Rafale and Falcons are interchangeable on the same line.
You don't get it.
The Falcon line is not paid for by GOI/MoD. It represents Dassault's own commercial venture in JV with Pvt companies. If you make Rafale aerostructures on that line, it reduces the productivity of Falcon aerostructures and hurts their commercial business. You can't force Dassault to shoot their own business in the foot to service IAF requirement. They're not our PSU to control like HAL, with which you run a huge payment backlog if you want.
Rafale production in India requires new infrastructure on top of whatever they've built for Falcon. But it's moot because as per Trappier, Rafale local production won't even be considered unless they get a minimum 100-jet order. That ain't happening.
We're late to the game.
US had determined, correctly, that airframe shaping & internal weapons are the way to go by early 2000s itself. AFTER they figured out what ACT can & cannot do.
European air forces too are late to the game, though the ones that have the option of importing F-35 (like UK & Germany) jumped on it as soon as they realized the Typhoon (which has a similar RCS as Rafale) won't be survivable as a frontline fighter. UK realized it sooner as unlike Germany they're actually active in conflict zones throughout the world and likely would be involved in a war with China in some way.
Germany may have internally realized it earlier, but just like with the rest of their military, they weren't bothered to maintain relevance until the Ukraine invasion got everyone forcing Germany to pull its weight. Now they want F-35 ASAP (not Rafale F4 or Typhoon T4). They even want them for NATO nuclear delivery as they know Typhoon won't be survivable in that role.
France is a peculiar case. Like most of Europe, they didn't feel the need to spend the Capex cycle for a 5th gen due to Soviet collapse + possibility of good relations with Russia going forward. There wasn't a threat that justified capex for 5th gen for them.
By the time there was, it was better to invest in 6th gen instead. However, other militaries in a similar state of development would have already procured F-35 as a stop-gap till the 6th gens are ready (UK, Italy, Germany all doing it). But for France which has a significant domestic aerospace sector, this can be a bad look as it highlights the error of not investing in the 5th gen cycle.
Not to mention it would make France seem dependent on the US which isn't gonna be a popular decision in Paris for anyone to make.
In short, you can't read their decisions as the correct/ideal ones...as their decisions are coloured by a lot of vested interests & political equations. Not to mention, they don't face the same threat level as we do.
MRFA has not even begun, so how do you know what's been offered? Even the IAF doesn't, at least officially.
We won't buy something we cannot even evaluate. If you want us to wait for F5, then MRFA makes less sense that it does now.
F4 is passe. Even during MMRCA, it started in 2007, but the version in question was introduced in 2012 and still needed ISE.
Current F4 is basically just F3R+ISE.
Technologically, it doesn't offer anything we can't make at home. Logically, the French should have entertained the option of integrating Uttam on Rafale but they aren't because it would eat into whatever money Thales stands to gain from a contract.
They are not even in the same era, dude.
If we start getting Rafales in 2032-33, the program for all 6 will end by 2038. As per your own estimation, AMCA will still be 2 years away from FOC. So where's the capex overlapping here?
You think even AMCA LSP would start in the 2030s if you dry out all the funds? It would be delayed into the mid-2040s if we play the kind of games with it as we did with Tejas Mk2.
You can't be serious if you want ADA & HAL to deliver a 5th gen fighter for just $2B. This is gonna be a re-run of the Tejas fiasco.
MRCA came with a 20T limit specifically to keep the Mig-29M out. Only 3 SEFs were in the contest.
You're talking about the 2001 RFI and I'm talking about the 2004 one. By 2004, the 20T limit was already history and MiG29OVT was a contender.
They probably adjusted the requirements to include TEFs after they realized the Flanker platform wouldn't do everything they wanted it to.
Asked by Adm Arun Prakash, answered by AM Matheswaran. The 2 SEFs were there because they wanted to participate.
There's nothing in that whole statement below that says why TEFs were needed specifically. They weren't creating the conditions to buy TEFs, they were simply creating conditions so that they end up buying from someone other than the Russians due to geopolitical reasons.
In the second session, moderator Inderjit Badhwar initiated the discussion deconstructing the evolution and process of the Indian Air Force (IAF) competition for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).
www.stratpost.com
“What surprises me – since you’re the author of that RFP (MMRCA) – is that what is the significance of the term medium? Is it weight, is it performance, is it range, is it endurance? A. And B – how did you end up with a bunch of aircraft from single-engined to twin-engined, from 17 tons to 30 tons – I mean why did you stand for it? Make up your mind what you want. Whether it is performance, whether it is weight. So I think this mess, in which we are today has been self-inflicted.” – Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash
“It’s about operational requirements – you know, meeting a certain spectrum of operational utility. You had to have a mix of both – I’m defending that. And I’m defending it very strongly. We had to actually bring in this Medium Multi Role Combat – because it was originally MRCA – primarily because you had to – although I’d said that weight consideration is no more a relevant issue – to categorize aircraft by weight limitations – we had to keep the Su-30 out because otherwise the Su-30 would have come into the competition, as well. And the question would have been raised, ‘Why can’t you buy more of the Su-30s’. Now you can’t put all your eggs in one basket – strategically, it’s unwise. That’s one of the primary reasons. And therefore you created this Medium Multi role Combat Aircraft (competition) which is 30 tons and below. Okay, so the Su-30 is 34 tons and above – 34 tons category. So the heaviest aircraft in this entire category was the F/A-18, which is 29 tons. The costliest aircraft was the Eurofighter, as per our estimation at that point of time. The cheapest aircraft was – and the lightest aircraft was the Gripen. The F-16 would have been the cheapest. But the point is, you had the original contenders who were there in the fray – you couldn’t have removed them because that process had started off. But you had the new technologies – 4 and half generation aircraft and you also had a spectrum of cost differentials from one end -I would say, averaging about 40 million dollars to almost 100 million dollars – or 85 million dollars.” – Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran
Just shows they weren't being serious (they still aren't).
If at all they were serious about a TEF-only competition, why not simply apply a minimum MTOW requirement as well? It would have still kept all countries in fray except Sweden (who aren't a veto power anyway & continue to supply Erieyes to Pak so not like having them in the tender had any upside).
Lol. Not even close. The LCA airframe had achieved FOC standards by Dec 2015. Mk2 is just Mk1 with 2 additional plugs, it's the same airframe with a slightly enlarged wing.
The equivalent to this would be if AMCA Mk1 had already achieved FOC in 2021, since we are in 2024.
It doesn't work that way.
Tejas Mk2 is a significantly larger plane overall with a different engine, different control surfaces, entirely changed centre of gravity, centre of mass, significantly higher payload capacity, and entirely different control layout which feels totally different to fly (side-stick vs centre-stick).
Tejas Mk1 to Mk2 is like going from an F-20 Tigershark to an F-16V.
Nope. If given a choice, the IAF would prefer all their high-end jets to just be Rafale followed by a more advanced jet than AMCA much later. So it's something we can do when we properly achieve indigenization. The IAF prefers to be a one type at best or two type at worst.
That's not what you said before. You said IAF is an all-high end air force which is nuts.
Mate, give it up, you have no idea what you just wrote here.
Plus you are talking about ECM, not ACT.
ACT, as defined as those who developed it, is a form of ESM.
On the B-2, it's a part of the AN/APR-50 suite.
It's an electronic warfare technique, nothing more. Only those who don't have a true stealth jet to sell are desperate enough to try & label it as a stealth technique. It may have been explored as a potential stealth technique in the past where threat radars were far less sophisticated, but in today's world it's just an extension of the function set of an SPJ (on Rafale at least)...that is if it's even employed anymore.
The replacement suite to the APR-50 (as well as the ones on F-22, F-35) make no mention of ACT even in passing - something they were comfortable leaking to journalists decades ago.
So yeah, sounds like it doesn't work in the modern age - at least not against modern threats. At least the F-15EX would have advertised it otherwise. They even mentioned the EX's ability to operate active radar even through its own active ASPJ jamming.
Anyway, Rafale can deal with multiple large ground and ship radars, never mind fighter radars.
Please do educate us mortals as to how ~15 TRMs (which can only transmit 15 frequencies at the same time) can cancel out 500 frequencies from 500 TRMs on a threat radar.
Cuz this is probably what the internals of one of Rafale's wing root jammers looks like (pic is a ELT-568 AESA jammer which has similar sized apertures):
There's no more AdlA, only AAE.
Doesn't matter what you call them.
Dassault is not the customer. What they would prefer AAE to do represents the OEM interest, not the AAE's interest or French national interest.
In 2050. The same time we do with AMCA. But they want Rafale for 2030 to 2050.
They'll only have Rafale because they're too proud to admit they need a 5th gen stop-gap.
Let me break it down.
2030-2050:
IAF, AAE - We want Rafale.
2050+:
IAF, AAE - We want AMCA/SCAF resply.
We both plan on getting the same capabilities at the same time. You are only strengthening my argument.
Why is this so hard to understand? Is there a different language I need to speak?
No, you're the one strengthening my argument.
You're the one that used to say effectiveness of ACT increases over time and that of stealth shaping reduces over time.
Now you admit everyone wants stealth shaping in the future. Why?
To make things worse for you, Dassault claims even SCAF is not necessary versus a modernized Rafale for 2050+. Meaning they are even willing to risk it in the export market when others will be competing with more advanced jets like KAAN, AMCA and GCAP. Which means Dassault believes this modernized Rafale will compete even with later 5th gen and 6th gen. And unlike military deals with the French govt, where they earn a fixed 7.xx% interest, they can earn much more via exports, and they are willing to risk that business for a few decades with just the Rafale. Doesn't make sense by your logic, no?
What Dassault says publicly is marketing speak. They're a publicly traded company with shareholder interest to look after. They cannot say openly that their best product currently on sale won't be survivable as a frontline fighter into the future unless they've lost their mind.
What their (and AAE's) internal assessments are would only be known to the French Govt. All we can see from the outside is that AAE has determined that their future fighter needs shaping & internal bays. End of story.
If you look on the F-16 product page on Lockheed's website, it says it's the most advanced 4th gen fighter in the world - but anyone with 2 braincells would know that's just marketing hogwash. I'd look stupid as all hell if I was arguing that to be the truth because that's what the OEM says. But for some reason you want to take Dassault's words verbatim to be gospel truth.
They'll claim that Rafale will remain relevant as a frontline fighter till the heat death of the universe if it means making a sale.
That's only your assumption. Even people within the USAF cannot claim anything about the B-2 without actually having full access to the program, forget some guy on the net.
Apply that logic to your infatuation with ACT and see where that gets you.
All we know is B-2 uses ACT, but we don't know where, how and in which bands it is used, how frequently and in what conditions. And based on what you know about ACT, it's useless on the B-2.
ACT is a stealth technique, not an ECM technique. ECM aims to disrupt a signal and announces its presence while doing so. But you won't know when ACT is being used against you, that's why it's stealthy. SPECTRA basically spits out your own signal after removing the Rafale's signature from it, which you will then happily ignore 'cause your clutter system thinks it's just a false-positive, ie, it bounced off a natural object and returned.
Use your knowledge of how radars have evolved over the last 30 years to infer what the relevance of ACT would be today, let alone into the future.
ACT was designed to counter a radar amplitude for amplitude & frequency for frequency (just out of phase is all). The advent of AESA threat radars negates this as you'd need your EW emitters to match the TRM count on a primary radar to successfully employ the technique against a modern AESA-FCR. That would make your emitters so big that they'd eat into your space for fuel & weapons. For the sake of pursuing active stealth, you'd lose everything else the aircraft offers.
That's not practically workable.
ACT is back in all aircraft now. Rafale did it 15 years ago, now others are attempting to do the same.
Rafale has no choice. It has to rely on ACT to at least save itself from older radars (many of which are still in operation). But as a frontline platform against PLAAF, ACT cannot save it.
Nobody considers ACT as an alternative (much less superior) solution to airframe shaping. Prove me wrong.
Funny how everybody is pursuing it.
Show me.
Only thing that's clearly evidenced as being pursued by everybody is stealth shaping & IWBs.
'Cause the politics around it is quite murky.
It's very likely that DGA (not just AAE) is not fully on board. This is a Globalist led program basically meant to kill France's strategic sector. For example, Airbus is responsible for the SCAF's combat cloud, but are complaining about Dassault's similar program for Rafale's combat cloud with the same objective. Macron wants to play with the Germans and Spanish while the French like to do these things on their own.
Dassault, by extension DGA, very likely want to make a more advanced jet than SCAF on their own and maintain sovereignty over it, but 10 or 15 years later, and they claim that it will be much cheaper than doing it via partnership. You can see why DGA is unlikely to be thrilled with SCAF.
And this is just a repeat of history. How excited do you think DGA was with the Euro consortium in the 1970s?
And do you really think AAE wants a jet with outside control? Have you considered they were forced into accepting SCAF? You should realize they have more pride than you do when it comes to total control, the same reason why IAF wants as much ToT as realistically possible, even IPR where possible. They don't want to place themselves in an inferior position where they have to go around begging and pleading from their partners for upgrades when the other partners are known to put roadblocks in military programs.
If Le Pen comes to power in 2027, I think SCAF will die.
The irruption of new technologies which have deeply transformed our ways of life and the erosion of centenary or millennial norms, values and practices
sundayguardianlive.com
None of this is a reason why SCAF needs to have stealth shaping or internal bays.
Dassault could have come up with a SCAF design that's completely optimized for aerodynamics, range & payload capacity with external weapons and just used ACT to mask it all, as you say they can.
First of all, I want MRFA, not Rafale. Rafale has to win on its own merits. I am just taking it for granted in this discussion that Rafale will win for obvious reasons, but if Typhoon ends up cheaper and better, it would be better to go for it. Only a competition will give us fair prices and tech in either case. And I want Dassault to survive because the French are the only ones worth being friends with in Europe, at least politically, so they need to be strategically independent.
And the domestic lobby having affected people is a problem in every sphere, right from rifles and artillery guns to fighters jets and even ships. I bet you want the IA to cancel the SIG716 deal for untested, unproven indigenous rifles.
Thankfully people have no real clue about radars, computers, cyber warfare and other systems or complaints will go out there too.
Actually, both of us are arguing from an industry perspective - only difference is, I'm arguing for Indian industry and you for French industry.
www.livefistdefence.com
