Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16976
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 17 Nov 2014 02:25

Slow day .........................

The PLAAF is not going to have only J-20/J-31s in 2030s. Will it? They are still developing and producing a lot of J-1x series.


IF they come. But, I digress.

We need a large dosage of LCA, Rafale, Su-30s to form the base of our pyramid. The 5th gen fighters will form the top of this pyramid. The Rafale and the FGFA are critical to India not just for the fighting capability but for the production technologies that they will bring to us for our AMCA.


JSF anyone?

IT is here and now. ???????

Complete. Out of the box. All in one. No wait. Top of the line. Leading edge.

No need for Rafale or the FGFA or the PAK-FA.

No pyramid. Just a simple 5th gen air craft.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16976
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 17 Nov 2014 02:28

#Strategy

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Indranil » 17 Nov 2014 03:00

No, thanks. I would like to fight with high energy weapons from a high energy fighter.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Nov 2014 03:04

NRao wrote:
eklavya wrote:^^^^^
Because a filler in hand is better than two in the bush.


Have you considered opening the MiG-21 and M2K lines? Plenty of birds in hand.


Folland Gnats!

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Nov 2014 03:37

NRao ^^^ "Complete. Out of the box. All in one. No wait. Top of the line. Leading edge."

Nah! we like to roll our own. It's called 'indigenization' ; ToT etc.

We're contrarians, we will make Rafale into 5G a/c by teaming up with Sukhoi and IAI...etc.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby abhik » 17 Nov 2014 07:05

LCA IS the bird in hand.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby deejay » 17 Nov 2014 07:10

NRao, With how the Chinese are developing J 20 and J 31 and how the Russians are dealing with us w.r.t. the FGFA, my thinking leans towards the F 35 which is closer to fruition than the FGFA.

F 35 looks like an attractive option but buying it will mean the death of both the Rafale and FGFA deals (IMO). Add to that the numbers 126 (Rafale 20 Billion) plus 144 (FGFA 6 Billion) will reduce to something closer to 100 F 35 (just a guess based on costs). After all it is the ECONOMY.

Then think of 2015 as the year they start the negotiations for F 35. May be 2025 is when the deal will be signed. By then NaMo will have completed a second term.

So, should we wait that long. No. The Rafale stays and so does the FGFA. We have walked too far towards the Rafale to change now. If the deal falls through, then LCA is the only fallback option.

If F 35 is looking for a buyer in India, IN is a better option.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9647
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2014 07:21

Don't think the F-35 fits into the IAF in any fashion. Priority should be to follow up on the LCA MKII and to get the Rafale at the cheapest possible price and to continue develop the AMCA. The goal should be to reduce the overall reliance on Russian products through the Rafale, and MKII LCA and to ultimately buy less number of PAKFA's compared to the MKI's by spreading the 5th generation procurement over the AMCA. Otherwise you keep going in circles. Had the IAF just begun a process to field a multi-role fighter, the F-35 would have looked a lot better, but given the timelines, and when the process begun and how long they have taken to get to where they are, they almost need to act on this immediately if they want to serve the IAF's need of reversing a squadron depletion, which has been cited as one of the main reasons for the MRCA over the years. A tech transfer agreement over the F-35, that is even remotely comparable to the MRCA would be unaffordable and would require a long time to hammer out. Its simple economics, Lockheed is just getting past the hump and the development pains are looking forward to a decade of ramp and high volume of production where they are going to be making higher profits due to fixed cost and the fact that they have gotten their investments down to make money despite capitation. There is no way an OEM begin negotiating over tech sale at this stage unless the buyer is really interested in opening up the coffers. Opposite to the rafale scenario, the F-35 is too early in its life to offer a bargain in TOT to the buyer. Forget bargain even an equilibrium position would be hard to negotiate and this applies to any nation since for the developers its a pure case of economics.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Liu » 17 Nov 2014 07:29

deejay wrote:NRao, With how the Chinese are developing J 20 and J 31 and how the Russians are dealing with us w.r.t. the FGFA, my thinking leans towards the F 35 which is closer to fruition than the FGFA.

F 35 looks like an attractive option but buying it will mean the death of both the Rafale and FGFA deals (IMO). Add to that the numbers 126 (Rafale 20 Billion) plus 144 (FGFA 6 Billion) will reduce to something closer to 100 F 35 (just a guess based on costs). After all it is the ECONOMY.

Then think of 2015 as the year they start the negotiations for F 35. May be 2025 is when the deal will be signed. By then NaMo will have completed a second term.

So, should we wait that long. No. The Rafale stays and so does the FGFA. We have walked too far towards the Rafale to change now. If the deal falls through, then LCA is the only fallback option.

If F 35 is looking for a buyer in India, IN is a better option.

f35 is a "failed project" ,to some extent. it can hardly win air superority fight among 5g birds,because its airframe is "jointly designed" to be as stumble as pregant hens by USA airforce,Navy and marine corps . it is stupid of yankees to develope one bird to meet airforce,navy and marine corps at the same time,which determine f35 satisfy neither of the 3 ones. BTW, Usa' s last "joint fighter" developed for Navy,airforce and marine corps at same time is F110 and f104 .......but they cound satisfy neither of airforce,navy and marine corps. F35 will be another failed "joint fighter"
Last edited by Liu on 17 Nov 2014 07:43, edited 2 times in total.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby deejay » 17 Nov 2014 07:39

^^^Liu!!! :lol: Now before the thing goes out of hand F 35 discussions on the relevant thread please.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9647
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2014 07:41

@Deejay, this is going to go where we all know this has been in the 40+ pages of the relevent thread...So I'll move this to where it belongs..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16976
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 17 Nov 2014 07:50

I think we need to wait til Mr. Putin comes to town.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9945
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Nov 2014 08:29

+1 I think Putin visit changes the unclear picture on Fafale and other options. It is quite possible that Russians even offer us Su35 - mki version or lot of 5th Gen technologies to "Super" Sukhoi. By looking into crises faced in Mig fleet after the fall of USSR we can take a call on any such offer. As I wrote many times here, cost of Rafale will kill the deal for it if not anything else.

In any event "make in India" being the policy now, AMCA and LCA- II are the areas where we shall concentrate and spend the require money and time on. Once we mature in expected AMCA level and put in place we shall be free of most of export requirements. LCAII will also ensure large numbers are acquired.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20292 » 17 Nov 2014 10:04

indranilroy wrote:No, thanks. I would like to fight with high energy weapons from a high energy fighter.


then why are the Americans okay with the f35…?

and why are so many allies.

mark my words the f35 is the next f16. the volumes will ensure that.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20292 » 17 Nov 2014 10:11

eklavya wrote:
NRao wrote:As we type the rafale is worth it (keep the cost aside - that is a different matter).

By 2025 or so, the rafale will be relatively outdated - compared to today.

And, the J-20 would be more mature.

So, I think, the relevant question is which one would you buy in 2025 (or so, do not hold me to that year).

IF in 2025 or so the rafale is still preferred, then why the AMCA?

(Both are thinking-aloud)


DRDO says LCA is not late because it took 20 years to develop and all good aircraft take 20 years to develop. When did the clock start on the AMCA: which year are we in today?



lol. apply your mental understanding of how technology ecosystems move forward to the apple iPhone , the android phones and BlackBerry s. Ask BlackBerry when they will be making the next iPhone killer.

RnD is not like going to the market and buying vegetables. it takes lot of futile and wasted work to learn what does not work.

the armed forces better make closer friends with the research labs. I am not willing to see my tax rupees wasted in their internal bickering .

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby govardhanks » 17 Nov 2014 10:32

mahadevbhu wrote:
RnD is not like going to the market and buying vegetables. it takes lot of futile and wasted work to learn what does not work.

the armed forces better make closer friends with the research labs. I am not willing to see my tax rupees wasted in their internal bickering .


RnD is't buying vegetables agreed, but technologies can be brought , licensed, steal, borrowed.. Saying so should have been easier for us to get a/c Engine, LCA mkwhatever(this guy's only quality is in numbers), but we wanted to prove ourselves that we are capable of this, a small feeling came in between,,
May be we should not be that honest!! historically that has been the case, scientists were stolen, spied, corrupted. When it comes to protecting your land form enemies nothing should come in the way. Definiteli not the phride...

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1880
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby eklavya » 17 Nov 2014 10:47

Liu wrote:f35 is a "failed project" ,to some extent. it can hardly win air superority fight among 5g birds,because its airframe is "jointly designed" to be as stumble as pregant hens by USA airforce,Navy and marine corps . it is stupid of yankees to develope one bird to meet airforce,navy and marine corps at the same time,which determine f35 satisfy neither of the 3 ones. BTW, Usa' s last "joint fighter" developed for Navy,airforce and marine corps at same time is F110 and f104 .......but they cound satisfy neither of airforce,navy and marine corps. F35 will be another failed "joint fighter"


Liu, many people say that the J-31 design is based on F-35 technology filched by the PRC.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1880
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby eklavya » 17 Nov 2014 10:51

mahadevbhu wrote:
indranilroy wrote:No, thanks. I would like to fight with high energy weapons from a high energy fighter.


then why are the Americans okay with the f35…?

and why are so many allies.

mark my words the f35 is the next f16. the volumes will ensure that.


I see the Israelis have just increased their order for the F-35. Mind you, it's not like they're canning their F-15s and F-16s.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Indranil » 17 Nov 2014 11:50

mahadevbhu wrote:
indranilroy wrote:No, thanks. I would like to fight with high energy weapons from a high energy fighter.


then why are the Americans okay with the f35…?

and why are so many allies.

mark my words the f35 is the next f16. the volumes will ensure that.

What other options do the Americans have? And I don't have any doubts on the F-35 being the next F-16 in volume. In the same way as the F-16 dominated over its compatriots, well that's another story. Of course, you can say that I am biased, but so are believers. By the way, have you ever heard a knowledgeable Westerner frown over the F-16 or F-15?

The F-35 will remain probably the best strike aircraft in the next half century, because that is what it was designed to do (in spite of all the problems of compacting everything into a common airframe). But air dominance is another thing. The role of air dominance was thrusted upon the F-35 very late into the development cycle when the F-22 production was discontinued. The F-35's airframe was not designed for this. The counter view has ALWAYS been that with fancy avionics and great missiles, one can overcome the kinematic disadvantage of the F-35. The counter-counter view: That is fine against a plane which does not have good avionics and missiles. What about the planes which have great avionics, missiles and agility like the Rafale, EF, PAKFA, and AMCAs of tomorrow (from Japan, China, India, S Korea)?

Anyways, that is my view. A useless one in a misplaced thread. No more on this from me. Otherwise, I will have to warn myself :P

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12637
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 17 Nov 2014 13:08

Regarding eh F-35 debate, no doubt it is a very capable aircraft and will good support structure, but looking at the C-130 and C-17 deals some points are clear.

1. USA seems to charge India the Highest price for same platforms - since we are neither NATO or MUNNA, so F-35 fly away cost for India will be atleast USD 300 million a piece, how can we fund that?

2. USA will not outsource any work to India, should be go 100% imports without even flawed TOT deal on Su-30's, atleast where we gain expertise jobs and factories in India.

3. Are willing to sign CISMOSA etc. to let uncle and its MUNNA's(incl Pakis) know where these planes will be based.

I think irrespective of the quality of aircraft, given American diplomatic behavior it is a Big no no for India.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Nov 2014 14:51

eklavya wrote:FGFA and Rafale have different roles. How stealthy will FGFA be once its carrying 9 tonnes of gifts for our friendly neighbours? Rafale is a proven system and it is highly reliable and dependable, as well as being lethal.


With 9 tons of payload, neither the FGFA nor the Rafale (nor the F-35 for that matter) can penetrate PLAAF held airspace with any reasonable chance of success. Their AWACS can detect fighter sized targets 400km away as well, and they can field enough to them to saturate their airspace. By 2025, those operational ranges would have been further upgraded, and the numbers fielded would have risen as well.

The PAK FA will be able to carry deeper penetration with an internal payload, but unfortunately the Russians have a less than stellar pedigree when it comes to AESAs, EO and ESM systems, which will likely handicap it in the strike role.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Liu » 17 Nov 2014 14:53

eklavya wrote:
Liu wrote:f35 is a "failed project" ,to some extent. it can hardly win air superority fight among 5g birds,because its airframe is "jointly designed" to be as stumble as pregant hens by USA airforce,Navy and marine corps . it is stupid of yankees to develope one bird to meet airforce,navy and marine corps at the same time,which determine f35 satisfy neither of the 3 ones. BTW, Usa' s last "joint fighter" developed for Navy,airforce and marine corps at same time is F110 and f104 .......but they cound satisfy neither of airforce,navy and marine corps. F35 will be another failed "joint fighter"

Liu, many people say that the J-31 design is based on F-35 technology filched by the PRC.

J31 is a designed for airforce as a multi-role bird like f16. while F35 is desgned to satisfy not only airforce,but also navy and marine corps..

From the start, F35 was designed on a wrong precondition,that is ,the tech today can assure that one bird can satisfy the different performance requirements of airforce,navy and marin corps.
if F35 had been designed for a simple duty,such as a mult-role airforce bird like f16, F35 would have been in service at a much cheaper price for one decade.
Last edited by Liu on 17 Nov 2014 16:24, edited 2 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Nov 2014 14:54

Liu wrote:BTW, Usa' s last "joint fighter" developed for Navy,airforce and marine corps at same time is F110 and f104 ......."


The F-104 was an interceptor for the air force and the F110 is an engine produced by GE. The last fighter to equip the three services was the F-4, which despite its limitations, was a fairly successful program.

Liu wrote:J31 is a designed for airforce as a multi-role bird like f16. while F35 is desgned to satisfy not only airforce,but also navy and marine corps.. from the start, J31 is designed for a much simpler duty.


The J-31 is widely believed to be the PLAN's next carrier aircraft, despite being funded by the PLAAF for the moment.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Liu » 17 Nov 2014 16:17

Viv S wrote:
Liu wrote:BTW, Usa' s last "joint fighter" developed for Navy,airforce and marine corps at same time is F110 and f104 ......."


The F-104 was an interceptor for the air force and the F110 is an engine produced by GE. The last fighter to equip the three services was the F-4, which despite its limitations, was a fairly successful program.

Liu wrote:J31 is a designed for airforce as a multi-role bird like f16. while F35 is desgned to satisfy not only airforce,but also navy and marine corps.. from the start, J31 is designed for a much simpler duty.


The J-31 is widely believed to be the PLAN's next carrier aircraft, despite being funded by the PLAAF for the moment.

1.you are right .f104 is a wrongly quoted example....it was f4 that was the last "jointly fighter"...however , F4 was hardly a successful program..

it was because F4 was often asskicked by mig-21 or even mig 19 that made USA replace F4 with F15/16/14/18,just soon after F4 entered into service.

2. J31 is neither funded by PLAAF nor PLAN...it is a purely commerical project funded by SAC itself just like FC1/JF17.

of course, if it performs well enough , it might attract order. of PLAAF or PLAN in furture.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Nov 2014 16:18

Aditya_V wrote:Regarding eh F-35 debate, no doubt it is a very capable aircraft and will good support structure, but looking at the C-130 and C-17 deals some points are clear.

1. USA seems to charge India the Highest price for same platforms - since we are neither NATO or MUNNA, so F-35 fly away cost for India will be atleast USD 300 million a piece, how can we fund that?


We pay the same FMS costs as all other customers. Any variation is because of the options availed/customization involved.

C-17: Australia just placed a request for 4 C-17s for $1.6 billion. $400M each. Same as what we paid.

M777: The bought the M777 for $4.35 mil each in 2008. Slightly more than what we were quoted.

P-8: Australia just placed an order for eight P-8s for $3.6 billion. We bought eight of them for $2.1 billion, albeit ordered five years ago.

C-130J: India was quoted a price of about $165 mil/unit for the SF configured aircraft in 2007. The same configuration was quoted to Israel at $210 mil/unit (albeit with some modifications for extra fuel and a 5 year service contract).

AH-64E: The FMS request by South Korea for 36 units is priced at $3.6 bn, similar to the Qatari order for 24 units that was priced at $2.4bn. That's $100M per unit. Indonesia and India have been quoted a near identical cost of about $62M each, since only half the aircraft they requested were to be Longbows.

(Please refer to the DSCA documents for breakdown of the above figures.)

Bottom-line is, India has been paying the same prices for US-sourced equipment as everybody else. Unfortunately, the 'akin-to-exploitation' argument gets repeated very often here on BRF. Lets put it to rest once and for all.

2. USA will not outsource any work to India, should be go 100% imports without even flawed TOT deal on Su-30's, atleast where we gain expertise jobs and factories in India.


Tata is already building cabins for Sikorsky, as well as structural components for Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

Meanwhile, our workshare in the FGFA is still valued at a measly 15% despite a $5.5bn R&D with orders potentially running past $30bn.

And our workshare in the Rafale through the MMRCA is a total zero. They have not committed to sourcing anything from India, and in any case, by the time the Rafale production picks up steam here, the production in France will have closed down.

The MMRCA's offset value is high at 50% (while its been around 30% for FMS contracts), but the French are meeting that requirement by jacking up indirect costs for India. In effect, the Indian taxpayer is funding the differential.

3. Are willing to sign CISMOSA etc. to let uncle and its MUNNA's(incl Pakis) know where these planes will be based.


1. CISMOA is required for comm interlinking and is not required for normal operations. We've replaced the modules on the P-8I & C-130J with BEL equipment and will also do that with the AH-64E, if its ordered. They be replaced on all Indian Rafales & PAK FAs as well.

2. Everybody knows where IAF aircraft are based, and which squadron operates it. And in the coming years, we're more likely to get intel about the Paks from the US, rather than the other way round. Doubly so for the Chinese.

I think irrespective of the quality of aircraft, given American diplomatic behavior it is a Big no no for India.


A brief look at the rate at which the PLAAF is inducting aircraft, and the pace at which its improving qualitatively, is enough to conclude that the quality of aircraft (as well as its cost) will be a pivotal factor and not something that is secondary concern.
Last edited by Viv S on 17 Nov 2014 16:50, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Nov 2014 16:43

Liu wrote:1.you are right .f104 is a wrongly quoted example....it was f4 that was the last "jointly fighter"...however , F4 was hardly a successful program..


I'm afraid you're wrong again. The F-4 wasn't a jointly developed fighter either. It was a naval design, adopted lock-stock-and-barrel by the USAF and USMC.

it was because F4 was often asskicked by mig-21 or even mig 19 that made USA replace F4 with F15/16/14/18,just soon after F4 entered into service.


Nope.

One, the F-4s fought over the NV territory most of time (the MiGs had the luxury of setting up GC vectored ambushes). Two, the aircraft still has a positive loss exchange ratio during the war. Three, the F-4 production continued long after the war's end and is still in service in Japan, South Korea and Turkey. Four, the F-16 was natural progression from the F-4 (being a generation ahead) and its existence had relatively little to do with the F-4's service record.

2. J31 is neither funded by PLAAF nor PLAN...it is a purely commerical project funded by SAC itself just like FC1/JF17.


J-31 stealth fighter funded by PLA Air Force, not Navy

It could well have invested seed money, without committing itself to the program.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Nov 2014 17:40

indranilroy wrote:What other options do the Americans have? And I don't have any doubts on the F-35 being the next F-16 in volume.


The US could have continued/restarted F-22 production. And they still have the option of more F-15Es, F-16Es as well as the F-15SE (Silent Eagle). Every F-35 customer has had those options as well as option of going for the Super Hornet.

In the same way as the F-16 dominated over its compatriots, well that's another story. Of course, you can say that I am biased, but so are believers. By the way, have you ever heard a knowledgeable Westerner frown over the F-16 or F-15?


Dollar for dollar, the F-16 was the most effective fighter of its generation. The Mirage 2000 was broadly comparable, but far more expensive. Despite superb aerodynamics, the MiG-29 had very limited strike capability, short range, limited airframe life, smoky engines, and poor serviceability. The F-15C & Su-27 were single role aircraft. The F-15E was expensive. And the Su-30 didn't emerge until end of the century and it took some time for its multirole capabilities to mature.

The F-35 will remain probably the best strike aircraft in the next half century, because that is what it was designed to do (in spite of all the problems of compacting everything into a common airframe). But air dominance is another thing. The role of air dominance was thrusted upon the F-35 very late into the development cycle when the F-22 production was discontinued. The F-35's airframe was not designed for this.


The role of air dominance was never thrusted upon the F-35. It was always (and still is) intended as a multi-role aircraft. The same exact role as performed by the legacy F-16 and F-18. The F-16 isn't an air dominance fighter but its no slouch in air combat either.

The counter view has ALWAYS been that with fancy avionics and great missiles, one can overcome the kinematic disadvantage of the F-35. The counter-counter view: That is fine against a plane which does not have good avionics and missiles. What about the planes which have great avionics, missiles and agility like the Rafale, EF, PAKFA, and AMCAs of tomorrow (from Japan, China, India, S Korea)?


Frankly, because it got so many brickbats for not exceeding its predecessors kinematically, the criticism took on a life of their own and its performance issues have ended up being exaggerated quite a bit. There are just two major issues with the aircraft AFAIK - sustained G-limit and transonic acceleration. Both important downsides I'll concede (though its high AoA performance is still superb; 50 deg limit vs 32 deg for the Rafale).

On the other hand, its got the best AESA radar in the world (albeit with a smaller FoV than the N036), best EW suite, best EO systems (albeit lacking a LWIR element), highest degree of stealth and widest variety of cost effective munitions. For a cost that'll rival (if not undercut) 4.5G fighters by 2018.

Anyways, that is my view. A useless one in a misplaced thread. No more on this from me. Otherwise, I will have to warn myself :P


:lol:

Guilty. Okay, I'll transfer that to the JSF thread. But, here's a question that's stays within topic:

How do you foresee combat playing out between an IAF Rafale and a PLAAF fighter like the J-31 equipped with an AESA, IRST, mid-to-high range ESM equipment and a complement of PL-12Cs (or PL-12D)? Lets assume a basic 2 v 2 engagement.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 17 Nov 2014 18:59

It case of PLAAF, it is better to purchase FGFA/PAK-FA over F-35 still, considering fewer still political strings attached.

I agree somehow that we also need to define Gen 7 fighter jet for IAF, that may take near about 20+ years from now. That way we can be very clear about development as also how to go about achieving strategic goals independently. For example, we don't need to keep on facing off enemies at 2 fronts as a general rule- one being China and the other supported by USA/China/Saudi/UK evil combine. Once strategic goals are clear, we need to formulate how to have specific techs developed for each front and go about cleaning Pakistan first. We will call these tech as Gen 7 techs.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16976
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 17 Nov 2014 19:20

The counter view has ALWAYS been that with fancy avionics and great missiles, one can overcome the kinematic disadvantage of the F-35. The counter-counter view: That is fine against a plane which does not have good avionics and missiles. What about the planes which have great avionics, missiles and agility like the Rafale, EF, PAKFA, and AMCAs of tomorrow (from Japan, China, India, S Korea)?


1) IF the F-35 has "fancy avionics" and other with "great avionics" ... tells it all. The bias is clear

2) Each of these "5th Gen" planes has been designed with certain expectations. Why is there a need for "agility" when other factors are designed to replace it? It is like expecting a car to have a hand cranked start mechanism when everyone has opted for electrical starters - design. In the PAK-FA, why invest in that much "agility" (that plane is truly great in "agility")

3) One can clearly see the differences in thinking WRT the PAK-FA. While the RuAF seems to be absolutely content with a single seater (that is an assumption on my part - there is really no open source with these nations, and that is fine, not a complain), their counterpart in the IAF wants a dual seater - if we are to believe the recent articles. (It is certainly true WRT the MKI.) So, which AF is foolish to either accept what is there or to modify the same? Why is the IAF not happy with what is being provided by Sukhoi and in fact Mr. P has gone out of his way to say so. Is there something wrong with the IAF - to actually ask for a plane with reduced RCS, agility, etc?

Point being one cannot keep one set of thoughts as the right and therefore constant and then compare the rest of the world against those thoughts - the rest of the world is bound to fail. How can they pass that kind of muster. And, that is exactly what is happening when we say kinematics (yeah, physics, etc - I understand) or when Mr. P says this-is-good-enough-for-you. Keep ones thoughts as constant and be critical of others.

One has to take what the designers have designed - as is. For that one has to read extensively, especially WRT the F-35. There is stuff out there, but few and far in-between

4) I have asked this question before. 1) What does one think will happen if these planes were to meet in the middle of the Indian Ocean. 2) What do we think will happen if they were to meet in each others "territory"? So the F-35 over Russian border and a PAK-FA/EF/Rafale over a US border (as an example).

will the plane that has superior kinematics win consistently? Is that the argument? Asking.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16976
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 17 Nov 2014 19:50

one being China and the other supported by USA/China/Saudi/UK evil combine


10% is what life throws at you.

90% is how you react to it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9647
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2014 20:25

Replied in the appropriate thread

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_24684 » 18 Nov 2014 19:57

Indian Air Force Chief Says Fighter Jet Deal Soon

'Most of the things have been sorted out and the deal may be signed sooner than later,' says Raha


http://www.businessworld.in/news/econom ... 7BZQi.dpuf

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2014 20:30

What the MMRCA will come up against in the future.

New Chinese Stealth Fighter Relies on Russian Jet Engine

By: Dave Majumdar
Published: November 10, 2014

http://news.usni.org/2014/11/10/new-chi ... 234c8f82d4

The Chinese Shenyang J-31 stealth fighter will use Russian-built engines when it enters production. The prototype was known use Klimov RD-93 engines, which were derived from the Soviet-era Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum’s RD-33 afterburning turbofans. Many observers had expected the new Chinese fifth-generation fighter to eventually sport domestically developed engines.

“The J-31 with the Russian RD-93 engine is considered to be an export program, capable of rivaling the American [Lockheed Martin] F-35 fifth-generation aircraft on the regional markets,” Sergey Kornev told Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti. Kornev leads the aircraft department of Russia’s military export agency Rosoboronexport.

Who the Chinese might export their fighters to is another question.

“The Chinese face a conundrum. Their core market has always been poor and near-failed states,” Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia told USNI News.

“Pakistan is their biggest customer by far. So, moving up-market with an attempt at a ‘fifth-generation jet’ means recruiting an entirely new set of customers. I don’t know where these would come from.”

Klimov RD-93 engine. Photo via RT.

Another problem Beijing faces is that the most of their neighbors –who might be natural customers for an aircraft like the J-31—are suspicious of China and its intentions.

“The other conundrum they face is that much of the export fighter market is right around them, in East Asia,” Aboulafia said.
“Given tensions, these countries are probably not eager to start relying on Chinese defense equipment.”

Meanwhile, the domestic Chinese People’s Liberation Army versions of the J-31 might eventually be fitted with a variant of the Guizhou WS-13 engine—which is theoretically in the same performance class as the RD-93. However, it is unclear how much progress the Chinese have made with developing the WS-13. Most Chinese engine developments to date have not been successful.

While China has made great strides in developing its aviation industry, it has had difficulty with perfecting jet engine technology. The Chinese have severely lagged behind on quality control and material sciences—which are crucial for building jet engines. Thus far, no Chinese engine has come remotely close to matching the reliability or durability of a Russian engine let alone a Western propulsion system.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby nachiket » 18 Nov 2014 22:41

SajeevJino wrote:Indian Air Force Chief Says Fighter Jet Deal Soon

'Most of the things have been sorted out and the deal may be signed sooner than later,' says Raha


http://www.businessworld.in/news/econom ... 7BZQi.dpuf

This must be about the hundredth time we have heard these platitudes like "most of the things are sorted out", "most of the hurdles hae been cleared", "only a few points left to be negotiated", etc. It should be read as.. "The deal could be signed tomorrow or never. Nobody has a friggin clue."

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16976
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 19 Nov 2014 05:11

My thinking is that the Rafale will come, but at a reduced cost.

I do not think this gov will leave the IAF hanging and rightly so.

Let us see.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 19 Nov 2014 06:38

The French desperately want the deal to shore up its economic woes,and might be part of a package involving other weapon systems. The IAF is equally desperate for a decision to shore up the inventory with hundreds of aircraft way past their "falling from the sky" timechart. This time round,the signs and statements from all sides involved (GOI,Dassault and IAF) appear to be positive.I don't thionk that the new dynamic Def. Min will follow the path of St.Anthony either!

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28756 » 19 Nov 2014 19:48

NRao wrote:My thinking is that the Rafale will come, but at a reduced cost.

I do not think this gov will leave the IAF hanging and rightly so.

Let us see.

I hope you are right but where is the catch ? There is no way the French will give in on a reduced costs without getting something back in return. Reduction in order numbers ? No AESA ? Less Local manufacturing or TOT ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9647
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2014 20:02

AESA itself doesn't cost an arm and a leg, especially since everyone now (probably even KAI if someone asks for it on the T/A-50) has an option to supply it. Its the TOT that is going to cost, especially if you want technology on each and every component of the system. Without it, you simply pay the fly away price plus VAT and that price is largely known. For the licensed production, you pay what you usually pay given HAL's experience of producing foreign aircraft.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9647
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2014 20:24

Liu wrote:
Liu wrote:BTW, Usa' s last "joint fighter" developed for Navy,airforce and marine corps at same time is F110 and f104 ......."







Only about a fifth of all F-4's lost were lost in the air to air arena (rest were lost to ground fire). It still maintained an overall kill record close to 4:1 despite of having poor tactics (read the book on how the skies of Vietnam were won) and no gun..Once the tactics were remedied through the Top Gun (read: http://www.amazon.com/Scream-Eagles-Dra ... 0743497244) initiatives the kill ratio towards the latter part was in the double digits. It had 5-7 Major world records that stood for a while until more modern aircraft such as the F-15 and the Flanker surpassed them years later. The Echo varient was considered top class for its time and given the competition. The F-4 is hardly a pilot project on how not to develop a joint aircraft, that title would go to the F-111. But that is besides the point, Mankind as a general rule learns from past mistakes. Thats how we wound up on the moon, or developed nuclear weapons or figured out cures to diseases.

Go tell the IDF that the F-4 was a mistake, when they have raked up more than 100 kills with it over time.

As far as the J-31 being only an PLAAF aircraft, there is a grainy photo doing the rounds that shows a J-31 mockup on a carrier mockup. Look around for it.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_26622 » 19 Nov 2014 22:46

brar_w wrote:AESA itself doesn't cost an arm and a leg, especially since everyone now (probably even KAI if someone asks for it on the T/A-50) has an option to supply it. Its the TOT that is going to cost, especially if you want technology on each and every component of the system. Without it, you simply pay the fly away price plus VAT and that price is largely known. For the licensed production, you pay what you usually pay given HAL's experience of producing foreign aircraft.


AESA is frontrunner to sensor fusion aka 'DESI' SPECTRA equivalent version, where you can distribute small arrays across the plane for 360 coverage.

Best to force a DESI version as it's use case goes from AWACS to Fighters to UAV. No point in importing.

We can get one solution across all planes (taking a leaf from Israel MF-STAR use case)
AWACS - 10 x # of sensors
SU 30 MKI - 3 x # of array sensors
Mid-Size - 2 X # of array sensors
LCA-MK-X - 1X # of array sensors
UAV - 0.5 x # of array sensors


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests