IAF tender for 126 fighters cleared....finallly!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Adux
- Start date
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Dude, EF has a lower RCS than Rafale. It has better technical capabilities, off the top of my head the 'technical' ability to supercruise. It was designed with a bias towards air to air, Rafale is better in a2g. But again, with Tranche 3, Typhoon would excel in that as well.
I dont care if even Pakistan judges the aircraft for IAF, as long as its delivered early, something the govt simply wont do.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
No the airframe has many changes as well. RCS reduction is beyond RAM coatings, landing gear etc have been changed and strengthened as well. Not to mention the composites.
It would most defo be made beyond MKI standard Neo, if it is chosen that is. The Elta 2052 would be put in it, the Russian AESA wont be accepted. Their OLS system is actually quite excellent, they have put good avionics in the standard package as well, but we would put our own equipments, and source the rest of the deficiencies from Israel and Europe. Do you know the MiG 35 now has a true solid state jammer?!! The deal was made during AI 07 with the Italian company, ficamenti or summat.
Its turning out decently, though a lot of effort would be required on it, but when that is done, it would be one heck of a plane.
Neo I said EJ 2000 MLU, they are developing a TVC for EJ 2000 so it wont be much of problem having TVC 6 years down the line.
Check it,
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html
Malay RCS is classified figure, but from, design perspective a little bit of airflow idea it tells you Rafales canards are better placed to hit by radar waves directly.
Supercruising ability of EF is a nice one as I said Rafales engine lacks power but the design is better.
Check it,
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html
Malay RCS is classified figure, but from, design perspective a little bit of airflow idea it tells you Rafales canards are better placed to hit by radar waves directly.
Supercruising ability of EF is a nice one as I said Rafales engine lacks power but the design is better.
NEO MKI of Mig 35 is a CERTAINITY IF IT IS CHOSEN, The russians havent yet developed it completely, the AESA is not yet developed.
NIIP openly claimed in Aero India they lacks processing power of OAC (open architecture computers0 small enough to deal with 1080 TR/RX moduled AESa the reason they showed a 64 module wala prorotype. They said they need to work with India to iron out certain defficiencies.
The engine is not yet reliabe enough.
The MTOW isnt clear.
The electronics isnt clear.
MKIzation would take good 5-6 years or more.
NIIP openly claimed in Aero India they lacks processing power of OAC (open architecture computers0 small enough to deal with 1080 TR/RX moduled AESa the reason they showed a 64 module wala prorotype. They said they need to work with India to iron out certain defficiencies.
The engine is not yet reliabe enough.
The MTOW isnt clear.
The electronics isnt clear.
MKIzation would take good 5-6 years or more.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Rafale is not more than 70% of Mirage 2005. Let it go with Rafale. Its just not worth it.
Dont forget one thing EF is very crude fighter much like Raptor, powerful, big Radome et al while Rafale is tactical much like JSF, optimized for carrier thus its special design.
Rafale optimisation is not a vain word or empty commercial argument.
The aircraft aerodynamic is way more developed than that of the previous design, the Rafale A.
After Rafale A flew first on 4th July 1986, it served its purpose as demonstrator, validating the close-coupled delta-canard formula.
In particular, it meet all of ACX requierements for high maneuvrability and STOL performances, climb rate, sustain dash speed etc.
The proposed Navalised version, ACM was to meet more stringuent requierement from Marine Nationale after a Carrier trial period:
Increased sink rate with a 16* AoA and better downward visibility than the A were among MN demands after Carrier trials.
Design have to evoluate further and Dassault designers didn't do things half-way.
The A wings were similar to that of the Mirage IIING, a crancked delta plan which allowed the A to sustain M 2.0 and provided with good qualities at high AoA.
In some instances (as in the case for the EAP), this wingplan can lead to assymetric dispacement of Cl at supersonic speed, the center of lift of the two parts of the wings moving back backward at a different rate. (It depends on wingsweep).
There were also gains to be made by repositioning the wings from low-shoulder to mid-fuelage and this unlocked several other design options starting with a reduction in wave drag:
1) This allowed the designers to give the aircraft a sharply sweept LEX which not only gives an increae in lift but also is shaped for supersonic performances.
2) The surfaces of the canard was increeased by 30* and their root shaped so that they can deflect fully at 30* and increase the effect of the deflected airflow above the wing.
3) The LEX leading edge were designed sharper with a tri-dimentional shape, a constant sweept and progressive adrenal
The LEX are rooted at the point where the inlets diffuser shock hits the inlet leading edge, and beneficiate from the same weaker shock wave which triggers their own while minimising its intensity.
At lower speeds they provoc several vortexes, one of which is clearly visible here, resulting on a significant increase in lift.
4) There was a marqued increase in wing-fuselage junction volume too, with a more blended shape which reduces wave drag and increases internal fuel volume.
Accessorly this feature is also reducing the aircraft RCS.
While this would have been more than enough for most design houses, it wasn't so for the Dassault aerodynamicians.
During the Mirage 4000 flight-tests, they notices that the nose cone and front fuselage could be used to accomodate better pressure control and increase overal aerodynamic efficiency around the inlets.
This resulted in the characteristic V-shaped fron fuselage and inlet arrangement which optimises the airflow in front of the diffusers
This arrangement allows for a higher supersonic performances and a less complex inlet design.
But AGAIN this wasn't enough for Dassault, when they were given the word "OPTIMISEZ"!!!
Using their experience on the Mirage series they developed the conceipt of pressure and wave control even further:
Using the principes of compressive and expensive waves they channeled the boundary layer to the exact point where they wanted these phenomenons to occur: At the limit of the wing root.
There are sdeveral advantages in doing so:
First they do away with the Mirage 2000 strakes, as they are notably unstealthy and offers less control over the boundary layer.
These are normaly rooted at shoulder-level and dynamises the airflow around the fin at high AoA offering increased Yaw stability.
In the case of Rafale, by shaping the inlets in a V, they made it possible to energise BOTH that of the wing at its root and the fin's simultaneously, retain a sleek aircaft and low RCS.
These shock takes place from the transonic regime, at point A where the airflow is separated, (part of it recycled by the engine IR-suppressant channel).
The shock created there is of the compressive type, and results on an increase in temperature, pressure and density, the airflow velocity becoming lower which means higher energy.
From point D and E, where it matters most, this same airflow is submited to another Shockwave, this time of the Expensive type.
A new Mach line is created, resulting on lower pressures, density, temperature but a higher velocity which energises the airflow coming from the canard surfaces and the rest of the airframe.
This particular feature works so WELL thats its effects can even be seen when the aircraft is stationary due to paint tear and wear
So to finish, the Supersonic optimisation of the wing.
Many tends to think that a 50*+ sweept angle would allow for better "performances".
Well it's true and untrue at the same time, the wing of a Mirage 2000 will drag more and have a lower lift coefficient at higher AoA.
There are advantages for higher sweept wings, higher Critical Mach is one but you need an accordingly overal reduced drag wave to take advantage of this.
For example: Mid-fuselage mounted wings and well blended fuselage wings areas, Rafale have this too...
Lower mid-to-high supersonic drag is another but this can be CONTROLED with different design features.
Neo 6 years to decide which aircraft to buy lol, trust me it'll take 3-4 years sor sure, by then EJ engine will have TVC, Integrating TVC will take atleast 5 years, demostrating TVC which we have done in missiles first stage is different than putting it in aero engine and doing the flight control laws.
Malay I agree EF is a powerful bird, more power, supercruise, bigger radome but Rafale is tactical bird, optimised for carrier role as well.
Malay I agree EF is a powerful bird, more power, supercruise, bigger radome but Rafale is tactical bird, optimised for carrier role as well.
Rafale is atleast as capable as the Typhoon, anybody claiming otherwise should read the exclusive report in AFM June edition where the two platforms are compared.
Like Malay said, the difference is mainly primary and secunadary roles but both truly are multi role combat fighters.
Rafale even beat the F-15K and F-15S in South Korea and Singapore respectively in many technical grounds but lost the competition due political reasons.
Like Malay said, the difference is mainly primary and secunadary roles but both truly are multi role combat fighters.
Rafale even beat the F-15K and F-15S in South Korea and Singapore respectively in many technical grounds but lost the competition due political reasons.
Joey I'm told that Russia is no longer willing to compromise on the OVT, it will have to come with Russian avionic suite and radar.
Are you sure about the Elta AESA?
The unit price also seems to be a problem, its much more expensive than the MKI.
Are you sure about the Elta AESA?
The unit price also seems to be a problem, its much more expensive than the MKI.
I would love to see Rafale in PAF inventory in five years or so...
Honestly I would hate that
5 years? more like 10 years atleast if they wants first get the J10's.
By then MCA and PAKFA
As I said Rafale needed to be optimised for naval role can be used for dual purpose from Indian carriers INCASE DIRE STRAITS OF NECESSITY.
Typhoon is MUCH BIG FIGHTER, We have MKI for that thats why my choice for Rafale, heck put MKI a 3000 GAN MODULE AESA "HAHAHAHAHA THAT WOULD BE A KILLER) and the AL41F engines, Typhoon would be a nymph infront of it let alone Rafale.
Mig 35's airframe iss till what I prefer, You cannot doubt Russians on airframe.
Similar threads
