yes u r right rafale aesa radar is ready but ef 2000 radar is much better though it's not operational yet although the Eurofighter will have a Captor AESA Radar (CAESAR) by 2015 .
CESAR is only an older AESA demonstrator, the AESA offered in MMRCA is called Captor E and you have added a pic of it next to RBE 2 AESA, but the problem is, the Captor E is nothing but a paper radar so far. The first demonstration version will only fly by 2013 and although the EF consortium promises delivery of the final radar by 2015, it is already expected to have ONLY A2A modes, while A2G modes will be added with more A2G weapons only until 2018!
Even I think that the Captor - E might be the better radar when it will be available, but we can say that only when it is ready and real specs are available. Not to forget that the RBE 2 AESA won't stay the same in this time as well, future developments include GaN modules to increase the range + possible integration of additional radar arrays around the fighter (similar to Pak Fa / FGFA) to increase the radar coverage and with these upgrades, it will offer similar range again, but possibly even superior coverage.
However, since this is just future talk, just like the Captor E specs, you have to base your conclusion on the current facts and that are RBE 2 AESA ready, fulfilling IAF requirements in the radar field, offered with full ToT and source codes since 2008, fixed design reduces operational costs, mature and fully capable when IAF will induct the first Rafale.
Captor E, possibly higher potential but not even available as a demo version for testing (imo a reason to reject the EF from the shortlisting), risks of delays are high, we have to fund parts of it and IAF will get a fully capable and mature version only by the end of the decade.
You have to distinguish the facts mate!
BUt let me tell u buddy that gripen was also rejected on the same ground
Gripen was rejected for several reasons not only the radar issues and it is even far less developed than the EF T3B, because the EF "just" integrates new radar, avionics and weapons into the current airframe, while the Gripen IN would have been a complete re-designed fighter + new techs (AESA, IRST, avionics, new engine) and weapons which all are not available at the moment. The Gripen NG demonstrator is a Gripen D, with a different engine, the AESA demo and a redesigned fuselage, but not the final prototype of the IN version. There is still so many things uncertain about it and that's why no country wants it, although it is more cost-effective than the other Eurocanards.
But despite that if our airforce are nt satisfied with that I am sure EF 2000 would be kicked out of MMRCA race it would be major reason for it's loss .
No, because IAF compared the fighters not only on the current capabilities, but on those that were offered in MMRCA (this was confirmed by the last IAF chief) and while Rafale was able to demonstrate nerally anything to IAF that the F3+ will have by 2013, the EF has most of the T3B capabilities only on paper, or as premature demo version for ground testing (TVC, CFT windtunnel models...).
So they base the the evaluation not only on the result of the trials, but on all things that were included in the offer. The link with EF/Rafale and Storm Shadow/Scalp and IAF tender to get additional cruise missiles makes it too obvious where one of the priorities in MMRCA was, but Rafale can do it today (combat proven in Libya), EF can do it only in future if Storm Shadow will be integrated and if CFTs will be developed and integrated to provide enough fuel for such deep strike missions.
no i disagree rafale has been integrated it but they had nt offer it to india
Wrong, the only HMS that was tested on Rafale was a Topsight prototype:
currently there is no HMS integrated, but one from Gerfaut is on offer for export customers, while for India the Topsight seems to be more likely, since Samtel produce it in India anyway and Indian forces already use it in Mig 29K and will use it in upgraded Mig 29SMT and Mirage 2000-5.
Well in January 2010, EADS offered to include thrust vectoring nozzles (TVNs) with the Typhoon's EJ200 engines for Indiabut whether india would pay for it that depends upon IAF ,but it is not impossible or out of contention.
And they offered the same for the LCA with the EJ 200 engine, but as long as we or any other export customer don't fund it, TVC is not available for EF, since the partner countries don't want it and don't pay for it.
well buddy i had said both are evently matched but if u compare sensor fusion only in the terms of avionics then then rafale is clearly better than ef 2000...
Since the term sensor fusion includes "sensor", shouldn't that be the prime criteria for a comparison? The voice command has nothing to do with it and is only an additional feature, but don't increase the sensor fusion.
well exaclty i had said that rafale has a heavier payload capabilty
Yes, but you still seems not to understand that payload capability is not the point, but the fact that the EF has only 3 wet/heavy stations. IF it ever integrates cruise missiles for example, which are too big to be carried on the centerline station, it can only carry this config:
1 x 1000l centerline fuel tank
1 x cruise missile on each wing
So although its payload limit is not reached it can't add a single fuel tank anymore, because the other 11 hardpoints are not useful for it!
Rafale in the same scenario:
3 x 2000l fuel tanks
2 x cruise missiles
Way more range and endurance and if needed the centerline fueltank could be replaced with another cruise missile too.
As you can see it has nothing to do with the payload, but with the layout of the hardpoints and design prioirties! EF was design to for air superiority, that's why the 4 BVR missile stations at the fuselage were more important, than additional wet/heavy stations or a dedicated pod station in strike roles and the only way out of this limitation is the addition of CFTs. So deep strike capability only if the weapon + increased fuel capacity were integrated/developed.
whilr rafale fired ASM like scalp while Ef2000 had fired only Paveway2 & 4 LGBs
Rafale was used in:
Air defence
CAS - with 250Kg LGB and AASM PGMs
SEAD - with AASM PGMs
Deep strike - with Scalp cruise missiles
Recon missions - with Reco NG pod
Tanker missions - from the carrier
Is able to carry Exocet in the anti ship role
EF was used in:
Air defence
CAS - with 500Kg Paveway II (IV is only in testing yet)
And now tell me please, which fighter is more multi role capable? EF has simply a very long way to go with a lot of upgrades to be as multi role capable as Rafale, today it is even less multi role capable as IAF Mirage 2000s without the new upgrade!
Check this post also:
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4056/scalp3alexandreparingau.jpg
but it can also passively detect through PIRATE system & for wbvr warfare
And I never denied that, but it can't cue a missile just with it's DASS systems and not to BVR ranges, like Rafale can and that's why Rafale is at least as capable in BVR, since it has several options to cue weapons at long ranges, not only the radar like EF.
also it can carry always atleast 6 air to air missiles on any type of mission & a semiconformal bvraam missile carriage
Rafale with all 14 hardpoints can carry 6 AAMs as well, with the difference that the MICAs can all be used in BVR and WVR!
well u clearly see & compare the armanents of wvbr araments of both the planes
Again, you took very old wiki specs as the base but most of these weapons are already phased out, or were never integrated. No matter which fighter IAF chooses, METEOR will be the prime BVR missile for both, Iris-T/Asraam are the possible WVR missiles for EF, while Rafale has MICA, which has the advantage to be used in BVR as well and that both versions (IR and EM) can be used in WVR too.
well apart from costs & operational aesa radar in the specs i am almost correct in my specs but if u are a rafale's fanbouy then i cant do any thing
Sadly not buddy, there are a lot of mistakes and I am not a Rafale fanboy only because I base my opinion on the current facts and the requirements of IAF, instead on old plans and paperspecs of future capabilities that nobody is funding.
I only wants the best / most suiting fighter for our forces (IAF and IN) and I constantly said that this is the Rafale today, while 10 years ago I would have prefered EF over Rafale and even MKI!
so i hope it would be for air superiority but with robust Air to ground capabilties .so all in all complete multirole fighter .
Exactly, so you can only be for Rafale, since it offers all of this, while the EF is only good in A2A!
Germany has ordered T3A, which has no AESA radar, no changes at the avionics, or many of those weapons that are on offer and those costs are for the fighter + engines only, which means the flyway costs:
Buddy let me tell u one thing everything i posted here is a compilation many web sources & various other reputed forums including this & i have tried my level best to give here the most accurate data i could find on net .
So according to specs i concluded EF 2000 is better to win MMRCA
