What's new

Featured Rafale’s Impact on IAF’s Air Power Capabilities by Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail,

It is not Physics, fuel combustion is a chemical process. Type of fuel, its quantity and its packaging are one of the important factors effecting range of the missile.

Physics is involved when addressing factors such as aerodynamic drag, deployment height and angle (aircraft attitude) and many more.
Ok it is chemistry thanks for the correction. So do you agree with everything else I said?

Btw check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_physical_science , so the idea was when I want to incorporate aerodynamics, propulsion chemistry, thermodynamics and material science in one word then one can loosely say 'Physics'. However you are right that the point most at play here is 'chemistry' so we can go along with that.
 
Rafale’s Impact on IAF’s Air Power Capabilities
September 10, 2020

View attachment 668674


Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail (Retd)

Quite clearly, the inadequacy of IAF’s Su-30MKI and MiG-29 twin-engine fighters in the air superiority role led to the decision to acquire the Rafale, ostensibly a more modern and capable multi-role fighter. While both Russian fighters are highly maneuverable in a visual dogfight, as evidenced in several IAF exercises with RAF Typhoons and USAF F-15s and F-16s, they seem to have shortcomings in network-centric, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat. This was noticed during the 27 February 2019 skirmish with PAF F-16s, when a pair of Su-30s failed to establish data link and were of no mutual support to each other. The capabilities of the much-touted N011M ‘Bars’ airborne intercept radar are also suspect as the patrolling Su-30s were unable to launch even a single radar-guided R-77 BVR missiles against two dozen PAF fighters milling in the area on 27 February. While a definitive conclusion about the shortcomings of the Su-30 fire-control radar and missiles cannot be made on the basis of a single engagement, it is clear that they are not at par with the PAF F-16/AMRAAM combo. The IAF was aware of these limitations of the Russian fighters, which is why it had initiated measures for the acquisition of Western multi-role combat aircraft instead of more Su-30s, as far back as 2012.

IAF’s choice fell on the French Rafale, which is, indeed, a formidable multi-role fighter with long range and endurance, along with a sizeable payload in the class of the Su-30, areas that single-engine fighters like the F-16A/B and JF-17 cannot compete in. With a powerful radar and the long-range, radar-guided Meteor BVR missile, it comes at a cost of $120 million apiece. Dollar for dollar, PAF can acquire four JF-17 Blk-III for the cost of one Rafale, thus more than offsetting the latter’s payload capabilities, at least. The range of the Rafale’s Meteor missile claimed by the manufacturer (MBDA) to be 100+ km led the Indian Prime Minister to ruefully state that, “if we had the Rafale, results would have been different [on 27 February].”

Mr. Modi has apparently not yet been briefed by his Air Staff about the JF-17’s upcoming PL-15 BVR missile guided by the new AESA radar, which beats the Rafale’s ramjet-powered Meteor by several tens of kilometers. It is manifest that long range BVR combat will take precedence over close combat in any future conflict, and enemy aircraft will be shot out of the skies while remaining well inside their own territory.

While we are at it, it may be worthwhile to have a cursory line comparison of the Rafale, F-16A and JF-17 in one-on-one visual air combat.

All three aircraft have a ‘clean’ configuration Thrust-to-Weight Ratio of 1:1 and can climb and accelerate equally well. In a turning fight, Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading are critical parameters. The JF-17 and F-16A enjoy better Aspect Ratios of 3.7 each, compared to the Rafale which stands at 2.6. A better Aspect Ratio (square of wing span to wing area) implies better aerodynamic efficiency due to less induced drag during turning. As for Wing Loading, or the weight of the aircraft per unit area, the lesser the better. The Rafale has a slight edge, having 68 lbs/sq ft compared to the JF-17 and F-16A, both of which have Wing Loadings of 77 lbs/sq ft. A lightly loaded wing helps in a tighter turn, though in case of the Rafale, this advantage is overcome by greater induced drag due its lower Aspect Ratio. In sum, all three fighters are at par, more or less, in a turning fight.

Induction of the Rafale in IAF has created considerable media interest, and the impression has been created that with immediate effect, IAF will rule the Indian skies. It must, however, be remembered that it will be at least two years before the Rafale achieves anything close to Full Operational Capability. PAF, on the other hand, has been flying F-16s for 37 years, including hot scenarios during the Afghan War, in local counter-insurgency operations, and the latest Operation ‘Swift Retort,’ downing half a dozen enemy fighters in these operations. The JF-17 has been fully operational for over a decade, and is expected to replace the legacy fighters over the next five years. These combat-proven PAF fighters are fully integrated with the air defence system, and are mutually data-linked, alongside all AEW and ground sensors. Such capabilities are not achieved overnight, and it will be several years before the Rafales can be considered a threat in any real sense.

Any immediate impact of the Rafale on IAF’s air power capabilities is, thus, simply over-hyped. This inference, however, must not be dealt with lightly, as there is a distinct possibility of the Indian Prime Minister using the Rafale for a false-flag operation in a surreptitious manner, to prove his point that, “with the Rafale, the results would have been different,” from those of 27 February 2019.

Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail (Retired) is a former fighter pilot and a writer on military affairs.
A nice objective assessment devoid of any jingoism. Thanks for sharing.
Hope the IAF can narrow down the millions of platforms it currently depends on, to one single-engined and a double-engined one. Since most modern aircrafts are multi-role capable, the soviet-era doctrine of super-specialised, mass-produced planes seems obsolete now.
 
Ok it is chemistry thanks for the correction. So do you agree with everything else I said?

Btw check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_physical_science , so the idea was when I want to incorporate aerodynamics, propulsion chemistry, thermodynamics and material science in one word then one can loosely say 'Physics'. However you are right that the point most at play here is 'chemistry' so we can go along with that.
No I do not agree about your comment on PL-15 which is a "very long range air to air missile". Its engine is pulsed solid propellant rocket. Thus its range is about 300 km. It is mounted with AESA radar and speed is about 4 mach.

Whereas Meteor is propelled by throttleable ducted rocket (ramjet) engine. The amount of fuel it carries is enough to carry it to 100 km max. Its max speed is 4 mach.

Meteor can be compared with PL-12/SD-10 missile but not PL-15.
 
Last edited:
come on man. India never acknowledge the Tejas role in feb conflict. Please don't think we are audience sitting in theater and watching Bollywood.

And who told you that Tejas played any role in the FEB conflict??? I say it helped the IAF to understand the importance...

Importance of Tejas... the way MiG-21 came into the theater and performed... without any info to the mighty AWACS... it showed the importance of small and agile jet to the Indian Air Force... that is the only thing...
 
Your own media outlets acknowledged the weaknesses and hence called for the MAHABALI RAFALE.



New Delhi: A year after Pakistan outgunned and outnumbered the Indian Air Force on 27 February through “Ops Swift Retort”, not much has changed on the ground.

Pakistan was armed with better fighter planes, Beyond Visual Range air-to-air missiles like AMRAAMs and backed by state-of-the-art SAAB airborne warning and control systems (AWACS), and left the Indian Air Force wanting in many places.

From limitations of the Su 30 MKI radar to pick up enemy fighters properly to the technical issue faced by the Mirage 2000 aircraft over firing their Mica air-to-air missile, the list of the shortcomings that the IAF experienced is long.

If Pakistan were to repeat the “Swift Retort” today, the situation doesn’t look great even a year later.

There is, however, a silver lining — the Rafale fighter jets, to be equipped with better weapons package, especially the Meteor air-to-air missile that tilts the scales in India’s favour against both Pakistan and China, will start arriving May onwards.


Please... I have seen images of C-17, F-16, Tejas, MKI... while writing about Rafale and its might by SOME DEFENSE EXPERTS... in Media...
Rafale is a very potent jet but the question is numbers... and synergy with existing/future IAF assets...
 
Even if IAF inducts F22, Pakistanis will come up with a theory of how they will blow them up from skies using F16s & JF17s. Incompetent PAF pilots had clear BVR advantage on 27th Feb, yet only have a MIG21 to show for all their efforts. 36 Rafales will be overkill for entire PAF, be it AIM120D or So called star wars technological marvel called PL15. Analysis from western experts have quite easily dismissed it's potency in 1 v 1 vs Meteors. Only Pakis can come up with such dumb ideologies to please their masters.
Meanwhile obsolete Indian Mig21s will down top of the line Pakistani aircrafts in 1 v 1 scenarios.
Yes the tea was fantastic
It's common of internet Hindus to start boxing above their weight whenever given a voice...we at least have a MiG to show but what is worth of Agni Pankh Patils......except reducing reputation of a fine Russian fighter to labelling it a mere AMRAAM Dodger. Lol,
BTW, apart from Modi crying ''Agar Rafale Hota Tu Pakistan Humari Saree Nai Utarta''....you creatures are reminded that before 27th Feb. you lot were ranting that SU-30 is an overkill of Pakistan and Mi-29s are enough to take care of PAF....but guess what.....when the test came....there was no MiG-29 to be seen anywhere. After Bison Blaster and Sukhoi Slayer....the only toast left is Rafale Ripper.
 
No I do not agree about your comment on PL-15 which is a "very long range air to air missile". Its engine is pulsed solid propellant rocket. Thus its range is about 300 km. It is mounted with AESA radar and speed is about 4 mach.

Whereas Meteor is propelled by throttleable ducted rocket (ramjet) engine. The amount of fuel it carries is enough to carry it to 100 km max. Its max speed is 4 mach.

Meteor can be compared with PL-12/SD-10 missile but not PL-15.
Thanks, by 'pulsed' do you mean dual-pulsed? The Aim-120D is also dual pulsed and of comparable dimensions to the Pl-15 (~ 4m length, 150-180 kg) yet it only claims a 50% greater range then c-7s approx 110-130 km range.

I think the material for Meteor puts its NEZ at 100km not its max range (i.e. D-max).

You are the first AeSp engineer I have come across who is implying a throttleable ducted ramjet as having a range disadvantage to a solid fuel rocket motor. Can you refer me to any resources that will help me understand why?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, by 'pulsed' do you mean dual-pulsed? The Aim-120D is also dual pulsed and of comparable dimensions to the Pl-15 (~ 4m length, 150-180 kg) yet it only claims a 50% greater range then c-7s approx 110-130 km range.

I think the material for Meteor puts its NEZ at 100km not its max range (i.e. D-max).

You are the first AeSp engineer I have come across who is implying a throttleable ducted ramjet as having a range disadvantage to a solid fuel rocket motor. Any resources you can refer me to that will help me understand why?
Meteor NEZ is 60 km.

Yes PL-15 uses dual thrust motor.

AIM-120D max range is not quoted officially (classified). It is around 160 km (a rough estimate)

In my previous comment I never compared efficiency of both type of engines. Range also depends on aerodynamic drag, quantity and type of propellant used and many more.
 
Rafale’s Impact on IAF’s Air Power Capabilities
September 10, 2020

View attachment 668674


Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail (Retd)

Quite clearly, the inadequacy of IAF’s Su-30MKI and MiG-29 twin-engine fighters in the air superiority role led to the decision to acquire the Rafale, ostensibly a more modern and capable multi-role fighter. While both Russian fighters are highly maneuverable in a visual dogfight, as evidenced in several IAF exercises with RAF Typhoons and USAF F-15s and F-16s, they seem to have shortcomings in network-centric, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat. This was noticed during the 27 February 2019 skirmish with PAF F-16s, when a pair of Su-30s failed to establish data link and were of no mutual support to each other. The capabilities of the much-touted N011M ‘Bars’ airborne intercept radar are also suspect as the patrolling Su-30s were unable to launch even a single radar-guided R-77 BVR missiles against two dozen PAF fighters milling in the area on 27 February. While a definitive conclusion about the shortcomings of the Su-30 fire-control radar and missiles cannot be made on the basis of a single engagement, it is clear that they are not at par with the PAF F-16/AMRAAM combo. The IAF was aware of these limitations of the Russian fighters, which is why it had initiated measures for the acquisition of Western multi-role combat aircraft instead of more Su-30s, as far back as 2012.

IAF’s choice fell on the French Rafale, which is, indeed, a formidable multi-role fighter with long range and endurance, along with a sizeable payload in the class of the Su-30, areas that single-engine fighters like the F-16A/B and JF-17 cannot compete in. With a powerful radar and the long-range, radar-guided Meteor BVR missile, it comes at a cost of $120 million apiece. Dollar for dollar, PAF can acquire four JF-17 Blk-III for the cost of one Rafale, thus more than offsetting the latter’s payload capabilities, at least. The range of the Rafale’s Meteor missile claimed by the manufacturer (MBDA) to be 100+ km led the Indian Prime Minister to ruefully state that, “if we had the Rafale, results would have been different [on 27 February].”

Mr. Modi has apparently not yet been briefed by his Air Staff about the JF-17’s upcoming PL-15 BVR missile guided by the new AESA radar, which beats the Rafale’s ramjet-powered Meteor by several tens of kilometers. It is manifest that long range BVR combat will take precedence over close combat in any future conflict, and enemy aircraft will be shot out of the skies while remaining well inside their own territory.

While we are at it, it may be worthwhile to have a cursory line comparison of the Rafale, F-16A and JF-17 in one-on-one visual air combat.

All three aircraft have a ‘clean’ configuration Thrust-to-Weight Ratio of 1:1 and can climb and accelerate equally well. In a turning fight, Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading are critical parameters. The JF-17 and F-16A enjoy better Aspect Ratios of 3.7 each, compared to the Rafale which stands at 2.6. A better Aspect Ratio (square of wing span to wing area) implies better aerodynamic efficiency due to less induced drag during turning. As for Wing Loading, or the weight of the aircraft per unit area, the lesser the better. The Rafale has a slight edge, having 68 lbs/sq ft compared to the JF-17 and F-16A, both of which have Wing Loadings of 77 lbs/sq ft. A lightly loaded wing helps in a tighter turn, though in case of the Rafale, this advantage is overcome by greater induced drag due its lower Aspect Ratio. In sum, all three fighters are at par, more or less, in a turning fight.

Induction of the Rafale in IAF has created considerable media interest, and the impression has been created that with immediate effect, IAF will rule the Indian skies. It must, however, be remembered that it will be at least two years before the Rafale achieves anything close to Full Operational Capability. PAF, on the other hand, has been flying F-16s for 37 years, including hot scenarios during the Afghan War, in local counter-insurgency operations, and the latest Operation ‘Swift Retort,’ downing half a dozen enemy fighters in these operations. The JF-17 has been fully operational for over a decade, and is expected to replace the legacy fighters over the next five years. These combat-proven PAF fighters are fully integrated with the air defence system, and are mutually data-linked, alongside all AEW and ground sensors. Such capabilities are not achieved overnight, and it will be several years before the Rafales can be considered a threat in any real sense.

Any immediate impact of the Rafale on IAF’s air power capabilities is, thus, simply over-hyped. This inference, however, must not be dealt with lightly, as there is a distinct possibility of the Indian Prime Minister using the Rafale for a false-flag operation in a surreptitious manner, to prove his point that, “with the Rafale, the results would have been different,” from those of 27 February 2019.

Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail (Retired) is a former fighter pilot and a writer on military affairs.
Pakistan have to try for AIM-120C7 AMRAAM or AIM-120P3I AMRAAM. If Possible and it will be force multiplier. I Know US will never give Pakistan AIM120D
 
Thanks, by 'pulsed' do you mean dual-pulsed? The Aim-120D is also dual pulsed and of comparable dimensions to the Pl-15 (~ 4m length, 150-180 kg) yet it only claims a 50% greater range then c-7s approx 110-130 km range.

I think the material for Meteor puts its NEZ at 100km not its max range (i.e. D-max).

You are the first AeSp engineer I have come across who is implying a throttleable ducted ramjet as having a range disadvantage to a solid fuel rocket motor. Can you refer me to any resources that will help me understand why?
No brother, you are wrong here. Expert suggested that PL15 range is from 300km to 400km.
 
Indeed rafale is overhyped just like su30 before 27th Feb.... India indeed is a clever country but they have a bad habit of making their weapons super duper.... Rafale has not face any war or battle and on paper everything can happen depending upon your marketing skills...
 
Meteor NEZ is 60 km.

Yes PL-15 uses dual thrust motor.

AIM-120D max range is not quoted officially (classified). It is around 160 km (a rough estimate)

In my previous comment I never compared efficiency of both type of engines. Range also depends on aerodynamic drag, quantity and type of propellant used and many more.
Thanks, so how do you compare the two missiles in terms of aerodynamic drag? Do we know anything about quantity and type of propellant in each missile? Obviously I mean estimates an expert can make based on open source disclosures.
 
No brother, you are wrong here. Expert suggested that PL15 range is from 300km to 400km.
No, the globalsecurity link you have put is from the time when the next generation of chinese AAMs were still not seen out in the open regularly. We now know the missile in the link is a different one. Just look at its picture and compare it to pictures when you google Pl-15
 
No I do not agree about your comment on PL-15 which is a "very long range air to air missile". Its engine is pulsed solid propellant rocket. Thus its range is about 300 km. It is mounted with AESA radar and speed is about 4 mach.

Whereas Meteor is propelled by throttleable ducted rocket (ramjet) engine. The amount of fuel it carries is enough to carry it to 100 km max. Its max speed is 4 mach.

Meteor can be compared with PL-12/SD-10 missile but not PL-15.
Correct information in the following graphic:

china-aircraft-graphic.jpg


LINK: https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2018/mb2018-01-essays-1

True performance parameters of METEOR are classified:

 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom