Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 11171819202122 LastLast
Results 601 to 630 of 636

Thread: MMRCA - has Rafale been illegally subsidised?

  1. #601
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106

    Bottomline...a lot of the stuff you are relying upon for definitive claims, have enough loopholes to drive a truck through...

    By design, the EF claims to be better than the Rafale and vice versa. But in real life "exercises" both sides have come up with surprises. And being "exercises", theres no way of saying the Rafale is better than the EF or vice versa. In some discrete subsystems - we can make the claim but even there, nuance matters. But overall, its so much down to training & overall approach when fighting as a group..
    This is a valid point and one that is well written. The ones above and below this specific part were not, but I simply won't bother with you there because some of this has been discussed and hammered. Some of it is just your own tendency to misread things....and this is due to the fact that points cannot be fully discussed as I was also replying to specific posts rather than going into a thesis.

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The radar range requirements, not the jet range. That's something that occured because they had an early technology demonstrator rather than the scaled-up radar proposed. It was a sophisticated radar, by the way, just not sized right.

    A helicopter rig may be able to generate adequate power, and there can be additional power source hookups. I'm not sure how they addressed the power issue but long-range radars have been worked off naval helicopters. If they have a tri-engined Westland/Agusta chopper the power may be more than enough.

    As for the engines, they struggled in Leh, which is where engines have significant issues due to the air density. There were stress tests out there and under those loads any engine could fail.
    MIG-35 produces 23000shp. there is no way any EU built helicopter can match it. I am not saying they used radar at full power. but by now you should know that next batch 48 RSAF has price dispute and they are not getting AESA at this point. but RSAF ordered AESA for older F-15 upgrades. There is no way EF team can manage AESA deadline with full certification. so how it got passed to next stage which is the most critical requirement.
    Mican has more than 1100 employees and they are building new GAs modules on nano technology for Nokia-Simens. They are building anther factory that will increase production by 5 times. This scale of continous investment required otherwise you will endup in China/Taiwan.
    UMS GAs have 250 employee. so it is in doubt that foundry will survive for too long on this business model and it has IPs from Japan/Italy.
    I have doubts RD-33MK is going to lose Leh tests when M-88 can pass it.
    and are that tests was done with AESA equiped Rafale. that is more likely to be heavier than standard Rafale.

  3. #603
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by matt View Post
    will the T:W ratio of the super 30 really be improved considering the strengthening of the structure to accommodate the Brahmos?
    Su-30 TWR can slightly improved but it wont make a difference. Su-35 as it is designed from ground up to be lighter, less draggier and have more internal fuel capacity. as i have read it has over 6500km range with one in flight refuelling. This give great flexibility.

    Maximum Rafale fuel transfer is 4000kg at 100NM from base.
    http://www.japcc.de/fileadmin/user_u...light_Plan.pdf
    Rafale M uses buddy-buddy for AAR. The French Navy (FN) operates Rafale M fitted with an external AAR Pod.
    For training purposes, the minimum altitude is 5000 ft. The maximum offload is taken at 100 NM from the Carrier or base.

  4. #604
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    ROTFL at this claim - the MKIs got painted -as if some magic sauce exists bar stealth that can prevent an aircraft the size of a MKI getting painted!

    The entire point of modern jamming is to prevent that "paint" from translating into a lock when its a FCR. Unless you carry noise jammers on transports that can actually drown todays radars in noise - hard going there..

    Your sang-froid is amazing especially when you have little data about what happened to begin with.

    Go on.. what details do you have of the Rafale performance & how they got painted and they did not? Which were the threat systems? Which generation systems were they?

    Did the French open up their Spectra details to you?
    Sigh! Ever heard of electronic warfare? Of course you have – you came in with all that irrelevant talk about DARE. There was some difference between different jets...that was the point.

    AdA pilots who were there made comments and were sources…so don't comment on what I know or don't know...and don’t bring in pure absurdity like "did the French open SPECTRA details…?" Sheesh!

    You just don’t see points but “over shoot” them.

    Here are some points to ponder over:

    - Whatever the differences were in equipment and tactics brought a big difference in results. The Rafale was much more “survivable” – and don’t give us another ditty about how DACT is different from real war. I addressed that as well, and besides this has been robustly discussed like yesterday.

    - The Rafale did not get “locked" even once. I take that as significant when the French were discussing about how often the MKI was “shot down”. (Notably even the USAF opined that the jet was not a "super jet" as they had initially figured out...but less capable than they thought.)

    - There was no reason why the MKI could not use jammers fully. It’s not like the El/M-8222 jammer is some state secret. It’s Israeli, and the Americans probably have the hardware tested right with them.

    - There were some handicaps like no chaff but the overall state of self-protection would use far more and the MKI did not do well.


    As for the rest…I think we don’t need to deal with it. I mean, I could but why bother?

  5. #605
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    I have doubts RD-33MK is going to lose Leh tests when M-88 can pass it.
    and are that tests was done with AESA equiped Rafale. that is more likely to be heavier than standard Rafale.
    The F414 on the Super Hornet failed a stress ignition test while it worked on the Saab NG, that was flown in to India for final testing.

    The Rafale needed about half the runway to take off in Leh compared to the Super Hornet. You wouldn't really have imagined it given that the SH is supposed to be tuned for low alt work and has quite powerful engines.

    So lots of things are really learnt in field testing.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 16th April 2012 at 03:45.

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The F414 on the Super Hornet failed a stress ignition test while it worked on the Saab NG, that was flown in to India for final testing.

    The Rafale needed about half the runway to take off in Leh compared to the Super Hornet. You wouldn't really have imagined it given that the SH is supposed to be tuned for low alt work and has quite powerful engines.

    So lots of things are really learnt in field testing.
    Out of curiosity, where are these specific claims coming from?
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,608
    Quote Originally Posted by matt View Post
    will the T:W ratio of the super 30 really be improved considering the strengthening of the structure to accommodate the Brahmos?
    There is no way the weight increase will be as much as the thrust increase is.

    Of course, that depends on what engine is envisioned; there are a lot of options from Saturn and Saluyt.
    Last edited by TR1; 16th April 2012 at 04:12.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The F414 on the Super Hornet failed a stress ignition test while it worked on the Saab NG, that was flown in to India for final testing.
    so ur comparing Gripen NG that hasnt been certified for any kind of loads with F-18E that can lift over 13tons total fuel load alone from carrier. see the link that i put it. how much load NG can lift on its wet stations.
    The Rafale needed about half the runway to take off in Leh compared to the Super Hornet. You wouldn't really have imagined it given that the SH is supposed to be tuned for low alt work and has quite powerful engines.

    So lots of things are really learnt in field testing.
    half runaway is BS unless you know the loads, internal fuel capacity and the power of electronics.

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    half runaway is BS unless you know the loads, internal fuel capacity and the power of electronics.
    well, if IAF compare the two aircraft, do you think they'll put one with 25% fuel and no external load against a fully loaded oponent?

    get serious a little, if they compared the take off run, it was obviously with a standardised load for everybody

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,893
    Aviation Space and week have picked up on the delay in the MMRCA deal... mind you the main bottle neck for final deliveries will be the readiness of HAL to produce the aircraft
    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

  11. #611
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    well, if IAF compare the two aircraft, do you think they'll put one with 25% fuel and no external load against a fully loaded oponent?

    get serious a little, if they compared the take off run, it was obviously with a standardised load for everybody
    There cannot be standard load. MICA is 50% lighter than AIM-120C7. A load of 8 AIM-120 is not the same as 8 MICA. There should be range differences.
    Similar is wide differences in radar and electronics power supply. There is no doubt F-18 has much powerfull radar and associated engine power.

  12. #612
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    so ur comparing Gripen NG that hasnt been certified for any kind of loads with F-18E that can lift over 13tons total fuel load alone from carrier. see the link that i put it. how much load NG can lift on its wet stations.

    half runaway is BS unless you know the loads, internal fuel capacity and the power of electronics.
    You can do a SWOT analysis on all the jets and come up with an Orca massive list of things that discredit a specific design. However, I recall that F/A-18s (not the Super Hornet but the Hornet) were beaten by early gen Swedish Gripens. And those early Hornets were in some ways quicker than the heavier Super Hornet. I wouldn't write off the Gripen NG in any sense.

    The NG has a lot more range than the earlier Gripens, and can supercruise - so it is a pretty fine jet but also a prototype under development.

    And I am not comparing the two, just stating the facts. You were incredulous about engine stress test results. These things happen. Despite the very similar engine tech there were differences in the success of these engines in stress testing.

    As for the SH needing far more runway....this was under the loads specified by the IAF. There were specific payloads required for each jet in Leh and the tests were conducted under those loads.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 16th April 2012 at 22:29.

  13. #613
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by matt View Post
    Aviation Space and week have picked up on the delay in the MMRCA deal... mind you the main bottle neck for final deliveries will be the readiness of HAL to produce the aircraft
    At most a delay of a month I would suspect....I mean how long does it take for anyone to investigate the L1 costing approach? If there were dissent notes by the Cost Negotiation Committee, it should be sorted out within days, not weeks. And if they need to re-total the cost a fourth time, how long would that take?

    I think that Antony...being the mediocre albeit honest man that he is....is just playing it safe for public consumption. They really shouldn't let a politico who could not even come into parliament on the strenght of votes (he was appointed after losing thrice) delay things.

  14. #614
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    You can do a SWOT analysis on all the jets and come up with an Orca massive list of things that discredit a specific design. However, I recall that F/A-18s (not the Super Hornet but the Hornet) were beaten by early gen Swedish Gripens. And those early Hornets were in some ways quicker than the heavier Super Hornet. I wouldn't write off the Gripen NG in any sense.
    i never said F-18 any version is faster than Gripen. Gripen is light weight and newer design built for interception role. but it does not mean it has decisive edge over F-18E in air to air combat let alone in Strike role. it is incrememntal improvement. Gripen is not fighter that can sustain over Mach 2 with weopon load at altitudes exceeding 70k.
    The NG has a lot more range than the earlier Gripens, and can supercruise - so it is a pretty fine jet but also a prototype under development.
    Gripen NG is 15% more range at best than Gripen. and it cannot supercuise without turning afterburner to overcome Mach1.
    And I am not comparing the two, just stating the facts. You were incredulous about engine stress test results. These things happen. Despite the very similar engine tech there were differences in the success of these engines in stress testing.

    As for the SH needing far more runway....this was under the loads specified by the IAF. There were specific payloads required for each jet in Leh and the tests were conducted under those loads.
    F-18 is heaver jet so it will need longer runway. what is so hard to test about it to know that F-18 requires longer runway. The role of strike fighter is to carry heavy fuel and loads.

  15. #615
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,823
    JSR

    the whole point is: it does need a longer runway... and, rather than extending their runways, the IAF will preferably take the fighter with better T/O capability for a given load

    that's exactly what Shiv1971 was saying
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 17th April 2012 at 05:37.

  16. #616
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    MIG-35 produces 23000shp. there is no way any EU built helicopter can match it. I am not saying they used radar at full power. but by now you should know that next batch 48 RSAF has price dispute and they are not getting AESA at this point. but RSAF ordered AESA for older F-15 upgrades. There is no way EF team can manage AESA deadline with full certification. so how it got passed to next stage which is the most critical requirement.
    Mican has more than 1100 employees and they are building new GAs modules on nano technology for Nokia-Simens. They are building anther factory that will increase production by 5 times. This scale of continous investment required otherwise you will endup in China/Taiwan.
    UMS GAs have 250 employee. so it is in doubt that foundry will survive for too long on this business model and it has IPs from Japan/Italy.
    I have doubts RD-33MK is going to lose Leh tests when M-88 can pass it.
    and are that tests was done with AESA equiped Rafale. that is more likely to be heavier than standard Rafale.
    I am not able to make out your pont. Captor was tested on helo and not Mig AESA. MiG AESA was handicapped due to smaller array and not power restictions.

    IAF has wide experience with MiG jets. if they say it is inadequate for the role envisioned, i believe them.
    Last edited by akj; 17th April 2012 at 05:06.

  17. #617
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post

    half runaway is BS unless you know the loads, internal fuel capacity and the power of electronics.
    U really think IAF and everyone else involved with testing are morons?

  18. #618
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    Gripen NG is 15% more range at best than Gripen. and it cannot supercuise without turning afterburner to overcome Mach1.
    Ferry range with drop tanks is 20% greater

    Combat radius is 40% greater.

    Internal fuel is 40% greater.

    As for supercruise, you would need afterburner if you have to reach mach 1 within a certain amount of time, as they did during the test you are refering to. That doesnt prevent an aircraft to supercruise without afterburner.

  19. #619
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    They asked for TOT to maintain the plane on their own and second, to upgrade it on their own without having to run to France everytime. TOT does not mean they are going to easily used for the Tejas etc. Hardly. By the time India absorbs the Rafale TOT, the Tejas systems would be in their next variant of development with a MK3 variant to beef up numbers, thats typically how the IAF does things.
    Right surely why the actual Kaveri engine program is been terminated in favor of the K10 which will use the M-88 core...

    Almost every other projects are either Israeli-Indian JV, Indo-Russian JV, Indo-US etc. India need to absorb all these tech right now in order to be one day independent. But that day isn't here yet. The Su-30 didn't allow India to build Pak-Fa on its own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The Saudis have already politically backed up Pakistan on Kashmir politics - and you never know how things can fly from there. There may not be even a 1 percent chance of war, but the IAF would be cautious if they consider an adversary with a fleet of Typhoons.
    This is geostrategic nonsense. SA is "officially" backing the Palestinian cause and almost every other Arab causes unless they're from Iran.
    IAF will take into account China and Pakistan's jets first, and will bother considering EFT at the bottom of their list. Whether SA is getting a bomb is not going to be linked with protests (that would only prevent NATO from interfering), but with countering Iran if they do get the bomb. Then because SA are buying so much US and European tech, the US will like in Egypt be happy to provide them with courteous "advises" on how to limit bad press should any revolution start (which is unlikely since the repression is done using western technologies btw).

    Anyway do you really think SA will interfere with a country that is nuclear armed, just to help their Pakistani brothers ? Don't be naive.

    Quote Originally Posted by EELightning View Post
    There was also a hell of a lot of reliable sources reporting the Typhoon was technically leading the race and a handful of others stating it was favoured by many in India, however, costs weren't mentioned during these times which are the deciding, somewhat 'sole', factor in the competition.
    Yeah if reliable means EFT PR effort. No official sources provided a shred of legitimacy to such claims. The IAF is silent to this day.

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    MIG-35 failed range requirements? and claiming Eurofighter used helicopter for AESA. (helicopter is the least powerfull source for AESA radar range).
    Rafale radar doent have growth it will have the same small nose and underpowered engines. it is unbelievble that new RD-33MK engines will be poor performance.
    These aren't claims, but facts. And apparently IAF doesn't think Rafale is underpowered or with a limited radar since they put it ahead of 5 other jets...

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    half runaway is BS unless you know the loads, internal fuel capacity and the power of electronics.
    The power of electronics ? Unless you're refering to FBW, I hope you realise how dull that sound right ?!

    Quote Originally Posted by matt View Post
    Aviation Space and week have picked up on the delay in the MMRCA deal... mind you the main bottle neck for final deliveries will be the readiness of HAL to produce the aircraft
    Right now these are only speculations. People are turning quiet into delay...
    It's been quiet, but I doubt nothing is happening.
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  20. #620
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    Sigh! Ever heard of electronic warfare? Of course you have – you came in with all that irrelevant talk about DARE. There was some difference between different jets...that was the point.
    Yes, I do know about electronic warfare, but do you? DARE being irrelevant is another example of your ignorance. DARE or ASIEO as it was originally called, was renamed DARE - Defensive Avionics Research Establishment for a reason. It spearheads research in EW....perhaps if you had spent less time writing imaginative prose and actually understanding the basics of those terms such as Electronic Warfare you throw about with abandon...it would have been better!

    AdA pilots who were there made comments and were sources…so don't comment on what I know or don't know...and don’t bring in pure absurdity like "did the French open SPECTRA details…?" Sheesh!
    Yeah, those French pilots happened to be your chums so that you can place their comments in context right? And those French pilots happened to be experts on the MKI, Typhoon etc. They have made similar claims about being superior to the Typhoon as well. Sane posters like Scorpion82 have already said all needs to be said about how certain such claims are...then we have you!

    Sorry, but if there was a limit to absurdity, you breached it. Guys like you lap up everything anyone brags about their ride with no contextual understanding whatsoever..

    You just don’t see points but “over shoot” them.
    If you made any points based on valid information to begin with...all I see from your end so far is imaginative stuff, based on "he said, she said"...clearly stories strung together from the assorted bunch of x vs y discussions on the 'net are what you regard as the holy truth...many of us differ..

    Here are some points to ponder over:

    - Whatever the differences were in equipment and tactics brought a big difference in results. The Rafale was much more “survivable” – and don’t give us another ditty about how DACT is different from real war. I addressed that as well, and besides this has been robustly discussed like yesterday.
    What results? Were you privy to these results? Or are you going to regale us with more of your imaginative extrapolations based on what some random pilot said or did not say?

    You really did not address anything about DACT bar rehashing whatever has been published in public sources and that too, in a half baked fashion.

    I sincerely doubt you could even tell us anything about DACT in any of the exercises and what the house rules were....go ahead and prove us wrong as versus what you have been doing so far...which is stringing together random stories and attempting to say it is analysis.

    - The Rafale did not get “locked" even once. I take that as significant when the French were discussing about how often the MKI was “shot down”. (Notably even the USAF opined that the jet was not a "super jet" as they had initially figured out...but less capable than they thought.)
    This is the sort of rabid fanboy'ism that takes the cake. How the heck do you know the Rafale was not locked even once?

    First you claimed it was not "painted" - without even understanding how the term is used, and now its "locked" - based on what?

    Did the Red Flag GBAD threat simulators open up their performance to you? Did the Rafale guys open up what their Spectra did or did not do? When you compare it to the MKI, do you even have an idea of what the IAF did different as versus what they usually do?

    I can easily make out you really have no idea. Go on, put your money where your mouth is, show us the data!!

    Any person from ANY AF who has even remotely been in DACT and seen the amount of hand wringing that goes on in deciding what to reveal and what not to, when dealing with exercises held on foreign territory, would have a laughing fit at the sort of conclusions you are making..!!

    - There was no reason why the MKI could not use jammers fully. It’s not like the El/M-8222 jammer is some state secret. It’s Israeli, and the Americans probably have the hardware tested right with them.
    Sorry "Shiv1971", but you just killed whatever little credibility you were posturing at..

    ROTFL, your above statements say it all about your actual level of knowledge right there.

    For all the talk of "electronic warfare" and now the "EL/M-8222 jammer is not some state secret"....do you even realise how little you know about the topic?

    FYI, customers get custom variants of all these products, with significant variations in hardware AND software. NDA are signed with regards to each & every customer specific variation & that is the exact reason countries like Australia, India et al can end up procuring the same designation system on paper but which can have significant differences in reality.


    - There were some handicaps like no chaff but the overall state of self-protection would use far more and the MKI did not do well.
    Say what? Overall level of self protection would use what far more? And some handicaps??

    Lets see - India does not use chaff (key protection against IR threats), no evidence of jamming being used AT ALL which is the key protection against RF threats by any large F-15 class fighter like the Flanker, which relies on preventing FCR from lock-ons via SPJ since jamming a surveillance radar across the battlefields is clearly unviable...and no datalink to show a clear view of the situation....

    Bars radar in training mode, with limited A2A modes - clearly suggesting advanced A2G modes such as SAR etc would be disabled..

    Only available A2G aids being eyeball MK1 & the Litening LDP..

    And your claim there were some handicaps...when the MKI played with all its hands tied when it came to critical Electronic protection measures..

    As for the rest…I think we don’t need to deal with it. I mean, I could but why bother?
    Thank you for sparing us...you think you don't meed to deal with it, because you clearly don't know anything about the topic.

    That entire gas about EW, the claims about MKI having "some handicaps" really showed what level you are operating....no idea of the details, no understanding of the topic...

  21. #621
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    This is a valid point and one that is well written. The ones above and below this specific part were not, but I simply won't bother with you there because some of this has been discussed and hammered. Some of it is just your own tendency to misread things....and this is due to the fact that points cannot be fully discussed as I was also replying to specific posts rather than going into a thesis.
    Oh goody gumdrops, thanks so much for telling us about what was "well written" and "what was not"...by the way, its not my tendency to misread things, its your tendency to make sweeping claims, based on half baked knowledge.

    Its pretty clear that thesis or no thesis, you lack specifics about most of these topics and have so far attempted to dodge the hard details that puncture your fantastic claims & the conclusions you have been attempting to draw from them.

  22. #622
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    Right surely why the actual Kaveri engine program is been terminated in favor of the K10 which will use the M-88 core...
    Oh dear, let me try this again.

    This is what I said.

    They asked for TOT to maintain the plane on their own and second, to upgrade it on their own without having to run to France everytime. TOT does not mean they are going to easily used for the Tejas etc. Hardly. By the time India absorbs the Rafale TOT, the Tejas systems would be in their next variant of development with a MK3 variant to beef up numbers, thats typically how the IAF does things.
    Unless you know for a fact that the Kaveri derivative is going to be used in the Rafale and not just the LCA, what you have said makes no sense.

    Do you think the Rafale and LCA are some sort of lego sets where India can pick and choose what it wants and use it for each, especially something as complex as an engine?

    And please, don't quote half baked stories and proposals.

    As things stand, there is NO certainty that the M-88 derived Kaveri variant will even be the standard fit on the LCA, let alone the Rafale! Its being progressed to ensure a) self reliance b)future programs like the MCA

    Since you clearly did not deign to look into the topic, take the Su-30 MKI project as a comparison. India has been working on indigenizing the aircraft over the past several years. And how much of that has flown into the other projects - answer, not so much. It takes a full decade to go the path of SKD, CKD, raw materials manufacture & by which time, it makes more sense to go for something else for other projects!

    Almost every other projects are either Israeli-Indian JV, Indo-Russian JV, Indo-US etc.
    First your claim is as wrong as it gets - the number of JV's India has as proportion of its overall projects is a tiny proportion of its overall number of projects that its working on at any given time of the day. Especially in the field of avionics & weapons systems - which is where it usually ports its local systems onto imported platforms (eg aircrafts) and customizes - which I won't bother detailing, because the information is available on this forum itself as versus breathless half baked media reports.

    Second, it really does not matter whether India gets its systems via JVs or not. The point is these are ITS SYSTEMS and hence it knows them, as versus the Rafale, which is going to be a bought out, mostly developed design, with limited customization.

    Third,, you clearly missed the purpose of the MMRCA - it was to select a mostly mature type which would boost the IAF's combat power as soon as possible! Not about "absorbing tech" as a primary driver and making India some sort of super duper tech power! Unfortunately, the breathless hype by the media and the throwaway use of the word strategy seems to have made its mark!

    Technology is not some by your leave, I shall have it, thing. It will take India a decade to master the base Rafale by which time, it may well be time for some elements to undergo a MLU.

    The big point about the deal's TOT are its spares. A local production line for many critical items - which means self reliance and second, the offsets, which tie Indian firms into Dassault/Thales/Safran's global vendors list.

    That gives Indian firms a huge leg up in terms of assured orders (a full 50% of the aircraft's cost) plus brings them upto par with worldwide vendors in developing their own systems.

    These are the real benefits!

    Take the much touted AESA radar - by when will production be transferred to India? By when will it be made?

    This is where India is today, already with regards to AESA systems. This is a full scale demonstrator for its first AEW&C system.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RRuNQbTgyd...0/DSC00771.jpg
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gF8xjIVANm...0/DSC00772.jpg

    You think they are going to wait for Rafale to arrive with its "prize" and then discover what AESA is? They'd rather build on their own experience with this S Band aesa system, and then apply the lessons to their FCR development.

    There are currently some 4 AESA systems in development (apart from the 2-4 strategic ones) which are publicly known about.

    Of which three are due within the next five years.

    The IAF has stated that it will evaluate the FCR (the 4th program) being developed above, as versus any available Russian system for its future programs and upgrades for the Su-30MKI.

    So now do you understand the pace of development? Take a look here about some of the other systems developed or in many cases, in production:

    http://www.flonnet.com/fl2903/storie...4290309800.htm

    By the time India "masters" the Rafale - made by HAL, with assorted components from other DPSUs - it will already have other systems and programs that it can use on its other programs.

    And these will be without IP issues, or "designed for x, cannot fit in y" problems that will occur if it tries to take some Spectra and fit it into a Sukhoi or LCA.

    And not like France will give away core IP easily overnight either.

    Yes, some amount of learning and cross pollination will occur - people skilled at manufacturing the Rafale may be able to manufacture the FGFA as well, some equipment can be reused but the programs are overlapping! Not sequential.

    Even the facilities will be at different places, with the Rafale at Bangalore, and the FGFA taking place at the Nasik complex, replacing the Su-30 MKI. There may be overlapping capex but mostly stand alone systems - developed in house/in cooperation with Russia for the FGFA, developed in house for the LCA, supplied/procured per French vendor list for the Rafale.

    That's why most of this "India will acquire technology from the Rafale and all is fine", is to be honest, oversold.

    India's technology generators at the end of the day are ITS OWN programs. Because it's learning why and how, not just how (process transfer as is usual with TOT). Over here, its called screw driver tech.

    Making the Jaguar allowed India to upgrade it. It did not help India become a master at the LCA - the learning curve there has been steep. The Rafale will help India to some extent. But at the end of the day, its the AMCA that will finally cap the path started by the LCA. Even the FGFA is "on the way", not the end itself

    India need to absorb all these tech right now in order to be one day independent. But that day isn't here yet. The Su-30 didn't allow India to build Pak-Fa on its own.
    Brilliant - so you have the answer right there, the Su-30 did not allow India to build the PAK-FA on its own - but you somehow think the Rafale will!

    Answer: It won't! What will help India are its own development efforts via programs like the LCA or local missile programs, whose subsystems are then used to develop other follow on's and product families.
    Take a look here: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/...LGFOG.jpg.html

    India used the Sagem Sigma95N for its Su-30 MKI, MiG-27 and Jaguar upgrade programs as the ready solution. It even license makes it at HAL.

    But guess what was developed for its strategic missile programs and is now being adopted for multiple uses? The above local program, developed as a stand alone effort at another entirely different place. The same is the case across the board in multiple projects and products.

    India's approach to develop its own systems is painstaking, not easy, and often more time-consuming than reverse engineering. But it helps it avoid IP entanglements and also provides a sustainable base for the future.

  23. #623
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Teer - you need to pipe down for a change. And so should I...this isn't going anywhere where it ought to be going.

    There was much more than "fan boy" talk about the Rafale's perf at Red Flag....we have a pilot name somewhere, and also they were clear on the fact that they avoided the SAM sites expertly, genius. But skip that.

    Claiming nonsense that the Elta jammer is such a state secret shows how thick you are. In the first place those SAM sites were Russian set ups - and the Israelis and Americans work hand in glove in sharing certain jamming secrets in this area - largely due to the fact that some Middle Eastern states that buy Russian ware and Russia itself were both common enemies.

    The Americans would know how the Israelis could jam Russian radars because they shared that info with them, jackass. Second, the same jammer has been used to jam the F-15s radar (successfully) by the IAF itself.

    You talk of "no evidence" of full use of jammers "AFAIK"....like you know jack.

    Only there exists no reasons for the IAF to avoid using a jammer given that this is one of the most demanding and effective assessments it can get for its EW perf against Russian-style SAMs which the Chinese are deeply interested in (they were testing it in China, FYI). And the Elta jammer is already well-used with the USAF by the IAF to jam an American radar...

    You are so foppish that you believe non-disclosure agreements and "customization" would actually stand in times of war. You need to read about how the Americans and the British got the French to divulge state secrets in war time for the purpose of jamming. And Israel is totally under American thumbscrews....unlike France.


    You are discredited by the RAF chief and still act like you stand a leg based on a flurry of reasons like real war is so different to trying to rubbish claims... oh well. And scornfully call 72 Typhoons a "handful"....like your wooly head even grasps how much of a force multiplier effect that would be if they joined up with the PAF against us...


    You can't even pick up slang communication nuance....like the word "painted" was meant as if illuminating a target. As radars increasingly combine functions old jargon also changes - and the context grows. So you could have saved yourself from rolling off the floor laughing or whatever....you would look like a numbskull anyhow given that you miss out so much.

    I have read about DARE and AM IMPRESSED with its research with Cassidian, so don't presume you know squat about me.

    Really, I could not be bothered to read through your puerile drivel. So I am not responding because your analysis (if that's what you call your ditties) is really not worth a read.

    Can we both move on out of this "me said...you said" cycle? It just causes bad blood and really, we have hashed over this before. You just shoot your mouth off without really trying to understand, so let's avoid this...

  24. #624
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    JSR

    the whole point is: it does need a longer runway... and, rather than extending their runways, the IAF will preferably take the fighter with better T/O capability for a given load

    that's exactly what Shiv1971 was saying
    it is academic. how much longer. 50m? 200m?. This half length is complete BS.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushok_...pochee_Airport

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhasa_Gonggar_Airport

    which airport is at higher alitude. Chinese use J-10 there and they have worst TWR with less advance engine than MIG-35 on standard load.
    http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ch...h-india-188820
    According to a report and photos released by PLA Daily yesterday, the ground crew of J-10 regiment fuelled the fighters and loaded ammunition on the 3,500-meter-high plateau at temperatures below -20

  25. #625
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by akj View Post
    I am not able to make out your pont. Captor was tested on helo and not Mig AESA. MiG AESA was handicapped due to smaller array and not power restictions.

    IAF has wide experience with MiG jets. if they say it is inadequate for the role envisioned, i believe them.
    Even with reduced T/R counts it will still be more powerfull than heli born radar. and certainly pass the minimum range requirements as it was the only radar that full exploited weopons during tests.
    IAF does not have any experiance with AESA equiped MIGs and the firm behind it. Have they even looked the foundries behind T/R modules for AESA radars.

  26. #626
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    Even with reduced T/R counts it will still be more powerfull than heli born radar. and certainly pass the minimum range requirements as it was the only radar that full exploited weopons during tests.
    IAF does not have any experiance with AESA equiped MIGs and the firm behind it. Have they even looked the foundries behind T/R modules for AESA radars.
    Google "Non Sequitur".

    1 - There´s one single public comment about a suposed "Captor E" heli demonstration, and that was made by a Mig employee, it was never confirmed by any one in Selex, Eurofighter, EADS or the Indian Air Force, i am more than willing to bet that the chap confounded the sea spray work done by Selex with an AESA prototype for the "Phoon".

    2 - Even if it was test flown in an Helicopter what was there to make the underpopulated 680 TRM AESA Zhuk to be "still be more powerfull than heli born radar"?!
    There are a bucket load of operational radars flying in helicopters, who are vastly more performants than the Zhuk prototype.
    Being "Heli" tested is by no means any indication on capability.







    3 - "and certainly pass the minimum range requirements as it was the only radar that full exploited weopons during tests"
    What the hell does radar range requirements have to do with weapons release during tests?!
    And i would imagine that you had access to Indian Air Force tests reports, did you?
    I would imagine that in six contenders only the Mig proposal managed to "fully exploit weapons during tests", because everyone else is incompetent, dumb, or daft. Undoutebly that the Boeing chaps, with their combat proven, widely used and with a bucket load of integrated weapons, AN/APG-79, didnt "fully exploit weapons during tests"!
    Last edited by Sintra; 18th April 2012 at 10:00.

  27. #627
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    122
    Wrong thread...

  28. #628
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    it is academic. how much longer. 50m? 200m?. This half length is complete BS.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushok_...pochee_Airport

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhasa_Gonggar_Airport

    which airport is at higher alitude. Chinese use J-10 there and they have worst TWR with less advance engine than MIG-35 on standard load.
    it's your post that is complete BS, sorry

    you were told: rafale used half less runway than the SH

    you said: that means nothing, you don't know the loads (first BS, as IAF would, obviously put similar loads on every competitor)

    then you said: the SH is heavier, thus needs more runway (second BS, as it's the combination of the loaded weight, thrust and lift capability that will determine the take off performance, not the weight alone... otherwise, the F-86 would be a STOL aircraft, in comparison

    the you post link to the airfields... no relation whatsoever with the discussion...

  29. #629
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    it's your post that is complete BS, sorry

    you were told: rafale used half less runway than the SH

    you said: that means nothing, you don't know the loads (first BS, as IAF would, obviously put similar loads on every competitor)
    They cannot put similar loads. Rafale is only integrated with 110kg MICA. so it load distribution will be lighter. They dont even have same internal fuel capacities.
    MIG-35/F-18 has 175-190kg AAMs.
    then you said: the SH is heavier, thus needs more runway (second BS, as it's the combination of the loaded weight, thrust and lift capability that will determine the take off performance, not the weight alone... otherwise, the F-86 would be a STOL aircraft, in comparison

    the you post link to the airfields... no relation whatsoever with the discussion...
    heavier aircraft generally takes more runways than lighter. F-18 empty weight and internal fuel capacities are 50% higher than Rafale but thrust is 40%. so the other factors dont matter. The closest competitor to Rafale is J-10 with similar TWR (engine in J-10 is less powerfull but should have comparable TWR).
    half runway length?. now that is unbelieveable BS. it can only happen if Rafale is take much smaller amount of fuel.

    http://www.uscost.net/AircraftCharac...s/acfa18ef.htm

    For F-18E Take off distance with minimum load is 1300 feet.(21.7 tons weight) with maximum load is 3600 feet.
    we take the middle weights. like 4 ton weopon load and 6.8 ton fuel. that will bring it to 25ton takeoff weight. and use middle of take off distance at 1800feet. that is 550m.
    now show me Rafale with 4.7 tons fuel and 4ton of external load to take off at less than 250m. F-18E still will have longer range as it is still carrying 2 tons of extra fuel.

  30. #630
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Google "Non Sequitur".

    1 - There´s one single public comment about a suposed "Captor E" heli demonstration, and that was made by a Mig employee, it was never confirmed by any one in Selex, Eurofighter, EADS or the Indian Air Force, i am more than willing to bet that the chap confounded the sea spray work done by Selex with an AESA prototype for the "Phoon".

    2 - Even if it was test flown in an Helicopter what was there to make the underpopulated 680 TRM AESA Zhuk to be "still be more powerfull than heli born radar"?!
    There are a bucket load of operational radars flying in helicopters, who are vastly more performants than the Zhuk prototype.
    Being "Heli" tested is by no means any indication on capability.







    3 - "and certainly pass the minimum range requirements as it was the only radar that full exploited weopons during tests"
    What the hell does radar range requirements have to do with weapons release during tests?!
    And i would imagine that you had access to Indian Air Force tests reports, did you?
    I would imagine that in six contenders only the Mig proposal managed to "fully exploit weapons during tests", because everyone else is incompetent, dumb, or daft. Undoutebly that the Boeing chaps, with their combat proven, widely used and with a bucket load of integrated weapons, AN/APG-79, didnt "fully exploit weapons during tests"!
    your putting irrelevant old pix. even the Zhuk-M equiped MIG-29M from late 1990s have 130km range. now with more power supply and Zhuk-M1 and soonM2 . it is well beyond those numbers in MIG-29K.

    that was in 2009. Show me Rafale AESA radar range in 2009?
    http://vijainder.sawfnews.com/news/60169.aspx
    The MMRCA tender calls for a minimum detection range of at least 130 kilometers (about 80 miles).

    "We have met this requirement of the Indian tender and built the Zhuk-AE active phased array radar with a proven range of 148 kilometers," said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director.

    The Zhuk-AE can detect aerial targets at ranges up to 148 km (head on) in both look-up or look down modes. Look-up tail-on detection range is 50km (40km look down). The radar can track 30 aerial targets in the track-while-scan mode, and engage six targets simultaneously in the attack mode.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES