all available informations.
When the radar is not used, the missile can use the OSF (a TV camera coupled with a laser rangefinder), the informations provided by another aircraft via the MIDS, a heat source detected by the OSF or a MICA IR, or finally a localization by SPECTRA. Faced with these sensors, stealth is useless and we know, thanks to our tests ,that our missiles are very effective in such context.

http://blog.francetv.fr/capitaine-romai ... e-corentin

[arthuro]

And to complete my post above about spectra improvements, note that the next gen spectra is already under development.

INCAS [Insert New Additional Capacity for SPECTRA] for SPECTRA 5T.

Already, the authorities and industrials are preparing evolutions for SPECTRA , to allow it to remain very effective when will start coming the tranche 5 Rafale. The PEA INCAS (Insert New Additional Capacity for SPECTRA), notified last September by the DGA to Thales Airborne Systems and MBDA, is indeed preparing SPECTRA 5T. The real challenge, according to Thales engineers, is to think, not only about the original equipment on board the new tranche 5 Rafale, but also about the retrofit in the framework of a prospective site to put this future new standard for the rest of the fleet including the first Rafale delivered.
An ambition much more delicate than it seems at first glance, because it need to evolve SPECTRA within acceptable limits - volume, mass, energy, cable, Interactions - by the first Rafale series, although their architecture has been conceived in the late 1980s. This requires, according to Thales officials, treasures of cunning and ingenuity. We must keep reaching an extreme interchangeability. Because the great longevity planned for the Rafale actually complicates the task. One need to design systems, allowing them the opportunity to integrate with minimal impact new technologies able to cope with post-2020 or even 2030 threats, still not easily discernible. As now formulated, the fundamental objective of SPECTRA 5T is therefore to be able to detect, even further, more discreet and even furtive threats.
How? by integrating, at the air entrances more efficient EM broadband receptors. Unlike current SPECTRA, with receivers still mixing analog and digital, those of SPECTRA 5T will be entirely digital. Which, incidentally, will facilitate transport and data management. More, added to future new processing algorithms, this increased "digitization" of equipement should provide a significant improvement in terms of sensitivity and angular measurement, with the added advantage of greater receptor compactness . This will allow, with equal volume, to much more! It is certainly delicate, given the sensitivity of the topic,to enter further into the details of improvements in matter of performance and functionality. But it must be very clear: according to Thales engineers, it is a revolution for technology and capability at the same level as it is for the RBE2 Radar evolving from a passive PESA antenna to the active AESA.

The GaN revolution.

This "revolution" also relates to jamming equipment for the future SPECTRA 5T. These transmitters, integrated at the top of the drift and the forward fuselage, near the apices and before the canard, will benefit from the integration of a new technology the gallium nitride (GaN) to replace the arsenide gallium currently used. The use of this broadband semiconductor, still unique within the European Union, very hard and with a very high thermal capacity, is expected to reduce significantly the electrical consumer and heating for a given power. The solid state antennas will provide a much greater lens precision with a very narrow emission beam. Note that to avoid any risk of external pressure on eventual Rafale export sales, the GaN components, like the gallium arsenide modules already used for the new RBE2 active antenna ,will be produced in France by a factory of the Franco-German company ( EADS / Thales joint-venture) UMS. The Thales engineers are also working to modify the current distribution between reception and jamming functions in SPECTRA. With, for example, the idea to integrate, for SPECTRA 5T, a multisignal RF receiver within the jammers. Viewing similarities between jammers and receivers components, such an approach would be technologically feasible and, potentially, would provide interesting synergies. Nevertheless, the collocation of such equipment would introduce real technical difficulties - EM compatibility -, though perfectly manageable. This pass, to avoid to perturb the receiver with collocated jamming emission, by appealing different waveforms for each equipment, with a wider range of frequence than currently employed on Spectra and with the implementation of active filters. In contrast, the locations and volumes vested to such equipment would remain unchanged from today. No way to modify anything in the aerodynamics of the aircraft or to impact the structure of the cell. Similarly, these changes would occur at energy isoconsumption [same energy consumption]. Asked whether the integration of tracted active EM decoys - in use with F/A-18E/F, B-1 and Typhoon - could be an interesting track for SPECTRA 5T, Thales engineers , as also the operationals, replied by expressing doubts about the broad effectiveness of the formula. It is difficult to re-roll the lure in flight and it must be dropped before landing. Hooked from a certain distance behind the carrier, it could allow a foreign fire control to recognize it as a decoy and, paradoxically, to facilitate the detection of the real target. Certainly, the tracted active EM jammer provides good angular jamming. But the SPECTRA ability to use jamming in cooperative mode - mode still insufficiently cleared by the operationals - is expected to balance the absence of tracted decoys on the Rafale.
What is almost certain, however, is that SPECTRA 5T will implement dropped active EM lures . They should be able to simulate the RCS of a Rafale and to track, thanks to the deployment of a small wing, a trajectory similar to the simulation of an airplane. This had already been the subject of studies and demonstration trials during the 1990s. It seems that the expected performance of these "dropped" lures are higher than those tracted. Nevertheless, studies will be launched to assess the interest of the latter. The carriage of additional IR cartridges on some external payload points is also expected. Although the PEA INCAS has been notified in November 2009, the study of the SPECTRA 5T architecture system have already made good progress. Suitable demonstrators for various equipment should begin to work next year. J.-L ®

[MarcH]

Arthuro, I guess you are wrong with your idea that eurofighter carries no external fuel at all for CAS.

Credit to Shae Ransom

Replace the centreline fueltank with litening III and 2 of the bombs with Brimstone triple racks and you just doubled the a2g load Tornadoes typically carry for patrols over Libya. Plus 4 additional AMRAAM/Meteor.
Way cheaper and looks more impressive than Rafale with 2/2 MICA IR/EM + triple rack of AASM.

That's what I mean when I bemoan the blanket statements about Rafales a2g superiority.

Tiffy lacks when it comes to carrying very heavy/bulky external stores (heavier than 1000 lbs or longer than 3m) over looong distances.

[arthuro]

when I meant CAS I meant a config with 6 GBU12 or 6 GBU49 or 6 AASM which are the prefered weapons used in Afghanistan and Lybia for that role although the brimstone is nice to have in some circumstances.
With this config there is no more external pylons left for drop tanks on the Typhoon. So the difference is 6000L external fuel for the rafale and Zero for the typhoon.

Even with 2 1000*L drop tanks and Brimstones for the typhoon as you suggest (and the brimstones are far from being integrated with the typhoon), the rafale could still carry 3 time more fuel (3*2000L). both The typhoon and rafale could carry up to 6 AAM in those configuration. And note that your Typhoon hypotetical configuration exist in dreams while rafale with 6AASM is combat proven and fully operational.

And an AASM while being more expensive is way more capable. Up to 60Km in range vs 12Km for the brimstone and successfully used for SEAD and destroyed a Lybian tank from 55km...Even a landing Lybian Galeb aircraft.

actually it is likely that the rafale will get brimstones years before the typhoon if he ever get it :

US and France 'interested in Brimstone'
20 April 2011

France and the US have expressed an interest in acquiring dual-mode Brimstone air-to-ground missiles after witnessing them in action in Libya, it has emerged.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=16132

[Henrik]

when I meant CAS I meant a config with 6 GBU12 or 6 GBU49 or 6 AASM which are the prefered weapons used in Afghanistan and Lybia for that role although the brimstone is nice to have in some circumstances.
With this config there is no more external pylons left for drop tanks on the Typhoon. So the difference is 6000L external fuel for the rafale and Zero for the typhoon.

Even with 2 1000*L drop tanks and Brimstones for the typhoon as you suggest (and the brimstones are far from being integrated with the typhoon), the rafale could still carry 3 time more fuel (3*2000L). both The typhoon and rafale could carry up to 6 AAM in those configuration. And note that your Typhoon hypotetical configuration exist in dreams while rafale with 6AASM is combat proven and fully operational.

And an AASM while being more expensive is way more capable. Up to 60Km in range vs 12Km for the brimstone and successfully used for SEAD and destroyed a Lybian tank from 55km...Even a landing Lybian Galeb aircraft.

actually it is likely that the rafale will get brimstones years before the typhoon if he ever get it :

US and France 'interested in Brimstone'
20 April 2011

France and the US have expressed an interest in acquiring dual-mode Brimstone air-to-ground missiles after witnessing them in action in Libya, it has emerged.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=16132

But doesn't the EF have 2000L drop tanks as well? Making a tri-pack for GBU-12 for example shouldn't be too hard if deemed necessary?

[arthuro]

Negative the Typhoon doesn't have 2000L drop tank, only 1000L. You can't pack triple or even double LGB wepon hard point due to proximity between other external weapons.

The ground clearance and the proximity with other stores prevent the integration of big drop tanks. The reason is that the emphasis was AtA and AtG was not a priority. Consequently it is not an optimum multirole platform.

[Henrik]

Negative the Typhoon doesn't have 2000L drop tank, only 1000L. You can't pack triple or even double LGB wepond hard point due to proximity between other external weapons.

Droptanks: I was thinking about this picture:

http://img7.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1 ... _185lo.JPG

[Henrik]

Any interest in integrating the SDB II on EF?

[arthuro]

I never heard about Sdb II on the Typhoon or even interest from some partners.
I can't see your picture but I can guarantee that the only drop tank operational with the Typhoon is 1000L and there is no plan of integrating bigger.

[Singha]

pls note any form of GPS guided weapon is not material to MMRCA deal because India cannot depend on US even not tampering with the civilian signal over south asia...and ofcourse not being nato we do not get the 3 feet accuracy military signal. the chief of saturn engine plant in pakfa thread says US "shifted" GPS given location by 300m during the georgia war for that zone.

glonass is nearing completing (3 sats left to go) and I believe sudarshan LGB will gain a glonass guided version eventually for fleetwide use.....galileo is cancelled I guess and EU only let us in as a civilian partner iirc.

[Henrik]

I never heard about Sdb II on the Typhoon or even interest from some partners.
I can't see your picture but I can guarantee that the only drop tank operational with the Typhoon is 1000L and there is no plan of integrating bigger.

now?

[arthuro]

I still can't. I guess you refer to the 1500l drop tanks that were diplayed several years ago but those were never developed and there is no plan (even for export) to make them available. The only drop tanks the typhoon has is 1000L, there is no other model in service with Typhoon operators nor there is a plan to develop bigger ones.

[Henrik]

In the picture it says "2000 litre fuel tank". At least they seem to have thought about it.

[arthuro]

it was not 2000L but 1500L. it was called "Hindenburg". It is 100% silent about it right now. Even lattest Typhoon export adverts only showcase current 1000L drop tanks plus CFTs. I recently read in A&C that integration of heavy stores is difficult on the typhoon because of change of its center of gravity.

[Juggi G]

Henrik is this the Image

2000 Litre Fuel Tank

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/3563 ... oldout.jpg

Admin Note: Please DO NOT post large images. Not everyone has fast internet connections.

[Juggi G]

Juggi, that EF2K clicky popped quite a NSFW or even NSFH (home) ones.

Ok
Upped the pic on a Kosher Image Hosting Service

Eurofighter Flaunts Indian MMRCA Shortlist Feat at Czech IDET 2011 Show

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2772 ... smmrca.jpg

[arthuro]

The 1500L drop tank was diplayed once on static several years ago as far as I remember but nothing concrete happened after. The 2000L drop tank is not feasible on the typhoon. It is not even in the proposed typhoon roadmap for current operators or export prospects. I think this chart above is simply incorrect. to date and for the future the only drop tank for the typhoon has a 1000L capability versus 1250L for rafale supersonic drop tanks and 2000L for the big ones. I don't think you can find any serious publications stating 2000L or even 1500L drop tanks developments for the Typhoon.

[MarcH]

when I meant CAS I meant a config with 6 GBU12 or 6 GBU49 or 6 AASM which are the prefered weapons used in Afghanistan and Lybia for that role although the brimstone is nice to have in some circumstances.
With this config there is no more external pylons left for drop tanks on the Typhoon. So the difference is 6000L external fuel for the rafale and Zero for the typhoon.

Even with 2 1000*L drop tanks and Brimstones for the typhoon as you suggest (and the brimstones are far from being integrated with the typhoon), the rafale could still carry 3 time more fuel (3*2000L). both The typhoon and rafale could carry up to 6 AAM in those configuration. And note that your Typhoon hypotetical configuration exist in dreams while rafale with 6AASM is combat proven and fully operational.

And an AASM while being more expensive is way more capable. Up to 60Km in range vs 12Km for the brimstone and successfully used for SEAD and destroyed a Lybian tank from 55km...Even a landing Lybian Galeb aircraft.

actually it is likely that the rafale will get brimstones years before the typhoon if he ever get it

If we go only by testet configurations, that makes 6 GBU 16 for Tiffy, while Rafale carries 6 AASM. 6 MK 83 vs 6 Mk 82 warheads, quite a difference.

One thing I agree with you is that AASM is a great weapon, especially combined with the triple rack. Best Typhoon can hope for, is BRU-57 for it's 500 lbs weapons.

But your arguement just makes my point. Destroying Libyan scrapmetal from 55km distance sounds great, until you realize that a Brimstone would have done the job for a fraction of the costs. Must feel good as French taxpayer to see all this old crap getting destroyed by bombs that cost way more then their targets.

And while we are at weapon choices, Typhoon at least gives you choices. Iris-T vs ASRAAM, Storm Shadow vs. Taurus, GBU-54 vs. UK PW IV and so on.

Not the case for Rafale (with exception of LGB's). You either buy French weapons, or you pay for integration of your own stuff. Not sure if this is a problem in Indian context, since IAF will probably anyway integrate it's own weapons.

[arthuro]

But if you consider that there is nothing integrated on the typhoon as far as stand off AtG weapons are concerned that is not really an comparative weakness ! You will have to pay anyway.
It is true that AASM is an expensive weapon and that's why French air force is interested in integrating the brimstone.

[arthuro]

Saving Benghazi

Combat Aircraft magazine; Vol 12 n°6

The leading role played by the French AF fast jets in the leading stage of the Lybia operation was daring and impressive

In November 1, 1911, an aircraft carried out an air raid for the first time in history. It took place during the ltalo-Turkish war, and the type was a French-built Bleriot XI flown by Italian military pilot 2nd Lt Guilio Guidotti who threw Cipelli Fragmentation grenades at troops occupying the Taguira and Ain Zara oases, east of Tripoli in what was then Tripolitania, now Libya. Fast forward 100 years to 2011, an air power was again bein deployed 'in anger' over Libya, albeit in rather more potent form — this time with France's "Armee de l'Air" leading the way.

As early as March 4, 2011, with the situation in Libya deteriorating, French military aircraft began to carry out surveillance and electronic warfare missions over the Mediterranean, alongside those of the US and UK. The aim, of course, was to build up intelligence relating to Libya's electronic order of battle and tap into its communications. After the Paris meeting organized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Saturday March 19, the other major members of the coalition being built up to impose a no-fly zone, British Prime Minister David Cameron and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, agreed to take part in the imposition of UN Resolution 1973. Much to the surprise of many observers, the participants in the summit had hardly left the Elysee Palace when French aircraft went into action.

Three sections of Rafale F3s from Base Aérienne (BA) 113 Saint-Dizier belonging to Escadron de Chasse 1/7 'Provence' took off from their home base at around 11.00hrs. The first four-ship consisted of single-seat aircraft in air defense configuration, each equipped with six MICA missiles — four MICA EMs and two MICA IRs — as well as three 1,250-liter drop tanks. Six minutes later they were followed by another two Rafales equipped with the Reco NG reconnaissance pod, while in the early afternoon a further two-aircraft section comprised one jet in close air support configuration toting four AASM (Armement Air-Sol Modulaire) inertial and CPS-guided modular bombs, four MICAS (again of EM and IR types) and two 2,000-liter drop tanks, with its wingman providing air defense cover in commbat air patrol fit.
At 15.00hrs that same day, two Mirage 2000Ds operated by EC 3/3 'Ardennes' at BA 133 Nancy-Ochey got airborne, armed with GBU-12 Paveway II and GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II laser-guided bombs. They soon joined up with a pair of MICA- armed Mirage 2000-5F air superiority Fighters of EC 1/2 'Cigognes' which had departed BA102 Dijon. Naturally, an E-3F -AWACS from BA701 Avord an, for maritime patrol and ELINT duties, an Aeronavale Atlantique ATL2 were already on patrol, while six C-135FR tankers belonging to Groupe de Ravitaillement en Vol (GRV) 93 'Bretagne' had taken off from BA 125 lstres in support of the French fast jet assets.
The first mission over Libyan territory as a long and, given the circumstances, Wiring one. The Rafales engaged in setting up the CAP maintained a 60 x 40nm air superiority zone under the control of the orbiting E-3F, while their CAS counterparts opened fire on and destroyed four Libyan government tanks which were about to enter the rebel-held Benghazi area. Close surveillance of the locality was carried out by the two Rafales with the Reco NG pods, the imagery from which was downloaded during their flight back to Saint-Dizier. These valuable images were to be shown as soon as possible to the highest government authorities. After a sortie lasting more than six hours, all aircraft involved returned safely to their home bases.

Meanwhile, two anti-aircraft and air defense frigates of the Marine Nationale, the Jean-Bart and Forbin, were patrolling off the Libyan coast. These ships would, as reported elsewhere, soon be joined by the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier and its escort and protection ships, the Aconit and Dupleix frigates, as well as the fleet refueling tanker Meuse and a nuclear attack submarine.
A heavy logistical effort was necessary in parallel with France's combat operations. C-160 Transalls on the strength of ET 1/61 `Touraine' at BA 123 Orleans and ET 1/64 'Bearn' at BA105 Evreux carried the equipment required to detach Armee de l'Air combat aircraft to BA 126 Solenzara on the island of Corsica, regularly used as the host airfield for gunnery training exercise deployments. Solenzara thus began to act as another'aircraft carrier/ in the middle of the Mediterranean.
The following days saw Armee de l'Air assets again assuming a leading position in what the French have called Operation 'Harmattan'. During the night between the fourth and fifth days of the commitment, Rafales fired SCALP EG cruise missiles for the first time at night as part of a 20-aircraft raid against a Libyan government base in the Tripoli area. And on March 24 came the notable incident when an on-station E-3F detected a Libyan Arab AF G-2 Galeb flying towards its base at Misrata, whereupon a section of Rafales was sent after it, leading to the Galeb being destroyed by an AASM as it was about to land. An aerial victory (nearly) obtained using an airto-ground weapon: quite a novelty!
In answering a message of congratulation sent by an Armee de l'Air general, the station commander of BA113 Saint-Dizier, Col Michel Friesling, noted that operation 'Harmattan' had seen the air force fighting from its bases in the mother country and in Corsica for the first time since 1940. In the first instance, this had been made possible by the outstanding capabilities of the Rafale, brought to the fore in the fight against Gaddafi's regime.