Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[halloweene]

Interesting, as i said on another forum, i wrote the article (and largely had to cut parts from it). I tried to write it for its purpose, a popoularization blog. I also wrote that a irst is lacking in the article and would be complementary. Everyone agree that a real IRST is lacking on FRENCH Rafales.
About SATCOM, well its in the way (and not very pretty btw). I rarely assume future facts sancho, trust me on that one

 

[halloweene]

I agree with your point, irst lacking on OSF IT its for the french Rafalese is lame. What i intended to say is that it was less urgent with ddm ng.
I have no news about indian rafales customization, speaking about it is like talking to a wall here...

 

[sancho]

I tried to write it for its purpose, a popoularization blog.

And please keep doing it, the article was definitely interesting and there is far too less info on SPECTRA and DDM NG anyway, I just was surprised to read about the relation drawn to FSO-IR.

I also wrote that a irst is lacking in the article and would be complementary. Everyone agree that a real IRST is lacking on FRENCH Rafales.
About SATCOM, well its in the way (and not very pretty btw). I rarely assume future facts sancho, trust me on that one

I have no doubt about "Indian" Rafales will come with IRST and that any export customer will get it via Samtel, just not sure about how capable it really is and a little disappointed that no joint development of FSO-NG seems to be on the list. FSO-NG, PDL-NG, MICA NG IR / Maitri, HMS, there was so much potential for joint developments as a true French - Indian project.

No trust issues mate, just eager to get more credible infos and sick of the delays and bad media reports.

 

[sancho]

 

[Abingdonboy]

I for one hope the IN doesn't go for the Rafale-M, yes the IAF needs this plane but the IN needs to look to Next-gen fighters for their future ACCs.

 

[sancho]

I for one hope the IN doesn't go for the Rafale-M, yes the IAF needs this plane but the IN needs to look to Next-gen fighters for their future ACCs.

True, but we sadly have only a very short sighted and egoistic DRDO as the developer of a NG fighter.

 

[Abingdonboy]

True, but we sadly have only a very short sighted and egoistic DRDO as the developer of a NG fighter.

Well there's always the N-FGFA (fingers crossed).

 

[sancho]

Well there's always the N-FGFA (fingers crossed).

Which won't help us if IN wants catapults.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Which won't help us if IN wants catapults.

Well has anyone actually ruled out the N-FGFA being able to launch from Catapults? I know it is a long shot but a man can still pray!

 

[sancho]

Well has anyone actually ruled out the N-FGFA being able to launch from Catapults? I know it is a long shot but a man can still pray!

The development of the fighter rules that basically out, because just as LCA for example, it was developed as an air force fighter without any airframe strenghtenings or so. The navalisation that we have seen on N-LCA would come later, but even for normal ski-jump take off the changes were far more complicated than ADA/DRDO expected, making a fighter catapult capable is a totally different level again. So if we want CATOBAR carriers and an own NG fighter, we need to develop AMCA in that direction from the start, it we just want bigger STOBAR carriers, N-FGFA is the best way to go.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The development of the fighter rules that basically out, because just as LCA for example, it was developed as an air force fighter without any airframe strenghtenings or so. The navalisation that we have seen on N-LCA would come later, but even for normal ski-jump take off the changes were far more complicated than ADA/DRDO expected, making a fighter catapult capable is a totally different level again. So if we want CATOBAR carriers and an own NG fighter, we need to develop AMCA in that direction from the start, it we just want bigger STOBAR carriers, N-FGFA is the best way to go.

Well a man can but dream @sancho, I know you are probably right and i was racking my brain but most CATOBAR capable naval fighters around have been designed pretty much from the ground up as naval fighters or with tho capability. However I think it could be a possibility we can't rule out as outsiders as we don't know the capabilities of the design and to be fair (even though its unproven) the Sea Gripen is touted as being able to operate from either STOBAR or CATOBAR ACCs and that was never meant to be a Naval fighter. Similarly the F-18 initially went head to head for a USAF requirement so its basic design was not meant to be a naval fighter at all.


Otherwise, I think the F-35C is looking very likely.

 

[sancho]

to be fair (even though its unproven) the Sea Gripen is touted as being able to operate from either STOBAR or CATOBAR ACCs and that was never meant to be a Naval fighter.

Not as a naval fighter, but included airframe and gear strenghtenings as a requirement of the design, to operate the fighter from roads and not only from fully fledged air bases. That's the reason why Saab has it easier to navalise the fighter for STOBAR carriers, than we have for N-LCA (already existing canards will be an advantage too) and why they say they can further navalise it for catapult operations to, although they didn't said how much changes that might require.
The Sea Typhoon is the opposite case and more comparable to FGFA and a naval version. Designed and developed for air forces, the later navalisation evaluations of Brits showed, that STOBAR operations would be possible, but even that included so many changes that it was an expensive solution. Further navalising to catapult operations was even ruled out in their offer to IN as not feasable.
Also don't forget the political factor! The US will never provide us catapults for the use of a Russian fighter, since they will fear that the Russians could use that for Pak Fa and their future carriers too. So that's an option that hardly has a chance and as we discussed before, I expect a combined deal for catapults anyway.

 

[halloweene]

Btw, DCNS and General Atomics CEOs had a long talk at Defexpo...

 

[jha]

So the Rafale maniacs still beating this dead horse..? Keep discussing .. and hoping...

But in the end I am gonna have the last laugh ...

@sancho , @SpArK , @Abingdonboy ...

 

[sancho]

So the Rafale maniacs still beating this dead horse..? Keep discussing .. and hoping...

But in the end I am gonna have the last laugh ...

@sancho , @SpArK , @Abingdonboy ...

How so? Your prefered fighteres were rejected right away.

Btw, DCNS and General Atomics CEOs had a long talk at Defexpo...

What does it mean?