Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[CONNAN]

BY EDITOR AT 19 JULY, 2010, 1:17 PM

BY: StratPost

The first spurts of information on the results of the trials conducted by the Indian Air Force (IAF) for its 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender are starting to trickle out.

A confident Bernhard Gerwart, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Military Air Systems at EADS Defence & Security, mingled with reporters in an informal chat with reporters in New Delhi on Tuesday and told them, “I believe we are compliant with all the requests that they have made. Yesterday, I had some meetings with representatives of the IAF and the MoD (Ministry of Defense) and, personally, I left with the impression that we had done well in the flight trials.”

But Herr Gerwert did offer a caveat, saying, “Mind you it’s just a feeling,” while pointing out the IAF had made no official statement to him.

At any rate he confirmed separately to StratPost, he would be sleeping easier after getting these vibes. While this is hardly definitive confirmation of the Eurofighter Typhoon having performed well in the trials from the perspective of the IAF, it is perhaps indicative of the feedback given by the IAF to representatives of the company.

And while Gerwert didn’t know if the IAF would come up with a short list or a ‘long list’, the issue of a down select remains open to question. It remains unclear whether any possible shortlist issued by the IAF would merely be an indication of preference or would actually result in the elimination of any of the contestants.

German Ambassador to India, Thomas Matussek, too, weighed in. “We have to see this in the geo-strategic context. Your security is our security,” he said. Did he think that if the MMRCA comes down to being a political decision, the four-European nations backing EADS would have the political capital to compete with the US? “The simple answer is ‘yes’. We’re easily on the same par as the United States,” he said.

The IAF is expected to submit its report on its evaluation of the six aircraft imminently, and industry watchers have been actively trying to get a sense of how it will play out. With the IAF enforcing a robust lockdown on any seepage of information so long as the report remains in their domain, defense journalists have been reduced to speculation on the play-out of the tender process.

Not surprisingly, reporters are straining their eyes trying to read between the lines of the statements issued by personalities such as Herr Gerwert and cryptic comments of IAF officers in private conversation, in the absence of any official indications.

There are some who argue that it would be in the interest of the IAF to indicate the results of the trials and its preferences, to make sure their views are not deviated from when the matter is laid before the Ministry of Defense. There are others who think this would be irrelevant, anticipating the IAF to indicate no clear preference one way or the other. Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin’s F-16, Saab’s Gripen IN, Dassault’s Rafale and the MiG-35 are the other aircraft competing in the tender.

But IAF officials admit to being eminently aware of the possibility of the conclusions of the report becoming public, once it is submitted to the ministry. And all concerned agree, some interesting times lie ahead, when that happens.

 

[sancho]

How come you are sure that they won't

I never said it will never, I said it is not integrated, or on order now, nor is the integration funded for T3 so far and that is the complete opposite of DDM NG in Rafale.

So does other MRCA jet , no one is active all are Passive detectors.

this enhanced SA is by ---- that DDM-NG infrared MAWS of SPECTRA , correct

See, you still didn't understand that Spectra even now offers clear advantages in SA to other systems and with the addition of DDM NG will be even improved to a similar level as F35s EW + EO DAS.
Once again detection of a threat and countering it with Chaf, Flares, or jamming is one thing, but enhanced SA by gathering several different signals (using Spectra sensors as well as RBE 2, FSO, or MICA IR) and the capability to target and cuing of weapons in passive mode, makes it much more than a normal EWS.

In future if developed without any problems ( F35 and A400....) , may be offered to India .
By the way IAF evaluation team evaluated aircraft with 2009 tech on-board .

Not sure what F35 and A400 has to do with Dassault, or Sagem, but DDM NG is on offer for export from 2012 on, also the Rafale that came to India had a working AESA on board, so for sure not 2009 techs only!

So does Gripen , Mig35 , Eurofighter . SAAB integrates any customer's choice free of cost - Did it for South Africa . That's why widest range of weapons .

Again, out of context! The point was that radar source codes will be an advantage in strike missions and yes others offer that advantage too, but where is the gain if we can modify the radar, but the fighter is not useful in strike?
Mig 35 has no cruise missile and can only carry limited heavy A2G loads, Gripen NG as I mentioned before is limited in range, EF has nothing but some LGBs yet.
Please mate, you can't really believe that these fighters will offer any comparable A2G performance to Rafale, or F18SH and the Rafale simply offers these additional advantages over F18SH too.

Sorry to say but F16 also have them , nothing like future possibility in case for f16 .
Eurofighter also have CFT programe

Yes and I stated that before too, so I never took it as an advantage for Rafale only right?
But you asked for advantages compared to F18SH and here the CFTs could be an advantage. EF has some studies and windtunnel models, but that's it for now.

F18 best striker out flying .

That's what I said too, but the restrictions makes it less useful for us, while Rafale even with 2nd best A2G performance, offers more with ToT, source codes and customisation.

No one knows more than SAGEM
CEP by SAGEM is 10m

Exactly and what does the source from the Sagem that you posted say?

will hit with a 10m accuracy with the inertial/GPS all-weather version and only a few meter accuracy with the night/day infrared terminal guidance version.

So the GPS version has 10m CEP, while the IR version is by far better, just as I told you.

No , not a single Rafale in service has uprated engine .

I didn't said in service, I said they were fielded in the Swiss trials, but they are on order for the F3 upgrade that France will have from 2012 onwards, that Swiss, Brasil, Kuwait and we can have if we buy Rafale. Go to this thread, there were several reports about the M88 2-E4 upgrade.

There is a reason why UAE wants new engine and not uprated one , why ??

Because they want to use the Rafale as a long range heavy strike fighter (if needed against Iran), that's why they also want even extreem heavy weapon configs (3 Scalp missiles, 2 2000l tanks and 6 AAMs, possibly even the CFTs, which would be a load of 7,8t + CFTs!), or want to integrate SL-AMMER into the Rafale too.
For A2A the Rafale don't need the M88-3 as it proved against EF and F22 in the same hot climate region.

 

[sancho]

That is the biggest mistake everyone makes when they try to downplay F15/Su30 like fighter with comparison to others .

So if you compare armed su30 v armed rafale in A2A detection by hostile radar

Contribution mathematically is 1.32 by Rafale(3m2 RCS) and 1.85 by su30 (12m2 RCS) by the fourth root of respective RCS as per above radar equation .
Keep all parameters same , multiply by same 100 in both factors .
Range for Rafale comes 132 , while range for su30 comes 185 .

So because you calculated somehow these figures, the MKI will only be detected at around 50Km more than Rafale?

Lets compare it to real figures!

Saabs official brochure of the Erieye AWACS states that it will detect fighters (which are normally around 5m2) over 300Km distances, Phalcon AWACS is often quoted with over 400Km.

Zhuk ME is able to detect 5m2 rargets at 120Km only, AGP 68 offers similar ranges.

Just a few examples where you can see, that your figures doesn't fit to real radar detection figures! If you compare your figure for a fully loaded Rafale (3m2) with the radar detections of those fighter radars, such a Rafale would be detected only in 100Km, or less.

Don't take it offensively, but I have some doubts about your calculation, especially about when a 4 times bigger target will be detected.
Your conclusion is based on the same theoretical figures, so doesn't fit to real estimations anyway and it's kind of funny that you expect any MMRCA to be as costly as F22.

RCS point is moot and flawed ,
Eurofighter and Gripen have better RCS than Rafale and more BVR capable with AIM120c7 and of course with HMS

Your opinion, or backed up by any source? Hopfully not the study sponserd by swedish armed forces?

cherry picking from blogs

Once again, news reports with sources!

ISTOÉ Independente - Economia & Negócios

RING - Capitaine Romain, pilote de Rafale en Afghanistan

Just to show Flaws -
No mention of ROE( Engagement rules , whether strong point of F18 were neutralized by rules - Like just 50kms range allowed with AIM120 to make it favorable to French wrt to MICA + Radar were in training mode to neutralize APG-79 which is strongest point of F18

Why you start speculating again, if that would be the case, it would have been easy for the pilot to blame it on the ROEs, instead of stating that Rafale were hard to detect, but he didn't!

Hard to swallow APG79 AESA on F18 failed in comparison to PESA-RBE of Rafale
Third - 10KW antennae of APG79 which can detect 1m2 RCS at more than 120+Kms failed to detect 2m2 Rafale . [/QUOTE]

That's what I meant, if you don't belive it ok, but don't deny it and start speculations, because that makes you biased. Try to counter it with facts and other sources!

Does it imply Sweden,UK,Germany who are developers and partners will get late than UAE ( if at all deal finalizes this year)

It means that those who will fund the integration first, will get it at first! All they did so far, were tests in the development of the missile, not integration of the missile to any of those fighters. All Meteor members are planing with the missiles only around 2014/15 and later, but if the development ends soon and UAE is ready to spend the money for fast integration, they might get it around 2013 as they want.
Also who told you that IAF would buy Aim 120 for Gripen, or EF for such a short period of time till Meteor is available, instead of integrating Astra, or using R77 at Gripens? Aim 120 can't be used from any other fighter in the fleet, so would be obsolete when Meteor is available. MICA EM instead will be used by Mirage 2000 till 2025 anyway, just like Astra in several other IAF fighters.
So in any case, isn't it more likely that they will try to integrate Astra in all those Eurocanards, as an alternative besides Meteor and a stop gap till Meteor is available?

You happily quote - Rafale did this , did that , but don't tell when Rafale lose .
In Red-Flag2008 as Video of Col debriefing says - French were not engaging/taking shot but only spying out there .
But you quote "rafale performed excellent in Red-Flag " not that video .
A video is better proof than some blog/forum statements by some random person

LOL, now you really run out of argument if you take that redflag video as a reliable source. Just look how many mistakes that pilot made about the MKI, BISONs and so on and than jugde about his reliability on Rafale.
Btw, the video doesn't say anything that Rafale lost, neither did I ever hide Rafales down sides. If so, I would have posted that it beat the F18 6times and not that it lost also 2 times, or that it's main downside is cost, or that it don't has HMS yet.
But as I always said, it is still the fighter with the most advantages, from different point of views!

And once again, I don't post just statements from forums, most of the posts I provided are news reports, sometimes even with interviews of the pilots. I don't claim things like that and try always to give sources. So please stop with this false claims!

Really interesting infos, especially about the F16 B60s, that shows that it uses the same interfereometry techs as Spectra for passive locating targets.
The question that I have are, can the B60 EWS use any AAMs and will the F16IN have the same techs in the EWS? The one for B60 was specially developed for UAE from Northrop Grumman, while F16IN will have an EWS from Raytheon.

Also, just as you said:

How this is done in Rafale -
Ranging of threats in Rafale can be done by either SPECTRA alone + or in combination with Laser-Range-Finder of FSO / or RBE radar .

But your source for the F18 only states that the RWR can detect ground radars and give guidance to HARM, not like Spectra to locate targets and cue weapons on them. So the F18SH is limited to HARM only, also F18SH has no integrated IRST to cue passively, which means to cue missiles, it has no other option than the radar itself ( which is active of course), or to carry the IRST-fuel tank on the centerline station.

 

[sancho]

Selex Galileo is already working towards integrating an AESA array with the Eurofighter for the UK under a technology demonstration programme worth around £20 million ($30 million). A modified aircraft is expected to fly in 2013 under the initiative.

I really would be surprised it the EF will be shortlisted, when it don't have an operational AESA radar by the time we should get the first fighters. AESA is a key requirement and if the EF can't offer it, it must be disqualified from the competition.
It was reported that they will announce details about the tranche 3 upgrade tomorrow in Farnborough, will be interesting to see what they will come up with and when it will be available.

 

[KEETARP]

enhanced SA by gathering several different signals (using Spectra sensors as well as RBE 2, FSO, or MICA IR) and the capability to target and cuing of weapons in passive mode, makes it much more than a normal EWS.

Sancho , either you didn't bother to read my post or you left imp lines . Otherwise you won't have asked the question .

For last time I am posting again to show you how Passive targeting is done by others . Better go thru that post .

Northrop Grumman "has additionally developed the LR-105 RWR and precision targeting system for the F-16 Block 60. The LR-105 is a highly modified adaptation of the LR-100 electronic support measures (ESM) system, which combines the NexGen digital receiver chipset with Litton's patented Long Baseline Interferometer passive geolocation technology".

The Falcon Edge provides radar warning, jamming, and emitter targeting. As in the case of the F/A-22 and JSF, the passive EW system helps to locate and identify airborne and surface targets and can locate a surface target in distance as well as bearing

For F18

SP (self-protect) mode is an automatic targeting mode of the HARM. When the HARM SP mode is selected and the
Superhornet's EW system detects that a ground-based radar is guiding a missile at your aircraft, a HARM will automatically be selected for firing and the intended target will be boxed on the HUD and in the SMS MDI display. No
other emitters will appear in the MDI. The next press of the weapon pickle button will release a HARM.

Period ...

so for sure not 2009 techs only!

Plz provide a link , showing IAF tested DDM-NG in 2009 .
If you don't have any proof then stop bringing 2012 prediction in current scenario. To add 2012 only when there are no delays like A400/F35/Meteor otherwise ........ that's why A400 .

Again, out of context!

Why out of context , you mean to say Russia , Sweden , Euro.. won't provide source codes .

but the fighter is not useful in strike?

Says who - You ?? .
Ask anyone in IAF they will tell you whether Mig35/Gripen are useful in strike or not ( mark your words "useful" )

Mig 35 has no cruise missile and can only carry limited heavy A2G loads, Gripen NG as I mentioned before is limited in range,

Ohh , "Mig35 has no cruise missile".
Sancho atleast know about our country's weapon system / jets

Do you see that thing lying in front of Mig29K
X/KH-59 ( Zoom the figure to see its written )
Then read it on net ,

The Kh-59 Ovod (Russian: Х-59 Овод 'Gadfly'; AS-13 'Kingbolt') is a Russian TV-guided cruise missile with a two-stage solid-fuel propulsion system and 115 km range. The Kh-59M Ovod-M (AS-18 'Kazoo') is a variant with a bigger warhead and turbojet engine

can only carry limited heavy A2G loads, Gripen NG as I mentioned before is limited in range,

Again , just your assumption and belief .
Do you know Range+Weapon load what IAF is asking in MRCA .
Any one completely insane will compare combat load of Gripen with F18 , bcoz of two different classes .

Just to inform , Gripen NG carries 7200Kg of combat load and Ferry range is more than 2220N-miles.( No refuel )

2200NM without in air refueling covers all the threats of India , until we want to strike Pacific .

carry limited heavy A2G loads

Mig 35 A2G weapons are much more flexible / more options than every other jet

Russian options ------
- A2S missiles
Kh59
Kh38
Kh47
Kh-29
Kh31E/P

Israel
-A2S Missile
Popeye lite ( Currently in service on Mirage + MKI )
LGB kits
MPK kits ( both in service )

Bombs ..........
Russia
KAB-1500LG-F-E ( Paveway analogue)
KAB-500/1500 SE (JDAM analogue with GLONASS security unlike GPS)
'Bazalt' PBK-500U (the functional JSOW analog)
MPK modules for broad spectrum of bombs (JDAM's functional analog).
Iron bombs
Dumb bombs

Video( must see )

But you asked for advantages compared to F18SH and here the CFTs could be an advantage

ohhh ,
F18 has more internal fuel on board than Rafale+more range hmmmmmm, dosen't need extra tanks .
Add A2A refueling no need to waste on CFT . If at all CFT is certified and cleared operational .

o the GPS version has 10m CEP, while the IR version is by far better, just as I told you

Talking of IR-AASM , plz let me know what CEP IR-JDAM has .
And then we will discuss why France has soooo cheap weapons while US has sooo costly weapons .

I didn't said in service, I said they were fielded in the Swiss trials, but they are on order for the F3 upgrade that France will have from 2012 onwards, that Swiss, Brasil, Kuwait and we can have if we buy Rafale. Go to this thread, there were several reports about the M88 2-E4 upgrade

Fine , then we will continue discussion in 2012 when M88 and DDm-NG are complete ( If at all , and no delay ) . Till then no Future plz

For A2A the Rafale don't need the M88-3 as it proved against EF and F22 in the same hot climate region

What F22 v Rafale ,
where Rafale beat F22 six times and F22 couldn't detect Rafale .
Plz post that , news/article/USAF statement
I am sure someone won't agree

 

[KEETARP]

So because you calculated somehow these figures, the MKI will only be detected at around 50Km more than Rafale?

Lets compare it to real figures!

Saabs official brochure of the Erieye AWACS states that it will detect fighters (which are normally around 5m2) over 300Km distances, Phalcon AWACS is often quoted with over 400Km.

Zhuk ME is able to detect 5m2 rargets at 120Km only, AGP 68 offers similar ranges.

Just a few examples where you can see, that your figures doesn't fit to real radar detection figures! If you compare your figure for a fully loaded Rafale (3m2) with the radar detections of those fighter radars, such a Rafale would be detected only in 100Km, or less.

Don't take it offensively, but I have some doubts about your calculation, especially about when a 4 times bigger target will be detected.
Your conclusion is based on the same theoretical figures, so doesn't fit to real estimations anyway and it's kind of funny that you expect any MMRCA to be as costly as F22.

Did you even go thru that calculation

One is that equation used wrong - No its from literature , RCS varies as 1/4th root for detection

Two - did you see I multiplied both factors by 100 arbitrarily ,
for Eriye/Phalcon that 100 could be anything ranging from 100 to 500 depending upon Beam power .
Multiply 1.32 by 300 and 1.85 by 300
Rafale gets detected at 396 , Su30 at 555 . That should satisfy your Ego about Rafale .
Before claiming calculation wrong , bother to read it .

Still , you don't explain
Are you suggesting - Rafale will remain hidden from Erieye/F16 till 60 kms of them ??? AWACS won't detect them
Does MICA have range like AIM120? r77
Does Rafale have Helmet mounted HMS
Does Rafale carry powerful radar like Bars/Captor/Apg79/Apg80

our opinion, or backed up by any source? Hopfully not the study sponserd by swedish armed forces?

Really , i have posted RCS certificate for Gripen 3 times on defence.pk as o.1m2 .

Let's see your source for Rafale's RCS , should be atleast certificate like Gripen .

Try to counter it with facts and other sources!

You mean to say
APG79 stronger than PESA RBE on Rafale is not fact
AIM120 has bigger range than MICA is not fact

If you mean above , tell me . I will post enough sources .

UAE is ready to spend the money for fast integration

Would like to see the link for UAE funding METEOR

neither did I ever hide Rafales down sides

Of course you did , from post one you are not ready to accept its downside.
You claim that it has only Pros but no cons

-When I showed it lacks HARM - You justify targeting by bombs is much more precise ( F18 carry both HARM as well as JDAM - Better anyways )
-French weapons are costly - No reply , indirectly stating Indian weapons will be integrated ( So can others )
-No HMS - waiting for reply , may be i would learn HMS is waste according to French blogs
-MICA lacks Range - waiting for reply , armed RCS will be small to fool Eriye is moot

Really interesting infos, especially about the F16 B60s, that shows that it uses the same interfereometry techs as Spectra for passive locating targets.
The question that I have are, can the B60 EWS use any AAMs and will the F16IN have the same techs in the EWS? The one for B60 was specially developed for UAE from Northrop Grumman, while F16IN will have an EWS from Raytheon.

Also, just as you said:

Quote:
How this is done in Rafale -
Ranging of threats in Rafale can be done by either SPECTRA alone + or in combination with Laser-Range-Finder of FSO / or RBE radar .
But your source for the F18 only states that the RWR can detect ground radars and give guidance to HARM, not like Spectra to locate targets and cue weapons on them. So the F18SH is limited to HARM only, also F18SH has no integrated IRST to cue passively, which means to cue missiles, it has no other option than the radar itself ( which is active of course), or to carry the IRST-fuel tank on the centerline station.

Did you bother to go thru that post ,

EVERY NEW GEN RWR uses Inferometric technique/Triangulation that's why they are not called RWR any more but Electronic support measures (ESM).

Read the link again -

Radar Warning Receivers: The Digital Revolution
by Dave Adamy

Radar warning receivers (RWRs) have been an important part of electronic warfare (EW) since the Vietnam War. They have been repeatedly upgraded to meet new threats, but they still look and work a lot like the original systems. The threats are still changing, causing the RWRs to change with them; but the main driver for change now is the increasingly complex tasks we want these systems to perform.

WHAT IS AN RWR?

An RWR is a specialized receiving system used to identify, locate and display threat radar signals very quickly. Although mostly associated with aircraft, RWRs also protect ships and ground-mobile assets. The RWR typically has an instantaneous 360° field of view and covers the whole radar-threat spectrum quickly enough to receive the first beam of a radar signal to reach the protected platform. Its processing only identifies known threat signals from a threat-parameter-identification table. It is optimized for rapid data throughput, collecting only enough data and performing only enough processing to identify the threat type unambiguously. It typically has enough sensitivity to receive main-beam transmissions and enough angle-of-arrival accuracy to support situational awareness in a cockpit and to hand off threats to a jammer.

The RWR must have a 100- percent probability of intercept (POI), or very nearly 100-percent POI, for all threat-signal types it is expected to encounter. POI in this case means the ability to receive and display a signal within a very short time (typically about one second) starting when the first energy (above the sensitivity threshold) from that signal reaches the location of the protected platform.

AN RWR IS NOT AN ESM SYSTEM (YET)

Fig 1 Most RWRs operate from four or more cavity-backed spiral (or similar) antennas with their boresights aimed symmetrically around the protected platform.

An electronic-support-measures (ESM) system is different from an RWR in that the ESM system typically has more sensitivity and greater location accuracy. However, the main difference is that an ESM system performs more detailed analysis on received signals. It will typically measure and record all of the signal parameters and may also have some sort of human intervention - making the ESM system closer to an electronics-intelligence (ELINT) system. It also typically has less than 100-percent POI (by the RWR definition). The ESM system typically receives threat signals in their side lobes, rather than requiring illumination from the main beams. It knows the location of threat emitters with enough accuracy to hand off that information to another platform or to support weapon targeting.

Cliff Moody of the Information Warfare Battle Lab (Kelly AFB, San Antonio, TX) expressed the opinion that RWR-system users want to convert RWRs to ESM systems while still retaining the RWR capability. This is a view shared by most of the leaders in the RWR field interviewed for this article. A recent study in the UK showed that the RWR function cannot be adequately performed by existing ESM systems, so the clear implication is that both RWR and ESM systems will require performance enhancements to perform both jobs. It seems very clear that no-one is willing to back off on RWR performance requirements to gain the additional ESM capabilities, since one hit from an unseen weapon can ruin your whole day.

NEW REQUIREMENTS

The changes in RWR requirements are driven by new threats, but more importantly from additional operational functionality that users would like to get from RWRs. The primary desired changes are as follows:
enough sensitivity to receive all threats from their side-lobe effective radiated power (ERP), beyond the lethal range of the weapons they control;
direction-finding (DF) accuracy adequate to hand off threat location to another friendly platform;
determination of the number of pulse-Doppler radars present and discrimination of friendly emitters from enemy emitters;
specific-emitter tracking (SET) or, preferably, specific-emitter identification (SEI); and
detection and location of low- probability-of-intercept ( LPI ) radars.

Enough said , but still I would use next post .

 

[KEETARP]

also F18SH has no integrated IRST to cue passively, which means to cue missiles, it has no other option than the radar itself ( which is active of course), or to carry the IRST-fuel tank on the centerline station.

Why bring IRST into this suddenly ??????

Since you raised question about F18 Direction Finding capability passively

The AN/ALR-67(V)3 Advanced Special Receiver (ASR) is a radar warning receiver (RWR) . The ASR is a radar warning receiver (RWR) intended to supersede the AN/ALR-67E(v)2

The ASR collection categories include: high band pulse (2-40 GHz); high band continuous wave; low band pulse (less than 2 GHz); and millimeter wave MMW (28-40 GHz). The ASR provides signal detection, direction finding, and identification of radio frequency (RF) and MMW threat emitters including: scanning, pulse Doppler and continuous wave tracking, acquisition and early warning radars, and missile guidance.

I don't see after seeing those red highlighted part , I need to explain any more .

For rest read this link , plz
http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature1280/

For TYPHOON cueing better read this

Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon?

I am posting quote from above link

An ESM is integrated into the Defensive Aids SubSystem (DASS), and could be employed as a passive targeting tool in engagements, in addition to its basic function as a sensitive long range RWR. The antenna packages are in the wingtip pods.
The DASS package is comprehensive, incorporating the ESM/RWR, a MAWS, a forward sector Laser Warning Receiver (RAF), expendables, DECM and an optical fibre towed decoy. This is a competitive package by any measure, against its US contemporaries.

As far as I see Tornado did passive cueing , HARM firing .
When official brochure shows HARM on Typhoon , I am sure they are using atleast contemporary RWR if they have brains .
( Their brochure shows RWR as ESM and with direction finding capability see below + just to add BAE built Falcon-Edge direction finding antennas for F16 and is developer of DASS )

I am sure you won't be knowing RWR on MKI is an ESM and provides cueing for KH58/31 missile
I have Janes weekly of 2007 , let me search it in drawer to scan upload it .




Here it is

Red part

 

[trident2010]

^^^ Why don't you both the guys talk on phone and sort out this matter once for all? Much easier for you and for us.

 

[KEETARP]

^^^ Why don't you both the guys talk on phone and sort out this matter once for all? Much easier for you and for us.

Trident
Nice suggestion IMO. Will look thru if possible .

I must apologize if our posts made your life difficult . You can ignore them and post your's . No restriction i guess

 

[sancho]

Back again...

Plz provide a link , showing IAF tested DDM-NG in 2009 .
If you don't have any proof then stop bringing 2012 prediction in current scenario. To add 2012 only when there are no delays like A400/F35/Meteor otherwise ........ that's why A400 .

now I get you, believe what you want, but I see the facts and they are that Rafale is the most developed and ready fighter from Europe, which will be available with all capabilities that are on offer for us, at least 2-3 years before EF, or Gripen NG.

Why out of context , you mean to say Russia , Sweden , Euro.. won't provide source codes .

They will, but that was not the point! You asked me about advantages that the Rafale has in the strike role over F18SH, so it doesn't make sense to bring up those fighters in now.

Ohh , "Mig35 has no cruise missile".
Sancho atleast know about our country's weapon system / jets

I know it and instead of beliving a picture only, I looked up the specs on the official Mikoyan site some time ago, which states:

A-S" missiles:
- anti-ship 4хKh-31A, Kh-35E 4хKh-31A, Kh-35E
- anti-radar 4хKh-31P 4хKh-31P
Guided bombs 4хKAB-500Kr 4хKAB-500Kr

- MiG-29K/KUB

But no Kh 59 for Mig 29K, or Mig 35, also no heavier bomb than the KAB 500Kg.
I stopped to believe in pics from air shows when I realised, that most
of the weapons that they show for EF, doesn't exist in reality!

Again , just your assumption and belief .
Do you know Range+Weapon load what IAF is asking in MRCA .
Any one completely insane will compare combat load of Gripen with F18 , bcoz of two different classes .

I showed you the difference about range before and you didn't even disagree then, so why now? Gripen NG is in the same medium class as F18SH (otherwise it wouldn't be in the competition), only on the opposite ends.

Mig 35 A2G weapons are much more flexible / more options than every other jet

See above.

What F22 v Rafale ,
where Rafale beat F22 six times and F22 couldn't detect Rafale .
Plz post that , news/article/USAF statement
I am sure someone won't agree

Actually 5 draws and only 1 loss, which is more than impressive for such a small fighter, that is often claimed to be an underpowered fighter bomber only. I posted it here before!

Are you suggesting - Rafale will remain hidden from Erieye

That's what you claim again, but I never stated something like that!
I always said, that any MMRCA contender will have an advantage over MKI, to be less detectable by enemy AWACS, or fighter radars. I never said stealth, or invisible, but they all have clear advantages, simply by the smaller size, not to mention other advantages from RCS reduction features, or latest EWS.
These will help them in the strike role for example and as I asked you before, from IAF point of view, for this role, wouldn't it be better to have 2 frontline fighters that offers different capabilities and weapons for such a role?
You never answered it, because you the that it's true, that Rafale offers what MKI don't have and the other way around too. Be it capabilities of the fighter, weapons, or techs, they would suit perfectly.

Really , i have posted RCS certificate for Gripen 3 times on defence.pk as o.1m2 .

And that's exactly what I meant! Be honest please, would you take a source for Rafale to account that is sponsored by the French forces?

Of course you did , from post one you are not ready to accept its downside.
You claim that it has only Pros but no cons

-When I showed it lacks HARM - You justify targeting by bombs is much more precise ( F18 carry both HARM as well as JDAM - Better anyways )
-French weapons are costly - No reply , indirectly stating Indian weapons will be integrated ( So can others )
-No HMS - waiting for reply , may be i would learn HMS is waste according to French blogs
-MICA lacks Range - waiting for reply , armed RCS will be small to fool Eriye is moot

4 claims 4 times wrong! I agreed from the begining that the Rafale has no ARM, not because it doesn't integrated it yet, but because they use a different strategy in that role. I didn't even said that's the the better way, I only showed you that firing missiles preemptive is also not the solution and that's why the Europeans are thinking about other ways too.
Again I said from the begining that not only the weapons are costly, but the cost in general is the downside of the Rafale.
HMS, again I said it before that it don't has it integrated yet. Topsight was tested on Rafale, but the French forces wanted another HMS from Sagem, which was not integrated now.
And again I told you that MICA has less range than AIM 120, but that is not the point in BVR engagements, there are several factors that you have to take to accound. I even proved it with sources that a Rafale with MICA was able to beat opponents with AIM 120s.
But that is typical for this discussion, we were talking about detection with strike loads and suddenly you jumped to BVR engangements, I proofed that missile range alone is not the point and again you jump to missiles against Erieye, which has nothing to do with what we wear talking initially.

EVERY NEW GEN RWR uses Inferometric technique/Triangulation that's why they are not called RWR any more but Electronic support measures (ESM).

NEW REQUIREMENTS...

It only says that the requirements for latest EWS had changed, but not that all EWS uses Inferometric techs. Again just a get into conclusion too fast.

When official brochure shows HARM on Typhoon , I am sure they are using atleast contemporary RWR if they have brains.

Yeah just let us ignor that not a single ARM was ever integrated on EF, but it the brochure shows it, it must cue weapons.


Really, I don't see why we should go on with this. You are posting so many (indeed interesting) infos, but mainly not about what we are talking. I mean even you said now that Rafale can fire MICA and AASM via Spectra, which means to air and ground targets. But the only EWS that could do similar seems to be the F16 B60, because it uses the techs for locatating and targeting (AAM firing is not sure though). For the rest you mainly assuming/concluding that they could do similar, at least with ARM, but that's what I said it is limited to that weapon only. Not to mention that EF, or Gripen never had the chance to prove anything like this, because they didn't have any ARM. So the point stands, Rafale can cue weapons with Spectra now, while the others, if at all, can cue ARM.

It doesn't make sense if I had to correct you in every post about things that I didn't said, claims that has nothing to do with the reality. So I appreciate the discussion in general, because I guess we both could learn things, but now I am mainly correting your quotes than having a real discussion, especially about what we started. So if you want to go on with it, keep it at those things that I said and that are available now, or will be for IAF for sure.
If you want to reply to the above mentioned things, send me an PM, if not, it would be nice if you could keep me updated about the EWS of F16IN, or Gripen NG from time to time, cause I'm interested in them too.


Besides that, I always said I am for Rafale no because it is the best fighter, but because it offers us the most advantages. So are you interested in setting up possible requirement, that could be important for MMRCA and comparing the contenders with them? I bet even you would see, that Rafale at least is one of the best contenders for India. Not to mention that it might be more interesting for other members too.

 

[sancho]

Just to inform , Gripen NG carries 7200Kg of combat load and Ferry range is more than 2220N-miles.( No refuel )

Because this is related to the topic directly again, as I told you the Gripen NG is still under development only and many specs are simply not known now, or are changing.

For example, the cost per h was stated at $4000 dollar in Brazil first, later was increased to $5000, but the technical evaluation hints $7 to 8000 per h.

Also at the begining, Gripen NG was about to have the same wingspan as the older Gripens:

But now it will have 0.2m more wingspan, but its emptyweight is still estimated at 7t.

Now the latest specs from Brazil says 7.2t payload, but figure doesn't really fit to the other specs.

MTOW: 16.5
- (minus) 7t empty
- 7.2t payload

= are only 2.3t left for internal fuel, which is pretty much what the older Gripens had, but the Gripen NG is said to have increased fuel to 3.5t as you can see in the offer to us:

So will it have less internal fuel now, or still the same 6t payload and what about the empty weight?
As you can see, even the specs from Saab are changing and don't look really reliable now. I am trying to find out what specs they provided for the competition in Switzerland, but at least the final prototype is not out, it might remain estimations only.

G8!

 

[indushek]

My god man, put an end to this will ya , I open this thread to see any new info on MRCA and all i find is these two SANCHO and PRATEEK.

AB TO CHOD DO MERE BHAIYON, BAKSHO HUME KHUDA KE LIYE.

 

[soaringphnx]

Sorry to barge into your err... "debate", (or maybe a "heated discussion" is more appropirate?) but I thought it would be good to post something I found.

What F22 v Rafale ,
where Rafale beat F22 six times and F22 couldn't detect Rafale .
Plz post that , news/article/USAF statement
I am sure someone won't agree

I don't know anything about the Rafale being invisible to the F-22, but...

French magazine Air & Cosmos published last week a photo obtained from the French Air Force showing a Lockheed Martin F-22 in the target sights of a Dassault Rafale. The apparent intercept took place during the exercises at Al Dhafra AB, UAE, in November and December, Air & Cosmos' Guillaume Steuer reports.

In late December, the French Ministry of Defense boasted one kill in six engagements versus the F-22 in aerial combat. In turn, US Air Force F-22 pilots, however, told the media that their aircraft was undefeated during the exercise.

It's impossible to make any sensible judgments from a single photo of an alleged air-to-air engagement, but this is certainly a significant image to appear in the history of both fighter programs.

Now I don't mean to say that the Rafale is superior in all aspects to the F-22 or anything, but I thought in the current context, this is interesting, especially since the Rafale is in the MRCA competition.

P.S. Keep up the discussion guys, don't worry, I can't comprehend much of what you guys are saying!!!

 

[Indian-Devil]

My god man, put an end to this will ya , I open this thread to see any new info on MRCA and all i find is these two SANCHO and PRATEEK.

AB TO CHOD DO MERE BHAIYON, BAKSHO HUME KHUDA KE LIYE.

Its really a nice thread, 2 guys sharing their knowledge and thoughts abt MRCA, but guys have some soft words while correcting each others instead of using "little" harsh words.

But to be honest we mostly enjoying this thread. Keep up the good work with sharing knowledge with source.

 

[KEETARP]

Sorry to barge into your err... "debate", (or maybe a "heated discussion" is more appropirate?) but I thought it would be good to post something I found.


I don't know anything about the Rafale being invisible to the F-22, but...


Now I don't mean to say that the Rafale is superior in all aspects to the F-22 or anything, but I thought in the current context, this is interesting, especially since the Rafale is in the MRCA competition.

P.S. Keep up the discussion guys, don't worry, I can't comprehend much of what you guys are saying!!!

I decided not to post more - whatever ??

soaringphnx , i do appreciate your love for Rafale .

But dear you should have checked this forum / net before selectively posting article .

There were six DACT flown , one was won by F22 while 5 resulted in draw . by AdA air force
Air-Cosmos writes 2 victory for F22 and 4 draws .


You missed to check what USAF pilot said about exercise

F-22 Raptors return from training in Middle East | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

"In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water," Pilch said. "Their stats were off the chart."

Read the link , I posted . There is a video of that as well .

Second -
You see this article below

and this is the translation

"Although French aviators showed off a great deal about the "beatings" inflicted by their Rafales on British Typhoons during the last ATLC exercise in the United Arab Emirates, very little was said about the confrontation between Dassault's delta-wing aircraft and the American F-22As. In out-of-visual-range engagements, the American Raptors did not even condescend to turn on their radars, remaining invisible to the Rafale's RBE2 [radar system] and Spectra [self-defense system] while precisely locating the electromagnetic waves from the French fighter, thus securing their AMRAAM [missile] launches from a secure distance. On two occasions at least, the F-22As also "tangled" with the Rafales in close combat, securing a "gun kill" each time without much difficulty."

the AdA denied BVR fights with the F22 and reiterate the 5 draws and one loss in dogfight against the F22. Air&Cosmos inquired and it seems that it could be 2 loss for the rafale and 4 draws (according to their own sources)...It appears that one victory of the F22 is contested and claimed to be a draw. According to A&C The BVR story would be that F22 made virtual kills against rafale while rafale pilots were not aware that F22 pilots whould try to simulate this kind of engagements. (They were busy performing their own missions but not expecting that F22 would try to score a kill)

link - Rafale v Typhoon v F22 and the rest...Was there ever a conclusion? - Page 25 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

Air-Cosmos changed their opinion later

Third -
That shot is from OSF not from HUD/Piper , means no missile in WVR simulation would be engaged .
This image is taken when in group flying .

A hud image where clear shot is there is like this below -

See the bearing+range on HUD .

Just to make you happy - That was Eurofighter nailed by Rafale in above image .

Conclusion - 6 DACT - 2 won by F22 rest draw / Jets were withdrawn .

On page 140 of this thread , our Super Mod Blain2 explained it as well . Why bring that again ???

He gave you same reply

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/4347-mrca-news-discussions-139.html#post965673