Gaur,
I am hardly incorrect about the immature EW suite, because there are reports of the MK2 incorporating DRFM in a recent upgrade! Whereas the capability for DRFM based jammers has existed in even the Mirage 2000 Mark 5 from a long while back, and the Rafale takes the jamming a step forward with an AESA array, which allows for better simultaneous threat handling. It's not just the presence of an integrated EW suite per se, but the capability itself.Furthermore, France has a long history of successful EW wartime employment, including Iraq.
There's little need to even go into the SH's capabilities in this area, so lets look at the EF. The DASS draws upon the experience of several of Europe's most mature EW houses, and its specifications are pretty much as good as it gets, unless wants a far more extensive sensor farm, with no limit on cost. Compare and contrast to the limited SPJ installation on the Gripen. In fact, the EWS39 MK2 diagrams (try image search) show a small transmitter unit located towards the nose, and a couple of small conventional arrays. In comparison, check out the size of the ECM modules on the Wingtip of the EF, and consider which has a greater chance against high power SAM threats!
http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/m ... 900128.jpg
I have not missed the wing loading aspect. You had successfully pointed out this to me in your previous post. I was suggesting that even the larger wings with larger wing loading will be flying bricks while carrying near max payload. True, they will still have better climb and turn rate than Gripen, but it will hardly be enough to outmaneuver a missile or a lightly armed air defence fighter. Again, thjs is just IMO. Obviously, no one can confirm this for any of the MMRCA contenders except, perhaps, the IAF.
Again, "flying bricks" is a severe overstatement for at least two of the larger aircraft, Rafale and Eurofighter. Google for an Eurofighter display on one of the video sites with a heavy load, and also for Flight's test evaluation of the Rafale, which was designed around a heavy payload! The pilot clearly mentions it retains a significant level of maneuverability! Point is, which you are missing, is that the aircraft need not be supermaneuverable, as a TVC equipped aircraft, but it needs to retain the ability to pull a few G's without sacrificing warload so as to get out of harms way when the threat indicator warms up. If you are within a NEZ of any missile, loaded or not, you are in deep trouble and will have to incur structural damage to get out of the way.
As for Kargil, yes, Mirage-2000 was the most capable strike platform we had. Not to mention that it had the best turnaround time. However, that was not my point. My point was to show the tremendous number of sorties required during war time.
But don't you see that your metric about the "tremendous number of sorties at war time" when its clear that a lot of these tremendous sorties had to to do with lower mission effectiveness per aircraft. Saying Mirage 2000 was the "most capable strike platform we had" is not much, when in the terrain we flew at, we had such a low baseline for comparison. Typically, a Mirage 2000 flew with fuel tanks, a bomb or two, a buddy for designation, and MiG-29s for escort. Look at sortie numbers as versus the situation today, where 2-3 Flankers can do all these tasks themselves, and we don't have to formate a gaggle of aircraft to do one job!
Second, where is the comparison of the difference in sortie rates between Gripen NG and the other contenders to show it has an overwhelming advantage, to offset the lower capability it brings in terms of overall performance?
Again, I have never said that Gripen is the most capable MMRCA contender. However, I believe that it is not very much inferior to other fighters either.
This is where you would be incorrect.
The F/A-18 SH brings far more combat capability to the theater, with a much more evolved and mature avionics suite, including a mature AESA radar, which has been extensively validated, and gone through the painful test/retest process.
The Typhoon, brings far more air superiority and dominance capabilities with better kinematic performance, and more powerful sensors, and can field equal/better A2G functions than the Gripen. The basic sensor being developed for the Gripen is a less powerful variant being developed by the same company that did the Typhoon's radar. We are talking of a huge difference of around 50% here when talking of the baseline mechanical radars themselves, which point to the differences in capability and design aims.
The Rafale is designed around one of the most sophisticated EW suites ever developed, with heavy sensor fusion (note the recent exercises where it even had the edge against the Typhoon), and has been validated in actual operational conditions both in its naval and AF versions, plus its been tested repeatedly for heavy payload capability, and has a variety of strike options, including variants of MBDA munitions and dedicated flight profiles.
Note what Pete Collins (RAF TP, rtd) notes about the Rafale:
The Rafale is designed for day or night covert low-level penetration, and can carry a maximum of 9.5t of external ordinance, equal to the much larger F-15E. With a basic empty weight of 10.3t, an internal fuel capacity of 4.7t and a maximum take-off weight of 24.5t, the Rafale can lift 140% of additional load, above its own empty weight, into combat.
The important point being the first sentence, which is the Rafale's USP, and:
Added to the "active" elements of the aircraft's design are Rafale's "passive" safety features, which protect the pilot in various ways. These include "carefree handling" and automatic loss of control/airframe overstress protection allowed for by the digital flight control system (DFCS); the visual and audio low speed warning system; the continuously computed "deck awareness/ground watch" system with audio warning and HUD guidance for pull-out; and the pilot-initiated "spatial disorientation" automatic recovery mode from both nose high and nose low situations. Dassault also plans to introduce an automatic "g-loc" recovery mode.
This evaluation is actually well in line with an eval by Chris Yeo (ex BAE i think) way back in 1999, who had performed a variety of swing missions in the Rafale within a single test sortie. The article should be on the net.
Also note the careful tailoring for fuel capacity addition:
The Rafale has five "wet" hardpoints for fuel tanks. All five can accept the 1,250-litre (330USgal) (fully supersonic) tank, and the inner three central hardpoints can accept the larger (up to M0.95) 2,000-litre tank. An enhancing feature is that the Rafale can also carry a buddy-buddy refuelling pod.
A large fuel fraction is essential for deep strike.
Now note the reference to a covert TFR mode.
From medium level, I descended to low level and engaged the autopilot and autothrottle into covert terrain-following mode along our pre-planned mission route at 450kt/500ft above ground level (for noise abatement), first over the sea and then over the rugged terrain south-west of Arles.
The covert mode used a GPS database, but it can also use TF Radalt or the RBE2 TFR mode as back-up. Low-level ride was excellent in the gusty Mistral conditions, as was the accuracy of the TF profile followed by the aircraft over the semi-mountainous terrain, including flying towards sharply rising cliffs. The "ground watch" system painted a constantly updated escape profile floor in the HUD. With the TF engaged, Nino explained to me some more of the "data fused" symbology in the tactical HLD and altered the flight planned route and the time over target, which was then followed by the autopilot and autothrottle in speed mode.
As you can see, this is an aircraft which has "strike" very firmly in mind from day one, while in A2A it will not be a slouch either with an AESA radar fairly equal to the ES-05 in range & modes, albeit without a rotating assembly.
The classic definitions of aircraft combat roles really do not do justice to this aircraft; the Rafale is Europe's force-multiplying "war-fighter" par excellence. It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.
EF pilots may question this in A2A, but a RAF test pilot's stamp of approval still speaks for the overall maturity of the platform.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... afale.html
Overall, all the three have significant operational advantages over the Gripen.
At the rist of repeating myself, I would rather prefer 200 Gripens/Mig-35s over 126 Rafale/Eurofighter. Then again, we do not know if MOD would go for 126 + 74 even if there is substantial price difference. In that case, I would love if Rafale/Eurofighter is chosen.
This is a flawed comparison because the costs of the Gripen are estimates, and second, the current budgeting is for 126 aircraft only. The additional 63 (189 total, not 74 extra) will be budgeted separately, so there is no need to mix and match the two!!
As has been seen by India repeatedly, vendors with untested/in development products, routinely underclaim their costs and try to swing the deal, counting on the IAF to pick up the costs later, as there will be no other option. It would be a shame if India went down this same path again with the MiG-35 or Gripen NG.
For reference, google for Pepe Rezende, a Brazilian journo, who is also a member of a Govt. committee, and who had access to detailed Brazilian AF eval data. You can google for his credentials and data, which have been widely reported and accepted.
In his own words, when asked
I'm a 57 years old reporter with 35 years of professional experience. I visited the Brazilian, Chinese, French an Swedish Aeronautics Industries. Yes, I have a lot of friends and now, as a Congress officer, a lot of inside info.
On claims of lower flying costs.
Pepe Rezende wrote: July 2010
The RNoAF evaluates SAAB figures and classified them as irrealistic. They found a flying cost of USD 10 thousand for the NG. The FAB found a lower cost for the NG, around USD 8 thousand, but SAAB could not supply COPAC with F414 operational costs, cause the engine is US Navy intellectual propriety. To establish a cost, FAB officers use half the value used at Boeing bid. There's a problem in this methodology. NG engine will be a little different. It will have a 80% commonality with F/A-18E/F Super Hornet engines.
The costs for the other bidders are, according Brazilian Air Force, USD 10 thousand for the Boeing bidder and USD 12,400 for the Rafale. Is important notice that French bid flying hour price is EUR 9,800 and Euro devaluated 25% at last month. Now, they are very similar
Note his statements about marketing:
"A prototype already installed in Saab's Gripen Demo aircraft has demonstrated a range of high performance air-to-air and air-to-ground modes including high resolution SAR mapping. The AESA in the Gripen Demo aircraft has been tested thoroughly by an Indian Air Force Evaluation team both in Sweden and India"http://se.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416133050&o=ext page 70.
The Indian Air Force evaluation team accessed the RAVEN AESA at Sweden, not at India, according Brazilian Air Force officers. That's a lot of propaganda at SAAB papers.
On risk:
The Gripen NG is considered, even at COPAC, as a high risk deal. There are doubts about development and industrial schedule, amongst other items. We need something ready to fly, not a paper airplane.
On access to tech,. and the problems faced
US Government supports Boeing bid and is the F414 intellectual owner. So, Boeing provided the F414 operational cost. Sweden has no rights over the engine so it could not supply the operational costs, even flying it at the Gripen Demo. About the Leh tests, the intention was to check eventual engine changes needed at bidders. They were sugested to GE and Klimov.
The fact is that the plane is still a work in progress and had to rely on different airframes for tests, and all sorts of PR is there suggesting its ready and all India needs to do, is sign on the dotted line. This when costs are unknown, and India will have to shoulder all the costs of integrating new weapons onto the type, face all sorts of teething troubles
Its amazing how many have bought into this sort of stuff, when India should put its own priorities first and foremost.
The prominent ad campaign being run by the media is a case in point. Open a certain aviation magazine, and see the articles on the Gripen, they are so one sided its beyond amusing. Now that effort is being extended to other magazines, talking of an "independent choice", when the suppliers are located in the same countries where the other fighters are from. Talk about PR claim
It was an awesome aircraft. 
). I meant the Gripen's famed networking capability. But this begs a question. Is it possible to replace the Swedish Data link (CDL 39?) with our standard one and still retain Gripen's networking capability?
