Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 Aug 2014 09:43

Dhananjay wrote:So 24 Rafales carrying 8 AASMs of 750 kilos each, 1 targetting pod + 5 MICAs and Karachi goes kaput !!!

Saar, with due respect the scenarios that you are giving here complete BS. In actual combat in Libya etc the Rafale carried around only 1-2000 kg of air to ground munitions, add a few hundred Kgs for the AAMs. Even the most pimped out for PR configurations max-out at around 3000 kgs. BTW I don't think that the Rafale has the hardpoints to carry 8 x 750 kg bombs, at max it can carry only 5, unless you're using pylons which can carry multiple bombs.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Aug 2014 10:08

abhik wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:So 24 Rafales carrying 8 AASMs of 750 kilos each, 1 targetting pod + 5 MICAs and Karachi goes kaput !!!
Saar, with due respect the scenarios that you are giving here complete BS. In actual combat in Libya etc the Rafale carried around only 1-2000 kg of air to ground munitions, add a few hundred Kgs for the AAMs. Even the most pimped out for PR configurations max-out at around 3000 kgs. BTW I don't think that the Rafale has the hardpoints to carry 8 x 750 kg bombs, at max it can carry only 5, unless you're using pylons which can carry multiple bombs.

Abhik ji here:

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

Hardpoints: 14 for Air Force versions (Rafale B/C), 13 for Navy version (Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg (20,900 lb) external fuel and ordnance and provisions to carry combinations of:

As you see red bold part says it has 14 hardpoints, so I gave 1 hardpoint to 'Targetting Pod' leaving 13 hardpoints out of which 5 are given to MICA air to air that leaves 8 hardpoints which I gave each one only ONE AASM per hardpoint that is = 8 !

While Italy to Libya distance is 1778 kms. so maybe Rafales had to carry fuel tanks as the distance was 3700 kilometers going and coming back! While Porbandar to Karachi is 447 kms only. Hence no fuel tanks on my formations.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Aug 2014 11:36

NRao wrote: Also, India needs *just enough* to deter China (idea being that if China starts the Paki will join, but if Paki starts China may not).

While I cannot put anything as a source to substantiate my POV, know this: The greater the asymmetry with Pakistan, the greater the chances of a two front war for India in a full scale war.

Only in case of a Full Scale War:
1. Pakistan will not take on India alone in full scale war. A full scale war will not be started by Pakis if the Chinese do not join in.
2. If China attacks India, Pakis will join in, whether invited to the war or not.
3. If India attacks China, Pakis will join in.
4. If India attacks Pak, most probably Chinese will jump in.

A limited area conflict will have different play outs. By now the Pakis have aligned their strategies to the fact the full scale warfare is victory for India and there will be no US / EU / Russian support they can count on to pressurize India. Chinese are all they've got.

As far as the Chinese are concerned, they do not see us as a serious military challenge. They have benched marked against US and are preparing for a conflict from all sides except north and north west.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 Aug 2014 12:35

Dhananjay wrote: Abhik ji here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
Hardpoints: 14 for Air Force versions (Rafale B/C), 13 for Navy version (Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg (20,900 lb) external fuel and ordnance and provisions to carry combinations of:
As you see red bold part says it has 14 hardpoints, so I gave 1 hardpoint to 'Targetting Pod' leaving 13 hardpoints out of which 5 are given to MICA air to air that leaves 8 hardpoints which I gave each one only ONE AASM per hardpoint that is = 8 !

Every hard point doesn't have the same load bearing or weapon carrying capability, check out this chart for the Rafale. So theoretically only 5 hardpoints can possibly carry such heavy bombs. And thats only the theoretical loadout not a practical loadout. Apart from the capability of the hard point to bear the load of the weapon and having the wiring to interface with it, the weapon has to be certified wrt aerodynamics etc. So even a lot of the possible load outs that you see in the chart will never happen. In fact till date I have not seen the Rafale carry air to ground munitions in more than 3 different hardpoints, using at most 2 hardpoints together. And this is a almost 3 decade old fighter.

While Italy to Libya distance is 1778 kms. so maybe Rafales had to carry fuel tanks as the distance was 3700 kilometers going and coming back! While Porbandar to Karachi is 447 kms only. Hence no fuel tanks on my formations.

They were carrying 6000l of external fuel + mid-air refueling and typically carrying 4 x 500lb LGB or at most 6 x 340kg AASM + 2 AAMs. Also please note that carrying fuel is quite different than carrying munitions because the fuel is constantly expanded so the fighter keeps lighter, more fuel efficient and maneuverable with time. With just internal fuel, carrying 6-7000 kg of payload the combat range will be much lesser than the specifications given on the brochure.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Aug 2014 13:28

Dhananjay wrote:...
Each Rafale jet carried 8 AASM of 750 kgs. 3 MICA IRs and 2 Radar Guided Micas.

...

Not kilos but pounds.

I think you mean 750 lb (i.e 340 kg) for 250 kg (550 lb) bomb body version.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Aug 2014 15:37

abhik wrote: Every hard point doesn't have the same load bearing or weapon carrying capability, check out this chart for the Rafale. So theoretically only 5 hardpoints can possibly carry such heavy bombs. And thats only the theoretical loadout not a practical loadout. Apart from the capability of the hard point to bear the load of the weapon and having the wiring to interface with it, the weapon has to be certified wrt aerodynamics etc. So even a lot of the possible load outs that you see in the chart will never happen. In fact till date I have not seen the Rafale carry air to ground munitions in more than 3 different hardpoints, using at most 2 hardpoints together. And this is a almost 3 decade old fighter.

Yes now I can see what you mean, this link says the maximum weapon test for SIX Air to Ground AASMs, that too looks like on only 2 points carried on two triple-ejector racks.

Though weight of AASM isn't given, I guess it must be as Srai ji says 250 kilos each.

http://defense-update.com/20140127_rafa ... AGjcKOxqeo

This configuration comprise a full increment of six air-to-air and six air-to-ground weapons. The air-to-ground ordnance includes six Sagem/MBDA Hammer guided weapons (AASM), carried on two triple-ejector racks, designed specifically for the weapon. The AASM is deployed with one of three optional guidance methods utilizing a GPS guided, laser homing or thermally guided seekers. To extend its range the Hammer is also equipped with a rocket booster. Four MICA air-to-air missiles and two very long range Meteor missiles will be complementing the fighter’s air-to-air capability. The MICA missiles are operational and can be employed with IR or radar guided. These Meteor missiles are yet to enter service – but they are expected to be fielded with the F3-R variant by 2018. In addition to that impressive weapons complement, Rafale will retain its Nexter 30M791 30 mm internal cannon, firing 2500 rounds/min. According to the manufacturer, equipped with this configuration, two Rafale aircraft represent the same potential as six Mirage 2000 class aircraft.

So my 750 kilo AASMs become 250 kilos and from 8 to 6 each.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Aug 2014 16:44

The Comparison with the F-15E is also rather one sided since the beagle can carry upwards of 20K lb fuel without sacrificing any weapons station. On top of that it can carry even more fuel through EFT's.

The point is that without extra fuel the number of weapons are rather redundant especially in an extremely hypothetical scenario where you are talking about extreme weapons load outs that will almost never be seen in combat. Lets take the F-15E as an example. Its combat radius would about halve if it were flying at 20K feet (not really low) with a heavy load out of bombs and self defense weapons (osirak style raid). Factor in some really hard flying and the ability to quickly ditch the stations and run an offensive or defensive air defense mission and you can further clip 20-25% of that remaining combat radius. There is a point after which the returns become extremely diminishing and one gets into the strike bomber or a strategic bomber territory (both in terms of the penalty and cost)

Here you can see an actual mission load out for Operation iraqi freedom -

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/images/sto ... out_01.jpg

Total fuel carried - 30,000+ Pounds
Total Air to Air Weapons - 4 (2 x Aim-120 + 2 X Aim-9) weighing 1000 pounds
Total Air to Ground Weapons - 11 ( 5 x Gbu-12 + 6 x Mk82) weighing 7000 pounds
2 Pods

This is pretty much the extreme that you are likely to see without sacrificing self defense capability and even this sort of mission is with 30+K of fuel. Not your average medium combat multi-role mission

. CFT's will help the Rafale since it looses 3 hard points for 6000 L of fuel and even then the rule of thumb usually is that around half of that goes to overcome the drag (and only half to increase the combat range). The two 1150 liter CFT's should give the rafale about the same added range (if not more) than 3 smaller EFT's or 2 larger EFT's.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 30 Aug 2014 18:40

Well fly away price is now known and documented. Last bargain (better than Eurofighter) : we join Teddy Riner as mass destruction weapon?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 30 Aug 2014 20:37

bombing Libya from Italy w/o US Air force refuelers? Are you serious?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 30 Aug 2014 21:08

^^^^^^
i believe it was refueller from France and Canada plus some buddy refuelling. No US refuellers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Aug 2014 01:10

#SurfingToKillTime:

Dassault Systemes S. A.

Market Capitalization: $12.89 Billion !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Price, Today: $50.40
Price, High: $50.78, Jul 19, 2013
Price, Low: $40.17, Feb 7, 2014

Price, Start: $17.50, Sept 4, 2009

So, why exactly is India going for the Rafale?

JK.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 31 Aug 2014 02:23

^ Don't know if it'll be bought, new amdavadi PM isn't a big shopper it'll take lot of convincing for him to shell out such a big amount. Just see how quickly NaMo & Jaitley have cancelled LUH competition. Then there is also the fact how DCNS had tricked in scorpene deal, they're still haggling over ToT for Torpedo tubes.

So it may not happen or just a token purchase like Klaus ji said, probably like 40 for IAF and 30 for IN.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 01 Sep 2014 02:53

NRao wrote:#SurfingToKillTime:

Dassault Systemes S. A.

Market Capitalization: $12.89 Billion !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Price, Today: $50.40
Price, High: $50.78, Jul 19, 2013
Price, Low: $40.17, Feb 7, 2014

Price, Start: $17.50, Sept 4, 2009

So, why exactly is India going for the Rafale?

Because the company is not for sale, as simple as that.

JK.

koti · Post by **koti** » 01 Sep 2014 02:59

NRao wrote:#SurfingToKillTime:

Dassault Systemes S. A.

Market Capitalization: $12.89 Billion !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Price, Today: $50.40
Price, High: $50.78, Jul 19, 2013
Price, Low: $40.17, Feb 7, 2014

Price, Start: $17.50, Sept 4, 2009

So, why exactly is India going for the Rafale?

JK.

Market capitalization is not going to be the same as the probable cost of acquiring a company.
It might me several times the cost depending the capabilities it can offer.
I think WhatsApp is an example though not strictly relevant.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2014 03:01

Market cap is a traditional way to arrive to a ballpark figure. Not only whattsapp but recent tech acquisition have completely ignored this aspect with prices going to many times over.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Sep 2014 05:52

Main to kehta hoon le lo, aisi cheez roz roz nahin milti:

Does Cobra manuever at 12:55 to 01:25, I don't think eve su is capable of such a thing from so fast to almost stop.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2014 06:03

Did you mean from 00:55 to 1:25? If so then this is not a cobra but a sustained AOA maneuver, most air displays do involve (these days) some form of sustained AOA performance/ pass as this shows off the slow speed sustained performance of the aircraft. The Cobra is an instantaneous nose pointing maneuver that rapidly builds up the high AOA.

Sustained AOA Pass -

Cobra

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Sep 2014 06:21

^Thanks! I didn't know the difference, yes Su does stand up its tail even leaning a little more backwards suddenly!

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Sep 2014 07:08

Thats the thing with the Soviet/Ruskie 4th gen fighters. they have set standards so high that 4++ and 5th gen fighters find it hard to match up with them.

There is nothing more beautiful in the sky than a pugachevs cobra by a sukhoi. heck IIRC ...western fighters of the time had to have their aerodynamics modified to be able to execute that maneuver.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 09:21

^^^^

Standards for what? Air shows? Certainly. The MKI can turn on a dime. But uptime ................ Or spares. Or .........

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Sep 2014 12:31

NRao wrote:^^^^

Standards for what? Air shows? Certainly. The MKI can turn on a dime. But uptime ................ Or spares. Or .........

NRao saar, you would have seen that my reply was in context of the maneuverability and other factors like climb rate, AoA etc.

I don't want to cross words with you on topics like serviceability, uptime and availability, they are a different story. At the same time, I am sure you would agree with me, that maneuverability is not for air shows only. Remember how our Mig-29s beat the mirages in our own internal training exercises?

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Sep 2014 12:44

NRao wrote:#SurfingToKillTime:

Dassault Systemes S. A.

Market Capitalization: $12.89 Billion !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Price, Today: $50.40
Price, High: $50.78, Jul 19, 2013
Price, Low: $40.17, Feb 7, 2014

Price, Start: $17.50, Sept 4, 2009

So, why exactly is India going for the Rafale?

JK.

And even after you OWN a company, you have to pay them to build out your order.

OWNING does not equal building the planes for free.

The US govt. has some part of Lockheed IIRC, and they still pay them to build the F 35

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Sep 2014 12:53

yawn, for requirement of M-2000-5 fighters we have stretched a decade not ordered anything, what a sham this whole MMRCA thing is, cost in the last 10 years have increased so significantly.

I cant call this incompetence but sheer sabotage. Ordering M-2000 in 2005 and having deliveries starting 2008 we should have paid for and had the entire fleet of 180 mirages by now and thinking about LCA's and fifth gen aircraft induction.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 01 Sep 2014 13:10

Rafale Airshow displays can be fun to watch but the truth is, they do pull some heavy Gs during the demo, Rafale Demo has atleast a couple of 9-10G turns while EF demo is limited to 6Gs and SH Demos to 7G (though USN SHs have a G limiter of 7G)

As for maneuvers, well Su-35/MKI/EF, SH have beautiful displays, all effortless and like ballets in the sky and usually with some sort of loadout, I find Rafale demos rather fast and rushed and aircraft carries no loadout, most of the Rafale demo especially while demostrating its speed is with burners while other aircraft demos have a mix of throttle settings.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 01 Sep 2014 13:13

..Dont know if this has been posted here before:

Germany: only 8 out of 109 Eurofighters operational

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... azine.html

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 01 Sep 2014 13:31

The Rafale can carry plenty and for its weight class it is a truly impressive aircraft but in the Indian context is comes down to plenty of ground targets and reliability. Rafale is reliable enough for our context but we have to ensure we invest in hefty local weaponry. I would hate the deal numbers to be cut, rather we might as well bite this bitter pill and order 200 at once at lower cost per unit.

We need to speed up in the next 3-4 years Sudarshan LGB/ER, GPS Glide bombs, Anti Radiation Missiles, Astra Mk-2, Astra Mk-1 but with IR seeker as WVR weapon?, Mini Brahmos, Mini Nirbhay and order more CBU-105SFW and perhaps some SDBs ( 60NM range, the 4 weapon rack is light weighs 664kg and Rafale can carry 16 of these on 4 stores). I think weapons like SDB offer plenty of usability since they can be used againt moving targets, bunkers (upto 3 feet of reenforced concrete).

This way we can keep costs low. We also need to speed up PGMs i.e we need huge quantities of guidance kits LGB/GPS over 100K-200K units over the next 10 years for the entire AF/IN

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 01 Sep 2014 15:08

As a note on how Soviet hardware has performed against US hardware in warfare. If only we had an opposing country armed with US weaponry to test against.

http://in.rbth.com/articles/2012/12/20/ ... 21167.html

On December 12, 1971, at the height of the India-Pakistan war, one of the most awaited events in aviation history took place. Two MiG-21 fighters of the Indian Air Force’s No.47 squadron, providing air patrol to sensitive installations in western India, intercepted a couple of Pakistan Air Force F-104 Starfighters approaching the city of Jamnagar. The MiGs drew first blood – while one Starfighter managed to flee in the direction of Pakistan, the other one was shot down over the Gulf of Kutch.

During the war the MiG-21s played a crucial role in giving the IAF air superiority that played a huge part in India’s victory. Military analyst Edward Coggins writes in Wings That Stay On: The Role of Fighter Aircraft in War that by the time the hostilities came to an end, the IAF MiG-21s had claimed four PAF F-104s, two PAF F6, one PAF North American F-86 Sabre and one PAF Lockheed C-130 Hercules. The Russian fighter had clearly won the much anticipated air combat between the MiG-21 and the F-104, he writes.

And the Su-30 MKI serviceability rate is a hell of a lot better than the JSF, which can't even make it to an airshow!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Sep 2014 15:23

Aditya_V wrote:yawn, for requirement of M-2000-5 fighters we have stretched a decade not ordered anything, what a sham this whole MMRCA thing is, cost in the last 10 years have increased so significantly.

Nevertheless, Dassault is committed to bring new capabilities to the Rafale, according to plan, upgrading the aircraft to the Rafale F3-R standard by 2018. These initial tst flights were only the first in a long series, additional test flights are planned to a complete the clearance of the flight envelope for this configuration, providing the Rafale full multi-role capability at extended range.

Equipped with this configuration, two Rafale aircraft represent the same potential as six Mirage 2000 class aircraft

http://defense-update.com/20140127_rafa ... ARLJqOxqep

2 Rafale = 6 M2k payload

therefore

126 Rafale = 378 Mirage 2000

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Sep 2014 16:06

I'd say as Sh. Septimus says go for 189 Rafales and:

189 Rafales = 567 M2ks

Own the whole Bharatiya Subcontinent from Hindukush to Tibet to myamar - bangladesh to Srilanka!

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 Sep 2014 16:12

Marten wrote:Therefore, we need only 40 Rafales! Good on them - forget ToT - just get them to deliver two squadrons and possibly replace the M2ks as well.
That should suffice IAF purposes?

Wish it was so. After all the rationale to begin with was falling numbers. Push everything into home grown products and import for these home grown products only as much hardware as is an absolute must. Make more than one variants of these home grown solutions. Pay extra to Indian entities if you have to, to balance the lines.

If such a thing gets done then IAF will not be the first force in the world being asked to prepare its strategy on the basis of what it has. Right now IAF has so much choice that any vested interest group can pretty much find any group of supporters within the ranks.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Sep 2014 16:17

rkhanna wrote:..Dont know if this has been posted here before:

Germany: only 8 out of 109 Eurofighters operational

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... azine.html

I think there is but one serious war making supply chain around.

we should connect with it whole heartedly.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2014 16:55

And the Su-30 MKI serviceability rate is a hell of a lot better than the JSF, which can't even make it to an airshow

Su-30 declared operational status more than a decade ago. The F-35 will declare IOC only starting next year. A very tiny difference that shouldn't stop you from showering your wisdom. Whats the mission availability of the AMCA?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2014 17:24

To be fair to the JSF let's wait until its enters service and then evaluate its reliability.What has come as a revelation is that the 4++ gen Eurocanards are not greatly superior to the Russian birds when it comes to serviceability.There was a recent comment by the CoAS that SU-30MKI avionics problems had been resolved with a software fix.MIG-29 engines are being manufactured at home too.The Russian supply chain is getting much better with facilities being set up in India for key components.German problems with the EF and Rafale stats,same as MKIs show that the contention that Russian wares are inferior in terms of support/spares is debatable.US birds perhaps are a different matter since their legacy SHs and F-16s have been in the air fror decades and all bugs sorted out,plus a huge logistic chain established worldwide for its many users.IF the Flanker was so difficult to support,why have so many countries bought it?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2014 17:33

Mission availability has a lot to do with the internal funding of the air force and its state of affairs. Air forces all around the world keep mission availability at a certain level for a host of reasons. If an air force has a problem with budgeting whereby according to reports only a handful of its fighter fleet (8 out of 100) is operationally ready, then its not the fault of the fighter but the air force, especially when there are no reports of similar aircraft showing such horrendous mission availability rates for other users/operator. An F-16 can show damn near 90+% mission availability rate during wartime, around 80% mission availability during peacetime but can go really low for users that use expat pilots and who always have a shortage of competent pilots and logistical manpower to support high tempo. There were reports of some european air force (Sweden perhaps) not operating an air force at all on weekends

and therefore having no intercepts on weekends for incoming aircraft. Thats not the fault of their fighter fleet

although i bet someone will count that as a failed intercept and add it to the track record of the fighter in question.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Sep 2014 18:12

Philip wrote:What has come as a revelation is that the 4++ gen Eurocanards are not greatly superior to the Russian birds when it comes to serviceability.

The Eurocanards are far better than the Russian birds when it comes to serviceability. Funding issues with the Luftwaffe (which BTW have been denied according to the article) have no bearing on the designs itself.

The RAF's EF pilots consistently fly 240 hours annually and their aircraft exhibit proportional serviceability standards.

There was a recent comment by the CoAS that SU-30MKI avionics problems had been resolved with a software fix.MIG-29 engines are being manufactured at home too.The Russian supply chain is getting much better with facilities being set up in India for key components.

'Much better' belies the low baseline from which is starting. Were the Su-30MKI a single engined aircraft we'd have had a spate of crashes over the last few years.

In that respect, one starts to understand why the IAF scrapped the MiG-27's life extension with an AL-31 upgrade, while the Jaguars upgrade plan still remains on.

German problems with the EF and Rafale stats,same as MKIs show that the contention that Russian wares are inferior in terms of support/spares is debatable.

The 'Rafale stats' were utter garbage and the gentlemen propagating the idea misinformed (despite being retired IAF officers). The Rafale's operational availability is very much upto NATO standards.

US birds perhaps are a different matter since their legacy SHs and F-16s have been in the air fror decades and all bugs sorted out,plus a huge logistic chain established worldwide for its many users.IF the Flanker was so difficult to support,why have so many countries bought it?

The only competitive victory for the Flanker has been in Malaysia (where too diversifying suppliers was an issue). All other exports have been to captive customers.

Comparing the F-16's safety record to the MiG-29 (which too has been in the air for decades) would be instructive.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 02 Sep 2014 15:19

France, UAE Close In on Spy Sat Deal

A UAE source close to the negotiations told Defense News that the discussions on the deal were completed and French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is expected soon in the UAE.

“For the Falcon Eye deal to proceed there is a need for high level of technology transfer, and for that we have negotiated the possible purchase of 40 Rafale jets with the overhaul of the Mirage 2000 fleet,” the source said.

France, UAE Close In on Spy Sat Deal | Defense News | defensenews.com

As usual conflicting reports...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2014 18:10

The MIG-27s are long in the tooth.Their airframes have limitations,thus there was no point in wasting money in a deep upgrade with the planned pensioning off of the type from 2017.

Reg. the German MIG-29s,they had the earliest versions,but even these were in close combat "unbeatable" according to the Luftwaffe.Read the _ and + aspects in this report. The upgraded versions will have eliminated the shortcomings in the first avatar of the Fulcrum.29Ks have even better rcs figs with stealth coatings and greater use of composites.

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... g-29g.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2014 18:49

Pagot wrote:France, UAE Close In on Spy Sat Deal

A UAE source close to the negotiations told Defense News that the discussions on the deal were completed and French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is expected soon in the UAE.

“For the Falcon Eye deal to proceed there is a need for high level of technology transfer, and for that we have negotiated the possible purchase of 40 Rafale jets with the overhaul of the Mirage 2000 fleet,” the source said.

France, UAE Close In on Spy Sat Deal | Defense News | defensenews.com

As usual conflicting reports...

Pagot,

There are 2/3 "International" Space/naval/etc threads to post non-MMRCA news

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Sep 2014 23:15

Philip wrote:The MIG-27s are long in the tooth.Their airframes have limitations,thus there was no point in wasting money in a deep upgrade with the planned pensioning off of the type from 2017.

They aren't significantly older than the Jaguars (except for newer batches of the latter). Given the number of Sukhois that have suffered engine failures, the Al-31 equipped MiG-27's margins (though improved from current standards) would still have been unsafe, even for a third generation aircraft.

Reg. the German MIG-29s,they had the earliest versions,but even these were in close combat "unbeatable" according to the Luftwaffe.Read the _ and + aspects in this report.

I've read reports from Germany and Bulgaria and they aren't nearly as complimentary. The MiG-29 would almost certainly have registered a loss at the BVR stage itself against the APG-68/AMRAAM combination. Plus as a platform, it was thoroughly outclassed in terms of serviceability, MMI and endurance.

The upgraded versions will have eliminated the shortcomings in the first avatar of the Fulcrum.29Ks have even better rcs figs with stealth coatings and greater use of composites.

The F-16 meanwhile has gotten the HMCS, Aim-9X more or less equilizing the WVR equation, while still fielding a superior radar (APG-80/SABR), EO accessories and probably a better EW kit as well. As for RCS, it incorporated a treated canopy and RAM in the late 80s itself. Also got an IR topcoat with the Have Glass II.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Sep 2014 01:14

AF can’t afford delay in Rafale deal: Air chief

[...]In an exclusive interview to HT, Raha said, “It will not be appropriate to make any changes in the process. The current government has set the pace of work and things are moving fast enough on the fighter deal.” The IAF chief refused to set a deadline for signing the Rafale deal but said “it’s going to happen soon”. India had selected Rafale fighters over Typhoons in January 2012 after Dassault Aviation emerged as the lowest bidder.
“Rafale has run through the finish line. It’s too late in the day to parachute into the race. The door is closed,” a senior defence ministry official said on the counteroffer made by the European consortium.[...]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 59339.aspx