What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Depends on if 126 will be ordered or as even Dassault officials stated, 126 + optionals, because then more than 18 will be ordered directly from the winning vendor to counter the falling squad numbers. Then it is relevent how many squads can be procured faster and it might even make a cost difference, since we would order more Rafales from Dassault, while we could order EF T3As directly from the partner orders, probably even at reduced costs.
I do believe it is highly the IAF will go for the additional 63 Rafales but I'm not convinced that the follow on 63 would be built abroad although I think this would be ideal to address the tumbling SQD strength. I get the feeling the follow on 63 would be made in India after the 108 built in India are all delivered.
 
I still cant understand its use In combat.Even if the rafale doesnt switch on its radar,its still going to be detected by enemy radars.

Only if it's head on to an enemy fighter, because the field of viev of the radar is limited. The problem however is, that Rafales RWR might pic up signals of the enemy radar far earlier and in all directions (360°around the fighter), which gives it the advantage to positions it outside of the radar detection field of the enemy. Even AESA radars or other systems of a fighter give away EM signals that can be picked up by modern RWR and ESM sensors, which is why the EW suit today plays even a bigger role that the radar in detecting or even targeting a target. That's why pilots prefer to use the passive mode with their radar turned off, guided by AWACS or other active fighters in a backward (safe) position.
In passive mode, IRST then is a crucial advantage, because it gives you the capability to detect and track a target (and if possible even attack it at BVR ranges as Rafale can with MICA), without giving away your position by using the radar.
Another important point is, that fighters without AWACS support, often needs to identify their targets visually, to be sure that the target is a fried or foe. IRST here provide visual ID capability at round 40Km, while FSO's new TV channel can do it even at 60Km.

So detect signals first => position yourself in a position to not be detected => ID your target => attack if necessary with IRST or by finally turning on your radar and using EM missiles.

I do believe it is highly the IAF will go for the additional 63 Rafales but I'm not convinced that the follow on 63 would be built abroad although I think this would be ideal to address the tumbling SQD strength. I get the feeling the follow on 63 would be made in India after the 108 built in India are all delivered.

True, usually they would be added to HAL's lines, but Dassault officials made it clear that they are talking about the addition right now, which would not be the case for a follow order by 2024 or so. By then far different techs and weapon capabilities can be available, compared to the F3+ now and the F3R by 2018, which makes it pointless to fix the additional order for HAL today right?

Hypothetically, lets say the order is increased, what would you prefer if you were the IAF Chief (purely based on advantages for IAF, lets ignore the industrial side for a moment)?

18 x Rafale F3+ (1 squad) with AESA, but most likely without HMS, IRST or the Litening pod till the end of 2017
and 171 x Rafales from HAL lines beyond 2018

Vs

54 x T3A (3 squads) without AESA, but with HMS, IRST, the Litening pod and most likely Meteor till the end of 2017
and 135 x EF T3B's from HAL lines beyond 2018
 
I've always wondered, in wartime, how long would it take to put together a Su-30MKI or a Rafale with the greatest of urgency required?
 
The problem however is, that Rafales RWR might pic up signals of the enemy radar far earlier and in all directions (360°around the fighter), which gives it the advantage to positions it outside of the radar detection field of the enemy

1] I went through the encyclopedia thread but couldn't find any range for rwr tech in rafale.Do you have any info??

2] Can you lock onto an enemy aircraft and fire a missile using this tech??Without radars and irst??

3] Many 4th gen aitcrafts have rwr right.So am i correct in understanding that what makes rafale special is "interferometer"
 
18 x Rafale F3+ (1 squad) with AESA, but most likely without HMS, IRST or the Litening pod till the end of 2017
and 171 x Rafales from HAL lines beyond 2018
What makes you think the Rafales delivered to the IAF wouldn't have HMS or the Litening pod integrated? From what I know the HMS is ready for integration just waiting a customer to specify it (which the IAF most certainly would) additionally as per the RFP the winning bidder has to deliver the fighters with the LDP of the IAF's choice integrated. As the IAF has made the Litening their standard LDP across the fleet then the Rafales will have to come with the Litening.

The jury is still out on the IRST, it could come on the first 18 from Dassualt but it is an unknown.

True, usually they would be added to HAL's lines, but Dassault officials made it clear that they are talking about the addition right now, which would not be the case for a follow order by 2024 or so.
I agree the ideal situation would be two production lines pumping out 81 (in France) and 108 (in India) simultaneously and I sincerely hope that this is what the IAF and MoD are thinking because only starting work on the follow on 63 once the initial order for 108 units have been completed by HAL would be a wasted opportunity of colossal proportions.

From a numbers point of view it is clear that the EFT consortium could offer more units directly but IIRC didn't Dassualt say they would increase their productive capacity if they received a larger direct order? I think then, in the long term (4-5 years) things between Dassualt and the EFT would equalize as far as production rate are concerned (to a certain degree).

Anyway whilst numbers and production rate are important they aren't the be all and end all of this deal. I still believe that, on balance, the Rafale/ Dassualt offer is superior to that of the EFT consortium one and the Rafale just as a product is more suited and better for the IAF than the EFT.


+ to add, I think that any immediate benefit the EFT consortium may be able to offer with regard to their larger production base would be all but wiped out by the fact it would take a further 2-3 years from whenever the MoD started talks with the consortium to bring about a deal (as we are seeing with the Rafale talks). The point about 18 Rafales by 2017 as opposed to 53 EFTs by 2017 is a moot point as the deal for EFTs wouldn't even be signed by 2017 in all likelihood if talks between the MoD and the EFT consortium begun TODAY. It is very much now or never for the MMRCA deal- all hopes are on the Rafale deal being signed, any permutation of this will result in delays and a very unhappy IAF (and for good reason).
 
1] I went through the encyclopedia thread but couldn't find any range for rwr tech in rafale.Do you have any info??

2] Can you lock onto an enemy aircraft and fire a missile using this tech??Without radars and irst??

3] Many 4th gen aitcrafts have rwr right.So am i correct in understanding that what makes rafale special is "interferometer"

1)You will only find unofficial sources or basic estimates, about detection ranges of several 100Km.

2)If you can precisely locate the target, you can gather it's GPS coordinates and divert them to weapons, which logically easier for stationary targets than for moving once. But Rafale does that basically in SEAD, the RWR can detect a ground radar and gather data from it alone, can direct the FSO or a targetting pod to the target and gain additional data, provide them to the AASM and launch the weapon. Same is possible for a missile too, by giving it basic GPS data for the launch, provide mid course guidance with SPECTRA or FSO until the seeker of the missile itself (be it EM or IR) locks on the target.

3) Yes, advanced RWR that provides geo-location capabilities can make a difference for precise targeting and the interferometry technology adds advantages here, but is not the only technology to do so.
Standard F16s or F18s for example can have RWR too, but for precise targeting in SEAD they need additional systems in special varients (F16 CJ or 18 Growler).
Modern fighters like Rafale or EF integrates these systems in the EWS itself, without the need of special varients or additional pods.

What makes you think the Rafales delivered to the IAF wouldn't have

The fact that they are in production now, including software and wiring for the F3+ but without these capabilites and since it would require additional contracts apart of the Rafale deal, for funding of production, integration and testing. Not to mention that most of them might be produced, tested and integrated in India only, just as we integrated Litening, or Topsight HMS to the Mig 29s of IAF and IN in India and the FSO IRST is only „offered“ as an option, as Samtel specboards showed, but it's not in production now and can be added only after the production in India has started again.

The point about 18 Rafales by 2017 as opposed to 53 EFTs by 2017 is a moot point as the deal for EFTs wouldn't even be signed by 2017 in all likelihood if talks between the MoD and the EFT consortium begun TODAY.

Come on buddy, don't skip the answer. Besides, that the fighters are already in production and the negotiations would only be with the governments, without the need of industrial partnerships, ToT or offsets negotiations. That part would only apply to the licence production, so you could easily singn the contract by next year and get the first fighters if required, while the negotiation part of the industry an the contract for the licence production would be done simultaneously.

If we could buy more fighters from French forces, it would be a government to government deal aswell and also faster to sign than the industrial part, but as said, that number is very limited and also comes without IRST, HMS or Litening.


So again, if you were the chief and would have to decide on which fighter is better for IAF in operational terms only, which one would you take?
 
Growl & grumble
from AW& ST Nov 17 2014



growl & grumble.jpg


& off the record
during 2012 Nato MACE XIII exercise in slovakia some interesting revelations
MACE XIII against SA-10 -aka S300-
Ultima Ratio » Blog Archiv » A French Way of SEAD?
 
Last edited:
well thanks pal

but plz delete your post i have made corrections

thanks once again

CHEERS
 
+ to add, I think that any immediate benefit the EFT consortium may be able to offer with regard to their larger production base would be all but wiped out by the fact it would take a further 2-3 years from whenever the MoD started talks with the consortium

Unless off course they have already done that homework to offer the "catch-up" incentive?
 
Unless off course they have already done that homework to offer the "catch-up" incentive?

Well they didn't which the lack of AESA funding shows, but Saudi funding for Storm Shadow integration and the IS issue possibly forcing the UK to early integrate Brimstone helps.
 
Unless off course they have already done that homework to offer the "catch-up" incentive?
There's very little they could have done on the outside. The duration of talks until now between Dassualt and the MoD have not been because Dassualt didn't have their act together but because by their very nature this deal is incredibly complex and intricate. The talks with the EFT consortium would be just as long and arduous as we are seeing with Dassualt.
 
Just realised This thread was open in 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!! Today we are about to step in to 2015....... Still the tender not closed........... God bless us!!!!!!!!!!!
 
The marine version of rafale is something people are not taking into consideration. Kindly include that versus the paper sea typhoon, I can assure you that it will be taken in to calculations for future aircraft carrier.
 
Just realised This thread was open in 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!! Today we are about to step in to 2015....... Still the tender not closed........... God bless us!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, MRCA and M-MRCA, lets hope that things will be done next month, otherwise things might be delayed longer.
 
Yes, MRCA and M-MRCA, lets hope that things will be done next month, otherwise things might be delayed longer.

I understand the delay in developing (LCA), But this kind of delay is unacceptable.........Now the new govt also spend some time in office.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom