India selects EF, Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

Zabaniyah · Apr 29, 2011

blackops said:
there were dog fights over libya

ummm...yes... :coffee:

Libyan plane shot down by French - World News - MSN News UK

sancho · Apr 29, 2011

Kinetic said:
I can count 12 here. +1 for pods.

12 (5 of them wet)+ 2 for pods (1 pod on each side of the air intake is possible) is the maximum load out, but dependend on the weapons and on customer requirements. French forces for example don't use the 2 x centerline stations for MICA missiles, neither the external wing stations (next to the wingtips). Dassault has tested these configs and the UAE wants the outer wingstations as well, because they want to carry heavy loads with 3 x 2000lb bmobs, or 3 x Scalp cruise missiles + 6 x MICAs and fuel tanks.
EF has more weapon hardpoints, but 4 of them are dedicated for BVR missiles only (at the fuselage), has no dedicated pod station (centerline station is used now) and has only 3 x wet stations for fuel tanks, which limits the weaponload.

sancho · Apr 29, 2011

SpArK said:
Shi$.... damn it... what an ugly thing that is.

Good that nobody noticed it.

monitor · Apr 29, 2011

So its official that the long awaited MMRCA competition has come into its final stage and two aircraft have been down selected which will go head to head to win this $10 billion deal. So is it gonna be the Eurofighter Typhoon, or is it gonna be the Dassault Rafale. I don't exactly have an answer to that question, but what I am gonna answer today is which of there aircraft should IAF select. So without any delays, I will get to the analysis.

AIRFRAME
Both these aircraft are very advanced delta canard config aircraft. They have seen quite some action and have been favorites of air forces all over the world. Although the aircraft look similar on the out, the airframe is completely different, and every component on it serves a different purpose.

eurofighter_typhoon_fgr_4__6__by_namelessfaithlessgod-d3c1daz.jpg

The Typhoon is a formidably built aircraft. Its tough, has a huge canard which is placed at an angle to the ground. And its canards are up front on the nose, Now this really helps it pull up quick. What this does is that it creates a virtual tail heavy feeling for the aircraft which allows it to point its nose in any direction very quickly like the Flanker.

Another thing worth a mention is its canopy. It has a bubble canopy that offers a clear view for the pilot. The intakes are placed below the fuselage. Although these have its own benefits like ability to fly at slow speeds, they do tend to create problems at high speeds. At high speed turns, the airframe goes through great amount of stresses. But the airframe of the Typhoon is very strong, and designed in a beautiful way, and its perfectly capable of handling those stresses. The only downside is the maintenance that would be required to keep it in good shape.

One look at the wings, and its clear that the Brits wanted this to be one maneuverable machine. Everything about the aircraft screams speed and maneuverability. The wings are not straight, they are slight curved upwards to increase their strength, and be able to handle low speeds in a better way. Even the slats are controlled through powerful motor screws which require less space and move quickly and firmly. The vertical stabilizer is conventional though.

The Typhoon has a variable intake, which means that the intake on the Typhoon can open up or close a little to control the amount of air entering the engines. This is a great feature which allows the aircraft to be just as efficient at high speeds, as it is at low speeds.
When the aircraft reaches higher speeds, a lot of air at high velocities starts to enter the intakes. It becomes very difficult to combust all this air, so a lot of fuel starts to go waste, and the engine starts to lose thrust. This can be avoided by reducing the inlet size, so less air enters at high speed, and when it reaches the combustion chamber, it slows down due to the larger size of the chamber, so it ignites properly and thrust is maintained.

The Rafale is a different beast. It isn't as complex, but its sturdy. It is designed in a way that makes it look beautiful and rigid at the same time. The canards of Rafale are not as big as that of the Typhoon, and they are placed near the wings, which suggests that their is little help that the aircraft can expect of the canards. But this configuration helps the Rafale be a beautiful handler. It would be great for low altitude fast flying. At fast speeds, this configuration will offer least resistance and allow it to reach Mach 2+ speeds.

The Rafale isn't as radical as the Typhoon. It uses conventional technology in its airframe. Everything about it is tried and tested. And it wouldn't be as maneuverable as Typhoon. In fact, Typhoon would be miles above Rafale when it comes to maneuverability.

The intakes on the Rafale are also conventional. They look cool but there isn't anything revolutionary about it. It isn't a bad thing, but the Typhoon takes the cake here too.

ENGINES
The Typhoon has 2 EJ-200 engines with a dry thrust of 60 KN and a wet thrust of 90 KN. These are respectable numbers and with a great airframe and powerful wings, the engines are well complemented. There are news that the engines might be upgraded with TVC engines, but I don't think it will happen as the current engines are good enough and canards do the job of TVC very nicely on the Typhoon.

put in a bigger engine? Maybe because it didn't need it. The current engines on the Rafale are fine, BUT when compared to the latest 4.5 gen aircraft, the thrust does seem to be on the lower side. The Snecma M88-2 engines with 50 KN dry thrust and 75 KN thrust with afterburners are high efficiency engines but with lower thrust. Dassault has promised to replace the engines with high thrust engines, but since its not here yet, I wouldn't consider that.

The Typhoon again wins the round hands down.

AVIONICS
The Typhoon has a CAPTOR radar, which is a mechanically steered Pulse Doppler radar. Now most of the people who know something about radars would know that this is an old technology. In fact technology wise, these type of radars are two generation behind the AESAs and one generation behind the PESAs. But what EF has done is that they have tweaked it, increased the size of the antenna and that has increased its performance by a lot. It can detect aircraft sized targets at ranges up to 160 kms. But since its a MSA radar, it also has a few disadvantages. It can not scan many targets at a time, and it can be jammed. It has the ability to interleave, this I think I will discuss sometime later.

The Rafale on the other hand scores nicely here. Its RBE2 radar is a PESA radar which is a good thing. But the size of the nose of Rafale restricts the radar sizes which makes the radar detect aircraft sized targets at a range of 140-150 kms. The radar gets beaten by the Typhoon in range, but it does make up for it in technology. The radar is completely automated. When in interceptor mode, it automatically selects high, medium or low pulse repetition frequencies for best reception. The radar will soon be replaced by an AESA variant, which would have a range of 160-170 kms and would be very advanced, the same can not be said about Typhoon. An AESA variant is planned for Typhoon also but recent reports suggest that it may not be shipped on Tranche 3, but could be available as an upgrade.

The radar is a tie here. Both are good radars, nothing groundbreaking about them.

RADAR CROSS SECTION REDUCTION FEATURES
The EF Typhoon has implemented several features to reduce the frontal rcs of the aircraft. But mind you, its just the frontal rcs that is reduced. From the side, the rcs is comparable to other modern aircraft. The frontal rcs should be a 0.5-1 sq meter. A lot of people expect it to be 0.1, which is almost impossible and more of a net rumor.

The rcs would be reduced further if an AESA is employed.

The Rafale on the other hand has a higher rcs due to less composites used. The shape of the airframe is another problem. It should have a much higher rcs from sides too. The rcs of Rafale should be around 1.5-2 sq meter.

ARMAMENT
This is a very important aspect of a fighter aircraft. And both the Eurocanards have recently employed new missiles. The Typhoon is going to use Meteor, with ASRAAM in the future, and the Rafale will use Meteor with MICA as its missile.
The missiles in use by both the aircraft are top quality missiles, but what makes the Typhoon a better package is its compatibility with AIM9-Sidewinder and AIM120-AMRAAM. Although MICA and Meteor are more than capable to match these missiles, but it does narrow down Rafale's options.

Both the aircraft are compatible with loads of air-ground munitions. Many people believe that Typhoon isn't a very capable Air-ground platform, but this isn't true. Typhoons are perfectly capable of taking out any ground mission. The problem is with training of pilots. The number of pilots flying Typhoon are very low, and they have not been trained for ground missions. Only a minority of pilots are capable of it as of now.
Something that deserves a mention here is the SPECTRA system on Rafale. It is a software system that increases the chances of survival for the aircraft but automating most of the tasks. It allows seamless integration and communication with other aircraft and ground assets. Typhoon also has a capable EW suite but SPECTRA is believed to be a bit better.

So this round is another tie.

I guess this is where I would sum it all up. The Rafale is a great aircraft, but the Typhoon seems to be just a little bit better. They are both expensive planes, and we couldn't go wrong with either of these aircraft. But if it was left to me, I'd pick the Typhoon any day.

Mirza Jatt · Apr 29, 2011

monitor said:
So its official that the long awaited MMRCA competition has come into its final stage and two aircraft have been down selected which will go head to head to win this $10 billion deal. So is it gonna be the Eurofighter Typhoon, or is it gonna be the Dassault Rafale. I don't exactly have an answer to that question, but what I am gonna answer today is which of there aircraft should IAF select. So without any delays, I will get to the analysis.

AIRFRAME
Both these aircraft are very advanced delta canard config aircraft. They have seen quite some action and have been favorites of air forces all over the world. Although the aircraft look similar on the out, the airframe is completely different, and every component on it serves a different purpose.

The Typhoon is a formidably built aircraft. Its tough, has a huge canard which is placed at an angle to the ground. And its canards are up front on the nose, Now this really helps it pull up quick. What this does is that it creates a virtual tail heavy feeling for the aircraft which allows it to point its nose in any direction very quickly like the Flanker.

Another thing worth a mention is its canopy. It has a bubble canopy that offers a clear view for the pilot. The intakes are placed below the fuselage. Although these have its own benefits like ability to fly at slow speeds, they do tend to create problems at high speeds. At high speed turns, the airframe goes through great amount of stresses. But the airframe of the Typhoon is very strong, and designed in a beautiful way, and its perfectly capable of handling those stresses. The only downside is the maintenance that would be required to keep it in good shape.

One look at the wings, and its clear that the Brits wanted this to be one maneuverable machine. Everything about the aircraft screams speed and maneuverability. The wings are not straight, they are slight curved upwards to increase their strength, and be able to handle low speeds in a better way. Even the slats are controlled through powerful motor screws which require less space and move quickly and firmly. The vertical stabilizer is conventional though.

The Typhoon has a variable intake, which means that the intake on the Typhoon can open up or close a little to control the amount of air entering the engines. This is a great feature which allows the aircraft to be just as efficient at high speeds, as it is at low speeds.
When the aircraft reaches higher speeds, a lot of air at high velocities starts to enter the intakes. It becomes very difficult to combust all this air, so a lot of fuel starts to go waste, and the engine starts to lose thrust. This can be avoided by reducing the inlet size, so less air enters at high speed, and when it reaches the combustion chamber, it slows down due to the larger size of the chamber, so it ignites properly and thrust is maintained.

The Rafale is a different beast. It isn't as complex, but its sturdy. It is designed in a way that makes it look beautiful and rigid at the same time. The canards of Rafale are not as big as that of the Typhoon, and they are placed near the wings, which suggests that their is little help that the aircraft can expect of the canards. But this configuration helps the Rafale be a beautiful handler. It would be great for low altitude fast flying. At fast speeds, this configuration will offer least resistance and allow it to reach Mach 2+ speeds.

The Rafale isn't as radical as the Typhoon. It uses conventional technology in its airframe. Everything about it is tried and tested. And it wouldn't be as maneuverable as Typhoon. In fact, Typhoon would be miles above Rafale when it comes to maneuverability.

The intakes on the Rafale are also conventional. They look cool but there isn't anything revolutionary about it. It isn't a bad thing, but the Typhoon takes the cake here too.

ENGINES
The Typhoon has 2 EJ-200 engines with a dry thrust of 60 KN and a wet thrust of 90 KN. These are respectable numbers and with a great airframe and powerful wings, the engines are well complemented. There are news that the engines might be upgraded with TVC engines, but I don't think it will happen as the current engines are good enough and canards do the job of TVC very nicely on the Typhoon.

put in a bigger engine? Maybe because it didn't need it. The current engines on the Rafale are fine, BUT when compared to the latest 4.5 gen aircraft, the thrust does seem to be on the lower side. The Snecma M88-2 engines with 50 KN dry thrust and 75 KN thrust with afterburners are high efficiency engines but with lower thrust. Dassault has promised to replace the engines with high thrust engines, but since its not here yet, I wouldn't consider that.

The Typhoon again wins the round hands down.

AVIONICS
The Typhoon has a CAPTOR radar, which is a mechanically steered Pulse Doppler radar. Now most of the people who know something about radars would know that this is an old technology. In fact technology wise, these type of radars are two generation behind the AESAs and one generation behind the PESAs. But what EF has done is that they have tweaked it, increased the size of the antenna and that has increased its performance by a lot. It can detect aircraft sized targets at ranges up to 160 kms. But since its a MSA radar, it also has a few disadvantages. It can not scan many targets at a time, and it can be jammed. It has the ability to interleave, this I think I will discuss sometime later.

The Rafale on the other hand scores nicely here. Its RBE2 radar is a PESA radar which is a good thing. But the size of the nose of Rafale restricts the radar sizes which makes the radar detect aircraft sized targets at a range of 140-150 kms. The radar gets beaten by the Typhoon in range, but it does make up for it in technology. The radar is completely automated. When in interceptor mode, it automatically selects high, medium or low pulse repetition frequencies for best reception. The radar will soon be replaced by an AESA variant, which would have a range of 160-170 kms and would be very advanced, the same can not be said about Typhoon. An AESA variant is planned for Typhoon also but recent reports suggest that it may not be shipped on Tranche 3, but could be available as an upgrade.

The radar is a tie here. Both are good radars, nothing groundbreaking about them.

RADAR CROSS SECTION REDUCTION FEATURES
The EF Typhoon has implemented several features to reduce the frontal rcs of the aircraft. But mind you, its just the frontal rcs that is reduced. From the side, the rcs is comparable to other modern aircraft. The frontal rcs should be a 0.5-1 sq meter. A lot of people expect it to be 0.1, which is almost impossible and more of a net rumor.

The rcs would be reduced further if an AESA is employed.

The Rafale on the other hand has a higher rcs due to less composites used. The shape of the airframe is another problem. It should have a much higher rcs from sides too. The rcs of Rafale should be around 1.5-2 sq meter.

ARMAMENT
This is a very important aspect of a fighter aircraft. And both the Eurocanards have recently employed new missiles. The Typhoon is going to use Meteor, with ASRAAM in the future, and the Rafale will use Meteor with MICA as its missile.
The missiles in use by both the aircraft are top quality missiles, but what makes the Typhoon a better package is its compatibility with AIM9-Sidewinder and AIM120-AMRAAM. Although MICA and Meteor are more than capable to match these missiles, but it does narrow down Rafale's options.

Both the aircraft are compatible with loads of air-ground munitions. Many people believe that Typhoon isn't a very capable Air-ground platform, but this isn't true. Typhoons are perfectly capable of taking out any ground mission. The problem is with training of pilots. The number of pilots flying Typhoon are very low, and they have not been trained for ground missions. Only a minority of pilots are capable of it as of now.
Something that deserves a mention here is the SPECTRA system on Rafale. It is a software system that increases the chances of survival for the aircraft but automating most of the tasks. It allows seamless integration and communication with other aircraft and ground assets. Typhoon also has a capable EW suite but SPECTRA is believed to be a bit better.

So this round is another tie.

I guess this is where I would sum it all up. The Rafale is a great aircraft, but the Typhoon seems to be just a little bit better. They are both expensive planes, and we couldn't go wrong with either of these aircraft. But if it was left to me, I'd pick the Typhoon any day.