India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Nov 2011 08:48

offsets include HAL/DRDO/BEL/BDL as well I think. they can certainly manufacture parts for the MRCA after a while...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Nov 2011 09:39

and that should be all in the ToT.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2011 11:07

This is going to be a battle between the two "auld enemies",France and "perfidious Albion".The UK is the lead country that is touting the EF and an EF victory will ensure jobs in Blighty.Both nations are capable of much high-tech offset ability,as the UK has familiar companies like RR,BAe,who have done much business with the IAF over decades.Likewise the French,who on paper perhaps have an edge as their wares are more varied and also have the Scorpene deal and sub-tech going too.Which high-tech offsets the IAF/MOD feel is superior technologically and a more valuable acquisition is the moot Q,all other things being equal.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 22 Nov 2011 20:09

arthuro wrote:
Missile Deal This Week, Mirage Upgrade Starts Next Month
Livefist , Nov 21

As revealed by the IAF chief last week, two Indian Air Force Mirage 2000s will leave for France next month to begin the long-delayed Mirage upgrade programme that India signed with Dassault, Thales and HAL in July this year. The Indian upgrade team has been in France for a while now training and absorbing the upgrade routine. A deal for MICA air-to-air missile, which remained unsigned when the Mirage upgrade deal was concluded, is also expected to be cleared this week.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/11/mi ... grade.html

IMO the fact that the IAF is going with the mirage upgrade and mica missile clearly increases rafale chances in the MMRCA competition.

We have :

-A lower acquisition cost of about 5% according to rumor
-More probably than not a lower operating costs (smaller aircraft, smaller engine, smaller radar and with fixed intake, fixed refueling probe, fixed radar no dedicated airbrake).

-Synergies with the M2000 fleet.
-Strategic possibility to operate the same aircraft as the Indian Navy (Rafale M).

-It is already developed and thus low risk and quickly available.
-The management structure of the program is simpler (one nation, one manufacturer).
-The idea of dealing with a well known supplier of front line jet is probably more psychologically safer and reassuring.

Mica is a shorter range missile when compared to Aim-120 C-7 or Meteor, MICA is being acquired and i think MICA is quite simply an inadequate missile to defend such an expensive bird like the Rafale and i am sure IAF knows. Hence, the missile order number has been limited to 450 which is an ideal number for the number of Muirages in our inventory. MRCA order will certainly require a very big order of A2A missiles. Rafale's French weapon package is bound to cost a lot more than the mostly US made weapon package on the EF.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Nov 2011 20:20

Bumble-Bee wrote: i think MICA is quite simply an inadequate missile to defend such an expensive bird like the Rafale

Why? If we are afraid of losing the bird in combat we should put it in an underground hangar and not fly it rather than imposing such arbitrary conditions which do not guarantee its safety anyway. Why do you think Rafale must carry its own BVRAAMs? In what way would a BVRAAM stop a Rafale from being shot down? You are using "long sword to counter long sword" logic which i a fundamentally flawed premise.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 22 Nov 2011 20:38

shiv wrote:
Bumble-Bee wrote: i think MICA is quite simply an inadequate missile to defend such an expensive bird like the Rafale
Why? If we are afraid of losing the bird in combat we should put it in an underground hangar and not fly it rather than imposing such arbitrary conditions which do not guarantee its safety anyway. Why do you think Rafale must carry its own BVRAAMs? In what way would a BVRAAM stop a Rafale from being shot down? You are using "long sword to counter long sword" logic which i a fundamentally flawed premise.

Actually now that you point it out, a BVR missile wont help Raffy much, elegant as bird it is, it still has a puny radar, a mid range missile which is pretty useless in BVR engagements, and expensive weapons package and a shitty country that it originates from. We are not buying a bird to loose it combat, rather I hope we buy the the EF which has a far better chance of shooting down its enemies from very long range with Meteor, has a higher combat cieling, can supercruise faster, TVC which will allows for better low level capabilities and higher thrust in certain areas, bigger radar with higher detection ranges, industrial partnership which will allow us to supply a large number of EF users with spares and allows us to develope it the way we please. Ze French have had enough from us for now, time for the EU to win this.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 22 Nov 2011 20:42

Mica is a shorter range missile when compared to Aim-120 C-7 or Meteor, MICA is being acquired and i think MICA is quite simply an inadequate missile to defend such an expensive bird like the Rafale and i am sure IAF knows. Hence, the missile order number has been limited to 450 which is an ideal number for the number of Muirages in our inventory. MRCA order will certainly require a very big order of A2A missiles. Rafale's French weapon package is bound to cost a lot more than the mostly US made weapon package on the EF.

Mica is still a deadly weapon especially in its IR variant allowing BVR stealth shots. Besides the rafale is also operational and combat proven with US weapons : gbu 12, gbu 22, gbu 24 and soon the gbu 49. That's more than with the typhoon which has almost no atg weapon integrated (US or not)...1 to be precise and soon 2 with the gbu 49.

Anothe factor to diminish rafale prices is that it is getting a new cost saving M88 engine (40% redisign). Costs of ownership are expected do diminish dramatically.

M88-4E engine program on track

Development of the enhanced M88-4E (formerly designated the “TCO Pack” version (Total Cost of Owenership)), is proceeding very satisfactorily. Following a series of ground tests in an altitude chamber, completed in February 2010, a Rafale fighter powered by the M88-4E engine made its first test flight on March 22, 2010 at the Istres air base in southern France. The M88-4E engine received its flight readiness certificate at the end of 2010, after a total of 70 test flights. The development engines are now undergoing endurance tests, and the delivery of the first production standard M88-4E is scheduled for the end of 2011. The aim of this program is to extend the engine’s service life and time between inspections for several key parts. Upgrades are planned to the high-pressure compressor and high-pressure turbine, and are derived from various technologies tested during the ECO development program*.

http://www.snecma.com/IMG/files/snecma_ ... ile_fr.pdf

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 22 Nov 2011 20:49

Actually now that you point it out, a BVR missile wont help Raffy much, elegant as bird it is, it still has a puny radar, a mid range missile which is pretty useless in BVR engagements, and expensive weapons package and a shitty country that it originates from. We are not buying a bird to loose it combat, rather I hope we buy the the EF which has a far better chance of shooting down its enemies from very long range with Meteor, has a higher combat cieling, can supercruise faster, TVC which will allows for better low level capabilities and higher thrust in certain areas, bigger radar with higher detection ranges, industrial partnership which will allow us to supply a large number of EF users with spares and allows us to develope it the way we please. Ze French have had enough from us for now, time for the EU to win this.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about :

-Meteor is available for the rafale as well and was already ordered for the french air force needs (200 missiles for the first batch).
-The rafale is already operational with US weapons.
-The rafale was always deemed superior to the typhoon in international competitions as far as technical aspects are concerned (korea, singapore, dutch and swiss evaluation). See the link below where I provided all the sources in an older post ;(9h55pm post)
-Exercises with the rafale destroyed the assumption that the typhoon was the superior AtA platform be it in BVR or WVR.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=2160

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Nov 2011 21:44

so who are the private Industries (ToT players) here for Rf and Ef?

does anyone has details?

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 22 Nov 2011 21:53

And another Cassidian comm dept gullible victim to boot :

At this stage there are no definite plans to fit the nozzle to any production Eurofighter. However Eurofighter, EuroJet and a number of consortium nations and other companies have indicated a desire to include the nozzle (if possible) in Tranche-3 aircraft (due from 2010). This would fit with the stated desire of the four consortium nations to incorporate new technologies in sucessive Eurofighter production runs.

From typhoon.starstreak, lol not at all Typhoon enthusiasts?
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

or would you rather the November adjust of fast-air?
http://www.fast-air.co.uk/typhoon-block ... e-summary/

No partner nation has expressed an interested in having TVC. Eurojet, the consortium of companies that produces the engines for Typhoon, is hoping to attract support for TVC by concentrating on the benefits provided above the enhanced agility.

I said it many times my new chap, the Typhoon painted by
the excellent mass communication of Eurofighter is indeed
a better plane than the Rafale F3 in most domains.
If it ever gets done and when it does, if not much changes
in French projected developments, it will be for real !

In the real world, the Rafale F3+ showed that it can can do
SEAD, DEAD, CAS, AD, Recce/Reco and long strike missions.
Arms list includes MICA, B/LGB, AASM, SCALP/StormShadow,
nuclear ASMP_A, Exocet latest block with use of pods for
Laser designation and Reco while the Typhoon did AD and
auto designated LGBs on the biggish side?

You should sue EF comm providers or start to read govt stuff.

Sorry but true; take solace it will change most likely.

Good day nonetheless all, Tay.

Sorry Saik skipped over you

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Nov 2011 23:06

Meteor would most certainly be on MMRCA so why IAF didn't go for longer range meteor on hyper expansive M2K upgrades? Cost? Integration with M2K? Or M2K just not capable of exploiting such a long-range modern missile? Can it go on LCA Mk2 (and still make sense) to compliment MMRCA?

What are the most cutting edge bombs and missiles that would/coult/should be bought with MMRCA that can be standardized for multiple IAF aircrafts...LCA, M2K, Su30, Jaguar, MiG29s. This will be almost a free upgrade in fire power for older assets if the weapons for MMRCA provide additional exploitable capabilities for older aircrafts.

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 22 Nov 2011 23:19

Meteor is coming to both EF & the Rafale, Katare.
It could go on any fighter but yes AESA helps use.

As far as what can go on the MMRCA, pretty much anything.
If it is not included in the requirements, there will be an
integration cost/contract but the planemaker will do it.
There is a per need basis however, I do not think the IAF
would like to pay an integration for every type in service.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Nov 2011 00:05

for real BVR, we need a bigger plan against the chips. AWACS for each squadron is mandatory, and can act as nodes to the CnC at HQ/main command terminals viewing multiple AWACs taking the mission. I am expecting 100s of Jx etc, that would have to brought down in minutes- each BVR missile should be able to driven (mid-course guidance) by either AWACs or supporting a/c like MKI which has a larger radar range. since MMRCA candidates are more stealthier than the current MKI, they can be sent to fire a BVR from 100km ahead.

Along with this, we also need a stealthier missile for real BVR mission effectiveness. Jxx/or even a jsf should never know that the incoming BVR only about <10km or so, by visual only. possible?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Nov 2011 01:19

Bumble-Bee wrote: Actually now that you point it out, a BVR missile wont help Raffy much, elegant as bird it is, it still has a puny radar, a mid range missile which is pretty useless in BVR engagements, and expensive weapons package and a shitty country that it originates from. We are not buying a bird to loose it combat, rather I hope we buy the the EF which has a far better chance of shooting down its enemies from very long range with Meteor, has a higher combat cieling, can supercruise faster, TVC which will allows for better low level capabilities and higher thrust in certain areas, bigger radar with higher detection ranges, industrial partnership which will allow us to supply a large number of EF users with spares and allows us to develope it the way we please. Ze French have had enough from us for now, time for the EU to win this.

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/images1/M-M ... ssiles.pdf

This article may refresh your memory with regards to the missiles in contention for the MRCA contest. the Rafale is first of all, not limited to the MICA alone. The Meteor is an option and will enter Adl'A service in 2017 or so, which is alright for the IAF. But even the MICA is reputedly a deadly missile in BVR, and to suggest that its useless is really ignorant. an engagement range of 60km+ is good enough for most scenarios (especially considering that a positive ID and lock is required before firing to avoid fratricide) and the MICA is known to have a very high Pk and very good ECCM capability.

It offers a very good engagement envelope, capable of being fired from the pylons at even 9G maneuvers and ejected from the pylon at upto 4G maneuvers. The MICA-IR is an especially useful missile considering its passive nature and its very long engagement range for an IR missile (also 60km+). If the enemy fighter doesn't have MAWS, they are very vulnerable to the MICA-IR and using the Soviet tactic of firing a semi-active missile followed shortly by an IR missile (R-27) could be particularly useful when used with MICA-EM and IR variants.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Nov 2011 04:05

This WRT to EF2K may have already been posted. If so, apologies.

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

"By 2007, Germany estimated the system cost (aircraft, training plus spare parts) to €120m and said it was in perpetual increase.[46] On 17 June 2009, Germany ordered 31 aircraft of Tranche 3A for €2,800m, leading to a system cost of €90m per aircraft."

That works out to $122MM @ E1 = $1.35 at today's rates. But that number was 2 years ago. The INR was was what 41 to $1?. Today we are talking $1 = INR 53. It's hard to imagine what the same unit cost would be today. Hint: not less. At 126 units this is over $15 billion. Cost spikes (euro vacations for employees) and scope creep would up this number by 20% minimum so we are talking ~$145MM or ~$18 bn before weapons.

The same equation holds for the Rafale.

The MoF is going to put the kaibosh on this deal or ask that they get negligible numbers. The decline of the INR is a harbinger of what's to come: higher inflation>higher rates > lower growth > bigger GoI deficit > reduction in expenditure.

IMHO, this deal is not gonna happen.

bharath_a · Post by **bharath_a** » 23 Nov 2011 04:32

$15 billion is a lot, istead we could fork out $2B for F414 GE engine for LCA and $8B for about 60 T-50.
does the mrca deal have an escape clause incase neither bid is cost-effective ?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Nov 2011 04:45

bharath_a wrote:$15 billion is a lot, istead we could fork out $2B for F414 GE engine for LCA and $8B for about 60 T-50.
does the mrca deal have an escape clause incase neither bid is cost-effective ?

Do you have any links stating that the we are short of money to buy the F414s or the 166 T-50/FGFA that the IAF wants? If not, how is this $15 bil supposed to affect the other two purchases you mentioned?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Nov 2011 05:12

The potential funds shortage could come from the fall of the INR;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 55196.html

The budget deficit target of 4.5% of GDP is going to miss by 1 full percentage point. As the INR falls, expenditures in foreign currencies will have a bigger impact on the budget. The Euro cost escalation multiplied by the fall in the INR.

The GoM ('empowered ministers') will be doing a 'guns v butter' debate and they will be looking at the original amount in INR crores versus what what's on tap today. 2014 elections are not that far away and there are huge (and stupid) populist programs underway.

No money has been 'socked away' for the MMRCA. Budget expenditures have to be approved each year--by the MoF.

Unless oil does a 2008, down to $33, the vise tightens : inflation>rates>growth> tax revenues>budget deficits

JMT

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 23 Nov 2011 05:36

You obviously don't know what you are talking about :

-Meteor is available for the rafale as well and was already ordered for the french air force needs (200 missiles for the first batch).
-The rafale is already operational with US weapons.
-The rafale was always deemed superior to the typhoon in international competitions as far as technical aspects are concerned (korea, singapore, dutch and swiss evaluation). See the link below where I provided all the sources in an older post ;(9h55pm post)
-Exercises with the rafale destroyed the assumption that the typhoon was the superior AtA platform be it in BVR or WVR.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=2160[/quote]

Yup still no one buys it. Its over-rated, even the french know it. They are scrambling to sell but no one buys. It's suppossedly cheaper?, has a higher payload and can pull a mean air show stunt but no one buys. Fact is its limited. sure it can deploy US weapons but will US allow the same amount of TOT for Rafale? Both aircraft have significant amounts of US made parts, Ze french have been false marketing full-tot for a long time but can't deliver since the US has warned them against such bs marketing. Now if India doesn't buy well no one would. complete hogwash, EF has always been a worthy contender, it's cost has been a pain for some potential customers. Still, many have acquired it. I never said that Raffy can't deploy Meteor , I said EF can, Raffy can too but EF has better top speeds and higher altitude cielings which allow for longer range BVR shots with Meteor. It's radar is still puny and couldn't even match the apg-80 1st gen AESA on block 60.

Mica is a decent missile but the Derby, Aim-120C-7 are much better. The missile is a rip off. The MICA IR could be useful but still at such a high price per unit, it is better for longer range better missiles that are available at lower costs. all thos excericse reports are strangely written only by the ze french, there are no valid sources. Even with so much material flooded about how the Raffy killed the EF 9 times, no one is buying it. Besides technically the EF full-filled more of the 600+ technical parameters that IAF tested them on.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Nov 2011 06:48

bharath_a wrote:$15 billion is a lot, istead we could fork out $2B for F414 GE engine for LCA and $8B for about 60 T-50.
does the mrca deal have an escape clause incase neither bid is cost-effective ?

I think you have not figured out what the fuss is all about. Shame on BRF for having a thread about MRCA running for years with tens of thousands of posts and we still have people who don't have a clue as to why this MRCA selection drama took place.

I think the "why" of MMRCA needs to go on the FAQ thread - but hey what the heck we are now uncovering new techniques of air combat on this thread so who am I to complain?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Nov 2011 10:05

Cain Marko wrote:In response to Viv, lost my whole damn post!

I know what that feels like.

Viv, regarding the MKI comparison - my point was that the EF might have been equal to the MKI at low altitude (ref. RAF ACM) possibly because the MKI is much bigger vis a vis the Rafale. IOWs, the possibility exists that the lopsided Corsica results might have been because the rafale suffers from no such disadvantage. It is v.well known that in terms of slowspeed handling, the MKI is top notch, that the EF could equal it (as per Austin's reference to RAF chief's comment), might have been due to its huge visual sig. IIRC, an F-16 jockey had noted this during a Cope India. Just a theory, there might have been other factors as well.

If you're saying that the EF had an edge against the MKI at lower altitude WVR combat because of the Sukhoi's huge size.. I agree. It probably played a big role. Its one of the reasons why the Indian Navy's Sea Harriers were able to dominate MN Rafales(albeit crewed with, at the time, inexperienced pilots) at WVR.

As far as the much touted TWR advantage of the EF, there is v.little between the two birds when lightly loaded. For instance:
@ 50% fuel + guns only, EF has a TWR of about 1.3; Rafale is around 1.23
@ 50% fuel + 6 Aim-120, EF ~ 1.25; Rafale (6 Mica) ~ 1.2
@ 100% fuel + 6 AAM, EF ~ 1.07; Rafale ~ 1.03

Yes at low altitudes its less of a factor. Though as the air becomes more rarefied, the EJ-200's considerable reserves will become a crucial factor.

Obviously having 3 tons extra thrust has its advantages: As payload weight increases, the EF will have more thrust, e.g.
@ 100% fuel + 2000kg, EF ~ 1.00; Rafale is well below 1.00.
Where altitude is v.high, and short takeoffs are desired, again EF's advantage will be more pronounced.

If I recall correctly, only the Eurofighter cleared all the IAF's trials at Leh.

Re. the Corsica/ATLC exercises, I would not dismiss lightly them based on assumed unfair ROE (ala Cope India '04) for the foll reasons:

1) The results are too damned lopsided - a one off kill, as was the case of the Jag vs. Rafale or shornet vs. Raptor, is one thing - more of a rare exception; but when you have consistent results in a given scenario, it shows a clear advantage, at least in that regime imho. Not to say that the EF might not enjoy similar advantages in different envelopes but there is little to go by other than DERA type studies. Btw, there is v.little in the Corsica Ex. which shows that the ROE were against the EF. Sure, low-slow might be Rafale's speciality, but is the EF that bad in this envelope?

2) There have been actual members of the Adla making v. specific public comments that reflect these scores - not a small thing. If proved wrong, it would be pie in the face for a v.professional AF, and would make the Adla look like the Pak Navy. If you recall, even the Fornoff comments, which were not from an actual serving crew member, were cause for great aggravation, and an apology/reprimand was tendered. There has been nothing from any side to dispute the French claims - rather glaring this absence considering what it means to PR.

First off, I'd hold off on taking the magazine's account of the exercise at face value. You'll recall that a senior USAF pilot made certain claims that were taken at face value as well, until Vishnu Som's article/post came out. That said, it would STILL be a one-off because the Rafale has NOT been able to replicate that awesome score in the numerous other less-hyped DACT exercises that have taken place.

Coming to how much of reflection of real world performance this exercise was - it started out at an altitude well below jet cruising speed, at a low speed (below 0.5 Mach) and most importantly was guns only. In actuality, you'd have an HMS and a very high-G all aspect missile being employed in WVR, with an extremely low probability of both aircraft carrying out multiple unsuccessful passes.

As far as BVR goes, the Tiffy should hold the cards.

Well it was designed to excel at BVR combat against an foe that could dispatch dozens of fighters and bombers including evolved variants of the cutting edge (at the time of conception) Su-27, at short notice. One would expect to replicate it that against the PLAAF.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 23 Nov 2011 10:14

I am surprised that people think that on signing the contract we are going to pay the winner the full amount. There will be stringent payment terms where we pay as we get and when we get we qualify it is as per contract and then pay. So the Rs.53=$ does not hold water.

I would think the MoF would have compiled Forex outflow figures in advance and should have taken out a forex forward contract. Maybe a finace whizkid on here can elaborate.

Yes, the devaluation is worrisome in many aspects, but trust us SDREs to squeeze every $ for what it is worth.

And BTW, are we paying in $s? Nope. One commercial bid was in three currencies, as reported. Hopefully the Lira! Was one of them.

My 2 Lire.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Nov 2011 10:18

Taygibay wrote:
Also, the ASRAAM and IRIS-T have a 90 deg off-boresight lock-on capability unlike the MICA which is restricted to about 60 deg.
N'importe quoi!

"'Over-the-shoulder' Mica pushes limits
ROBERT HEWSON Editor Jane Air-Launched Weapons
London

Not quite the same thing. For one, it needs a wingman to designate the target (which the wing man could arguably directly engage himself), who may not be able or available to cover the leader. It certainly doesn't help in one-vs-one exercises like the DACT in discussion.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Nov 2011 10:31

Kovy wrote:
Viv S wrote:
Depends on the altitude. It'll be the other way round at 40,000 feet. At 60,000 feet, the Eurofighter will be only game in town.
A dogfight starting at 60kft ? come on.... be serious (or may be you have a credible scenario to explain how it could happen ?)

Naah.. that was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek comment, what with only the F-22 and EF having a flight ceiling that exceeds that altitude. That said, I do expect the EF to be sitting higher than any other aircraft while cruising, and sprinting to an even higher altitude on detecting hostiles.

Even if the dofight starts at 40000ft, both aircrats will loose altitude very fast as they trade it for speed while pulling high G.

And when they hit the deck (no more altitude to trade), slow speed maneuvering at low altitude will make the difference.

The fact that most gunfights between 2 comparable fighteurs/pilots end at low altitude/speed is the reason why the typhoon will always suffer in front of Rafale. Dofighting while staying above 40000ft is merely imposible.

Fair enough if you're aiming for a gun kill, but (in your opinion) would ACM last long enough for the aircraft to lose that much altitude, before one of the two scores a 'kill', assuming at least one if not both are equipped with a HMS and high off-boresight missile.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 23 Nov 2011 12:02

Rafale pilots are allowed to pull upto 10g maneuvers at airshows, not the same for EF. EF pilots have air show g-restrictions of 5.5g max with 20 degree aoa.
The Rafale also uses a lot of burner at airshows to demo it's speed and agility. EF does that a bit less and often with stores.
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter- ... light.html

all aspect tvc on the EF will allow for 5% lower fuel burn and 7% higher thrust while cruising and offcourse tighter turns. Furthermore, EF pilot's have better G-suits that allow them to pull 9g constantly.

koti · Post by **koti** » 23 Nov 2011 12:43

Self Delete

koti · Post by **koti** » 23 Nov 2011 12:52

Viv S wrote: Naah.. that was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek comment, what with only the F-22 and EF having a flight ceiling that exceeds that altitude. That said, I do expect the EF to be sitting higher than any other aircraft while cruising, and sprinting to an even higher altitude on detecting hostiles.

Even if the dogfight starts at 40000ft, both aircrafts will loose altitude very fast as they trade it for speed while pulling high G.

And when they hit the deck (no more altitude to trade), slow speed maneuvering at low altitude will make the difference.

The fact that most gunfights between 2 comparable fighters/pilots end at low altitude/speed is the reason why the typhoon will always suffer in front of Rafale. Dogfighting while staying above 40000ft is merely impossible.

I differ here sir. No matter how efficient EF will be at a higher altitude, it can never out-turn or outrun a modern BVR missile. Unless it somehow breaks the lock of it(actively Spectra) or passively (Chaffs say).
However it is relatively easy to break lock of both active or passive BVR missiles at low altitude due to ground clutter and terrain(say Himalayas)- where Rafale will have better handling.

So I see Rafale at a clear advantage in both high altitude(Spectra) and low altitude(better handling) when compared with EF in BVR.
Where Rafale can be at a disadvantage is in WVR at high altitude. Unlikely situ IMO
Please differ if I am wrong.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 23 Nov 2011 16:40

EF has very complex defensive aids including counter missile maneuvers, which gives the pilot the best possible flight path to counter the incoming missile. Furthermore, the Captor-E is a far bigger radar with higher detections ranges which will allow for longer range detection of the Rafale and is virtually jam proof. Flying higher and at higher top speeds, the EF will detect the Raffy first and fire the Meteor at a longer range. Meteor being virtually jam proof will also send the Raffy into counter maneuvers once fired and then Raffy is in a serious pickle. Breaking lock will require very high speeds at high altitude to begin with and then the pilot can dive down low, EF with its counter missile flight path, TVC and better overall kinematics will best allow for dodging the missile. The TVC on EF will also allow for better performance down low. Furthermore, Raffy has had a crash due to pilot disorientation caused due to g-loc. EF on the other hand has better g-suits which allow the pilot to pull 9 G turns for extended periods without g-loc. This could be life saver while dodging a missile. While pulling high G turns in the raffy, the pilot is more likely crash due to over G and g-loc caused by extended high speed and high g turns. EF pilot on the other hand will have better energy and can pull high g turns for longer durations.

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 23 Nov 2011 16:48

but can't deliver since the US has warned them against such bs marketing

Could you provide a link, please?

@Viv_S
You still stated wrongly that the MICA is 60 deg off boresight.

All quality present missiles can fire 180 BTW as the IRIS for instance.
So add the HMCS to any fighter and use howled-necked pilots and hey : 360 degrees

Just like Bumble-Bee's attack at it assuring us of the MICA's horrid state
insisting on longer range.
MICA covers 500m to 60km+. Meteor 100km+.
Essential zone of engagement covered. Check!

The quality of a product can be found in variants more than in export.
Compare the versions of AIM/AMRAAM and MICA, you'll see.
The bad MICA is used at sea on vessels and in land-based VL systems
just like its American friend.

BTW Dumble-Dee, continuous every post usage of Ze French could
give some the impression that you are a wacist little won of a witch ...
which probably would do little to further your point efficiently.

Oh and :

The TVC on EF will also allow for better performance down low.

If it ever gets it as posted yes, sure

Does anyone have news on the process in the meanwhile?

Good day all, Tay.

koti · Post by **koti** » 23 Nov 2011 17:38

Bumble-Bee wrote:EF has very complex defensive aids including counter missile maneuvers, which gives the pilot the best possible flight path to counter the incoming missile. Furthermore, the Captor-E is a far bigger radar with higher detections ranges which will allow for longer range detection of the Rafale and is virtually jam proof. Flying higher and at higher top speeds, the EF will detect the Raffy first and fire the Meteor at a longer range. Meteor being virtually jam proof will also sen........

Bumble saab,

I was able to re collect a local movie climax where the hero kicks the $&!# out of the villans and the villans help him out in every punch and kick by being ready to fall with a somersault.

I have a question, lets forget the radars and AESA's: You are flying high in the sky, I am flying low near the ground. Whom do you think will be able to see the other first?

OT: How much did you bribe the mods to get away with your name?

brat · Post by **brat** » 23 Nov 2011 18:03

would this be relevant...
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/09/ ... -race.html

Says Air Vice Marshall (Retd) Kapil Kak, of the Centre for Air Power Studies, the IAF’s official think tank, “It is as clear as daylight. Selecting the EJ200 for the Tejas would boost the Eurofighter’s prospects in the MMRCA contest. Its engines, which form about 15-20% of the cost of a modern fighter, would be already manufactured in India for the Tejas LCA. And, for the same reason, rejecting the GE F-414 would diminish the chances of the two fighters that fly with that engine.

In its tender for the Tejas engine, the MoD has specified that only ten engines could be built abroad. All subsequent engines must be built in India, with the vendor transferring technology for their manufacture. If the EJ200 were being built in India for the Tejas, Eurofighter would benefit from a fully amortised engine line and also be entitled to offset credits for the “made-in-India” Eurofighter EJ200 engines. This would lower the price of the Eurofighter, a huge advantage for an aircraft that is regarded as high performance but expensive. Logistically too, the IAF would prefer an MMRCA with engines that were already on its inventory.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 23 Nov 2011 19:36

EF has very complex defensive aids including counter missile maneuvers, which gives the pilot the best possible flight path to counter the incoming missile. Furthermore, the Captor-E is a far bigger radar with higher detections ranges which will allow for longer range detection of the Rafale and is virtually jam proof. Flying higher and at higher top speeds, the EF will detect the Raffy first and fire the Meteor at a longer range. Meteor being virtually jam proof will also sen........

Rafale RWR will detect Typhoon emissions far before the Typhoon will be able to detect the rafale. You should remember that a radar echo should be powerfull enough to make its way back to the reciever.

Rafales already achieved silent "kills" (virtual or real) against other fighter jets (ATLC) and SAM sites in Lybia. So the picture is more complex than you think. Rafales already achieved a 7-1 victory vs the typhoon in BVR exercises despite simulating deteriorated missile performance and while the typhoon was working at full potential just to give you a clue...

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 23 Nov 2011 19:42

Relevant indeed, Brat :

Says Air Vice Marshall (Retd) Kapil Kak, of the Centre for Air Power Studies, the IAF’s official think tank, “It is as clear as daylight. Selecting the EJ200 for the Tejas would boost the Eurofighter’s prospects in the MMRCA contest.

To be linked to this brought by Karan_Mc in the Kaveri thread :
http://idrw.org/?p=5405#more-5405

Good day all, Tay.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Nov 2011 22:09

onlee problem is EJ200 is not selected for Tejas. HAL is in talks with Snecma, GE has locked in the Tejas Mk1 contract and likely will get Mk2 also if kaveri-snecma takes a longish time to deliver (which I think is probable).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Nov 2011 22:57

koti wrote: I differ here sir. No matter how efficient EF will be at a higher altitude, it can never out-turn or outrun a modern BVR missile. Unless it somehow breaks the lock of it(actively Spectra) or passively (Chaffs say).

It can evade a missile if the aircraft detects the missile through its radar or its exhaust/plume through its FLIR and begins evasive maneuvers outside the missile's so-called 'no-escape-zone'. Or if the launch/radiating platform is forced to break lock or shift its FoV; even an ARH missile launched at range needs mid course updates.

However it is relatively easy to break lock of both active or passive BVR missiles at low altitude due to ground clutter and terrain(say Himalayas)- where Rafale will have better handling.

Couple of points here. If the Rafale tries to lose itself in ground clutter its also breaking contact with the targets that its currently tracking. Secondly, what is the range and speed of the aircraft at low altitude? What is the range of the missile? Half? Even less? (Perhaps not quite as low if it had a lofted trajectory). If physical performance was unimportant, the IAF would have been better off with buying the cheaper SH, perhaps a Growler-lite variant like the RAAF. In addition, if the aircraft and crew have been tasked with CAP or interception, they're starting off the pitch with the disadvantage of a reduced radar range. The pilot's job there is more than just staying alive or having a good kill-ratio. He has to check enemy action in, and/or dominate his sector and he can't do that from a 'foxhole'.

So I see Rafale at a clear advantage in both high altitude(Spectra) and low altitude(better handling) when compared with EF in BVR.
Where Rafale can be at a disadvantage is in WVR at high altitude. Unlikely situ IMO

SPECTRA isn't a silver bullet solution and its performance vis-a-vis the DASS is unknown given the classified operation of both systems. Its passive detection relies on either ideal weather conditions or on the all threats being emitting, and its performance vs AESA radars is lets say... questionable. Which is all well and good against the Libyan air defences but a very different story against an increasingly sophisticated PLAAF.

Please differ if I am wrong.

I can't say if you're wrong. I just have a different opinion.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Nov 2011 23:19

Taygibay wrote: @Viv_S
You still stated wrongly that the MICA is 60 deg off boresight.

All quality present missiles can fire 180 BTW as the IRIS for instance.
So add the HMCS to any fighter and use howled-necked pilots and hey : 360 degrees

I was actually talking about the missile's seeker. The one that ASRAAM and Aim-9X share has a near 90 degree FoV, same for the IRIS-T. The MICA's seeker (correct me if I'm wrong) has a 60 deg lock-on capability.

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 24 Nov 2011 01:18

±60 degrees Gimbal angles on the MICA, Viv_S
which accounts for a 120 degrees FoV that is very
coherent with a missile given as HOBA/HOBS and
designed for both LOBL & LOAL.

http://www.sagem-ds.com/IMG/pdf/D84E-MICA_Seeker.pdf

The AMRAAM's solution is software induced BTW :

The next AIM-120C-5 Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile
(AMRAAM) upgrade to be fielded will be
a high off-boresight (HOBS) capability,
writes Doug Richardson. This is a software
development and requires no changes to
the missile. It was a jointly-funded
development, with Raytheon paying for
the software changes and the US
Department of Defense paying for the
flight- test programme.
HOBS is a modification to the autopilot
functions, Raytheon director for air-to-air
missile (AAM) development, William West,
told the AAM conference held recently in
London by SMi. It will allow the missile to
fly a lock-on-after-launch trajectory in which
the target is outside the gimbal limits of the
seeker. This is not intended to give the
weapon an improved close-range capability,
but will allow the engagement of targets
detected by a third party such as a second
fighter. HOBS will be introduced during
production Lot 14 in Fiscal Year 2002
(FY02).
Since HOBS is a software-only modification,
it will not necessarily be provided on all
missiles. Possible export approval is
currently being studied.

from here : http://knygos.sprogmenys.net/knygos-2/R ... ockets.pdf

Initial gimbal angles on the Python were ±30 degrees BTW.

If you want here are two opinions on the MICA :

MBDA MICA
The MICA BVRAAM forms the standard
armament of Dassault’s Rafale and is
also presently selected for upgradation
package of the IAF’s Mirage 2000H/TH
fighters. MICA was originally designed as
a ‘multi-aircraft’ missile that could easily
be integrated onto any modern fighter
aircraft, without significantly reducing
the aircraft’s speed or negatively affecting
its aerodynamic characteristics. MICA is
capable of both BVR (60km+) and close
range interception thanks to dual active
radar (as in MICA RF) and Imaging Infra
Red (as in MICA IR) seeker and Lock On
Before Launch (LOBL) as well as Lock
On After Launch (LOAL) capability.
Carried under the aircraft fuselage
or under wings and fired by ejection or
rail-launched MICA is “permitted” to be
ejected from the airframe points up to 4g
while wings pylons can release MICA up
to 9g. Products of research & development
during 1990s and after, both MICA RF
and MICA IR have a range in excess of
60km, the MICA IR version receives mid-
course update commands from the radar to
compare the target location with that of its
seeker’s track for LOAL engagements. In
case of MICA RF after the target has been
designated by the host aircraft’s radar, it
makes the first phase of its fight in inertial
guidance mode, and then latches onto the
target in flight in fire and forget mode using
its “4A” active-radar homing head. MICA
remains well reputed for its general level
of sophistication and reliability in terms of
“kill percentage” even in European adverse
meteorological conditions alongside dense
electronic warfare environment infested
with saturation jamming as the missiles in
turn embeds a formidable ECCM system
to burn through hostile jamming.
Excellent manoeuvrability is
aided by combination of long chord
wings, efficient tail control surfaces
while at short range Thrust Vector
Control (TVC) facilitates High Off-
Boresight Angle (HOBA) engagements.
Interestingly the MICA IR seeker may
also be utilised for discrete optronics
monitoring prior launch. Again MICA
IR with its excellent angular resolution
will be able to mount stealthy strikes at
unsuspecting opponents especially if the
launch platform gets well pre-positioned
by friendly AEW&C platforms like the
IAF’s A-50EI PHALCON (PHased
Array L-band CONformal) aircraft the
lethal warhead being triggered by a
Doppler radar proximity fuse. Surprise
had always been the key to successful
execution in air combat, with as much
as 50-percent of the shot down pilots
totally unaware of the fact that they were
even under attack!

From here : http://www.vayuaerospace.in/images1/M-M ... ssiles.pdf

and

The MICA (Missile d'Interception, de Combat et d'Autodefense - Dogfight/Self-Defence/Interception
Missile) was developed by the French to arm the Mirage 2000 and the new Rafale.It is designed to cover
both WVR and BVR combat envelopes, and incorporates extended fuselage strakes to improve turning
ability,and thrust-vectoring vanes to enhance post launch turn rates.
Unique among Western missiles, the MICA was designed with both infrared and active radar homing
seeker-equipped variants from the outset. Like the equivalent US AMRAAM, the MICA uses midcourse
inertial guidance with datalink updates, and RF and impact fusing.The active homing variant, the MICA-
RF,is equipped with a monopulse pulse Doppler seeker,the infrared variant,the MICA IR,with a scanning
infrared seeker. Indian and Taiwanese Mirage 2000 aircraft carry MICA variants.

from here :
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Missile-Survey-May-05.pdf

I've chosen one Indian source and Carlo Kopp, not the greatest fan of the Rafale
but who still manages to give it as "equivalent" ( worth the same in Latin ).

Good day all, Tay.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Nov 2011 02:18

It is a mistake of both Indian purchasing process and EJ200s marketing strategies that ended in failure of an all possible nice collaboration. Now, that we have already chosen snecma, some sections here and mostly EADS realize their mistakes.

Now, it would not be from a learning point if we thinking EJ200s can be learned via MMRCA route.. but of course, only if it comes out as winner.

Let us say it does, then we end up with as many engine tech are in the world except the p&w ones.. GE 414 has some screw drivers been passed for lca Mk2 deal.

Kaveri dry thrust up is a cause of concern that could influence MMRCA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Nov 2011 02:20

Taygibay wrote:±60 degrees Gimbal angles on the MICA, Viv_S
which accounts for a 120 degrees FoV that is very
coherent with a missile given as HOBA/HOBS and
designed for both LOBL & LOAL.

My mistake. I meant 90 deg and 60 deg off boresight not FoV. For FoV we're talking near 180 deg for the ASRAAM, Aim-9X and IRIS-T, and 120 deg for the MICA.

Initial gimbal angles on the Python were ±30 degrees BTW.

Which Python were you referring to?

If you want here are two opinions on the MICA :
.
.
.

I've chosen one Indian source and Carlo Kopp, not the greatest fan of the Rafale
but who still manages to give it as "equivalent" ( worth the same in Latin ).

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the MICA is a bad missile. Far from it. As a matter of fact, there are distinct logistical and certain operational advantages to employing a single type for multiple tasks. Unlike the ASRAAM or IRIS-T which have very marginal utility at BVR ranges, the MICA IR can still be employed. Even with a reduced pk, it can be used as a 'spoiler' to force the enemy to break radar lock or disrupt its flight profile.

Point is that while its quite decent at BVR and WVR combat, it excels at neither. And in the DACT scenario that we were discussing (WVR 1 vs 1 at Corsica), the ASRAAM's greater FoV coupled with the HMSS will put the EF at an advantage.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Nov 2011 04:14

We have no official response yet to Raytheon's offer for HARM and JSOW on MMRCA candiate. Would Rf more suitable for SEAD than Ef?