All the speculations begin when such events happen, and they mostly end up as disappointments.
It's just an unplanned visit.
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
All the speculations begin when such events happen, and they mostly end up as disappointments.
It's just an unplanned visit.
It is better to have 100% of the export achieved than 50% of 130% of what can be done alone.
That implies Super Rafale will only sell if other manufacturers fail to meet their goals. If AMCA and KF-21 B3 objectives are met, then customers are more likely to choose these jets over the Super Rafale for obvious reasons.
U still optimistic about AMXA, even after seeing the MK2 delay.
Seeing how now Tejas programme is soaring, why should anyone be pessimistic or doubtful of our future aviation project(s) is beyond me
It's an existing jet, all they are doing is adding some plugs. The most important bits were avionics, and that's already been done.
No, its not. Its a new jet with increased fimension, different wing arrangements, different weight, and different class jet engine. Hence new fly by wire algorithm.
Yeas some of the avionics are already done, but avionics alone won't make any jet.
Wings are the same(with addition of canards), only the fuselage is longer. Basics are the same. Get your facts right.
There are no major changes to the airframe, except the addition of 2 plugs. It's almost the same wing, just extended to match the new fuselage length. The canards were added 'cause the jet had become a bit too stable, or it wasn't planned. It's pretty much the same engine family, just has a larger fan. Same FBW. That's why development time is just 3 years versus 6-9 years for a new design.
The F-35 is struggling because of avionics.
Mirage 2000, a 70's design, remains usefull for India, France, UAE, Taiwan.... But it has been replace by a modern plane, with special goodies not fitted on Mirage : AESA, Spectra, easier maintenance, more range, more load....
Rafale, as F35, as EF2000 are to be replace also, by new concept. NGF is not only wanted for VLO (and the balance between stealth and agility remains to be fixed), but also for even more range, even more load, even more connectivity etc....
Rafale is LO at least.
Stealth is a quality, but with penalty.
The balance between agility, complexity, stealth, price is hard to fine tune and depends for exemple of your budget... France can't afford a hi/lo mix as USA with F35/F22 or F16/F15 before.
What about avionics of these new jets ?
What about the engine (US = CATSAA) ?
Super Rafale may come with a totally new airframe (it's not the more costly), with the engines studied for the NGF prototyp, and with the well born legacy Rafale avionic (with a very strong road map up to 2060+) .....
When it comes to India, core avionics will be ready before the jet. And unlike France, the IAF is willing to spend more money for the latest tech.
CAATSA doesn't affect India, it's a problem for other countries. India's main objective is self-reliance. But the main alternate suppliers are Russia and France for critical technologies.
Super Rafale will be fine for existing Rafale customers, not the new ones. It most definitely will have quite a few missing capabilities versus a stealth airframe with IWBs, even if has better avionics. 'Cause avionics can be upgraded, but the airframe will stay the same until end of life.
It is why F35 design is a mistake.
Stealth is a today quality, not specially a tomorrow's one (it was said by an Israeli air force General some years ago) : It's better to be stealth, specially against not brand new and well equiped opponent, but will vanished with 1st rank foe (or potential foe) as China.
I don't agree with that. Super Rafale will not have any real performance advantage due to lack of IWB. For example, there is no supersonic release of bombs. And IWB can carry unique armaments like a laser weapon.
The F-35 specific comment doesn't apply here. A stealth airframe doesn't provide only stealth, it also provides modern design solutions by being newer. What you are trying to defend is a Hornet to Super Hornet transition versus a new design. It's obvious a new design will always win in quality.
Super Rafale is just a cheap solution to continue using a trusted design, something that's practiced by others too. It will have to be complemented by a superior system eventually, like a new near-space fighter that can compete with the Mig-41 for example.
To be fair, the SH is basically a new plane compared to the original F-18 even if it's based on the same design. Generally, if the roles are the similar then I don't see why you couldn't just use the reliable design and upgrade it with advanced materials, engines, enlarge the fuselage, etc.
If the scope of requirements is drastically different or there is some change in threat environment that just makes the tried/true design obsolete for whatever reason then I agree there is no choice.
off topic but is still a thing? I heard murmurs about it over a decade ago but thought it was mostly hot air and fan boys making cool cgi.
Compared with the F-35, the Rafale is a new design: this is not clear when you look at the timeline because the US were already behind schedule when they started their project.
For example, the virtualisation of IT on the Rafale is well ahead of the F-35's IT architecture, which means that it is possible to change generations of IT on the Rafale seamlessly, with no delay in integration, whereas for the F-35 we lose several years each time.
Similarly, in terms of maintenance, the advanced modularisation, even for the engine, the elimination of the need for a test bench when fitting a new engine, and the elimination of major overhauls are all signs of a maintenance system that is well ahead of the F-35.