Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

[randomradio]

I have gone through all of this in quite detail.

Simple question, Derby Range of 50KM and corresponding altitude is?

I've extrapolated it to be the same as Aim-120C, Astra Mk1 and RVV-SD, so that's between 6 and 9Km. Closer to 8-9Km of course.

So where you plot the RVV-AE as 37-40Km in the graph, I'd put the Derby at 50Km. So it makes sense that a 10Km advantage in medium altitude will provide a 20Km advantage at high altitude. So 50Km at medium, and 100Km at high.

 

[Milspec]

I've extrapolated it to be the same as Aim-120C, Astra Mk1 and RVV-SD, so that's between 6 and 9Km. Closer to 8-9Km of course.

So where you plot the RVV-AE as 37-40Km in the graph, I'd put the Derby at 50Km. So it makes sense that a 10Km advantage in medium altitude will provide a 20Km advantage at high altitude. So 50Km at medium, and 100Km at high.

and no where Rafael claims this, right?

 

[Milspec]

I've extrapolated it to be the same as Aim-120C, Astra Mk1 and RVV-SD, so that's between 6 and 9Km. Closer to 8-9Km of course.

So where you plot the RVV-AE as 37-40Km in the graph, I'd put the Derby at 50Km. So it makes sense that a 10Km advantage in medium altitude will provide a 20Km advantage at high altitude. So 50Km at medium, and 100Km at high.

missed it on the last post

This is great, you can just keep arguing with yourself in this:
Your Statements:

The Derby is 20% smaller than the Aim-120 and is also 20% lighter, thereby requiring 20% smaller motor and 20% lesser fuel to achieve the same range. (Smaller missile same range)
It's ridiculous to even assume the Derby has lower range than the MICA . My size logic in fact supports the very theory I have put forth. (Smaller missile not same range)

Then it's obvious the Derby ER has twice the range of the Aim-120C and by extension the RVV-SD as well.
(But I already told you to consider the tech base to be similar when it comes to such things. Not Applicable SFRM vs DPRM)

You really think a smaller MICA has more range than a bigger Derby? (No but Smaller Derby has more range than Aim120 and RVV AE)


Who can compete with this logic.
Size is advantage when it works for your claim, and then a disadvantage when it goes against your claims.

 

[randomradio]

missed it on the last post

This is great, you can just keep arguing with yourself in this:
Your Statements:

The Derby is 20% smaller than the Aim-120 and is also 20% lighter, thereby requiring 20% smaller motor and 20% lesser fuel to achieve the same range. (Smaller missile same range)
It's ridiculous to even assume the Derby has lower range than the MICA . My size logic in fact supports the very theory I have put forth. (Smaller missile not same range)

Then it's obvious the Derby ER has twice the range of the Aim-120C and by extension the RVV-SD as well.
(But I already told you to consider the tech base to be similar when it comes to such things. Not Applicable SFRM vs DPRM)

You really think a smaller MICA has more range than a bigger Derby? (No but Smaller Derby has more range than Aim120 and RVV AE)

Who can compete with this logic.
Size is advantage when it works for your claim, and then a disadvantage when it goes against your claims.

Obviously misquoting and using semantics.

I said:
Derby = AMRAAM
And MICA < Derby

You've twisted my argument into:
Derby > AMRAAM
MICA < Derby

Also without understanding what I've been saying the entire time, that the MICA was made with a different design philosophy. You are basically saying a CCM-inspired design like the MICA has more range than the BVR-inspired Derby. I'm saying the Derby equals AMRAAM and beats MICA's range. Read post 2459. MICA sacrifices range for agility, hence one of the reasons why the Derby has the greater range.

Selective reading and misquoting is why you are so confused about everything.

(But I already told you to consider the tech base to be similar when it comes to such things. Not Applicable SFRM vs DPRM)

Definitely not applicable to that. That's actually why the Derby ER has roughly twice the range as the Aim-120C or RVV-SD.

The Aim-120D simply uses a more powerful motor to get 50% more range than the Aim-120C. DPRM uses much more powerful and fuel efficient motors.

Simple really >>>
Derby = Aim-120C... Same propulsion tech base.
Aim-120D = Aim-120C + 50%... Modern SFRM.
Derby ER = Aim-120C + 100%... Modern DPRM.

Among western countries today, there are only two missiles that are kings of the hill - Meteor and I-Derby ER. Which is why the IAF made their decision between these two missiles.

 

[Milspec]

Obviously misquoting and using semantics.

I said:
Derby = AMRAAM
And MICA < Derby

You've twisted my argument into:
Derby > AMRAAM
MICA < Derby

Also without understanding what I've been saying the entire time, that the MICA was made with a different design philosophy. You are basically saying a CCM-inspired design like the MICA has more range than the BVR-inspired Derby. I'm saying the Derby equals AMRAAM and beats MICA's range. Read post 2459. MICA sacrifices range for agility, hence one of the reasons why the Derby has the greater range.

Selective reading and misquoting is why you are so confused about everything.



Definitely not applicable to that. That's actually why the Derby ER has roughly twice the range as the Aim-120C or RVV-SD.

The Aim-120D simply uses a more powerful motor to get 50% more range than the Aim-120C. DPRM uses much more powerful and fuel efficient motors.

Simple really >>>
Derby = Aim-120C... Same propulsion tech base.
Aim-120D = Aim-120C + 50%... Modern SFRM.
Derby ER = Aim-120C + 100%... Modern DPRM.

Among western countries today, there are only two missiles that are kings of the hill - Meteor and I-Derby ER. Which is why the IAF made their decision between these two missiles.

I did not:
I literally pasted your own arguments.

Even above: Where you claim I twisted something I didn't

I said:
Derby = AMRAAM
And MICA < Derby

You've twisted my argument into:
Derby > AMRAAM
MICA < Derby
highlighted is same as you said, and apparently I twisted.

You claim : verbatim
Derby vs amraam
The Derby is 20% smaller than the Aim-120 and is also 20% lighter, thereby requiring 20% smaller motor and 20% lesser fuel to achieve the same range. (Smaller missile same range)

and then
Derby vs Mica
You really think a smaller MICA has more range than a bigger Derby? (Smaller missile not same range)

but then: (180 turn) Mica Vs RVV AE
I am not disputing the 80Km range of both RVV-AE and MICA. (Larger missile same range)

And RVV AE vs Derby :
So where you plot the RVV-AE as 37-40Km in the graph, I'd put the Derby at 50Km. (larger missile lesser range)

For your Size theory
Size wise
Derby < Armraam (Equal range)
RVV AE > Derby (Derby has more range)
Mica< Derby (Still Derby has more range)
Mica< RVV AE (Equal Range)

above acurate?

 

[Bon Plan]

You can see it drop from 80Km at high altitude to 40Km at medium altitude. And then to 20Km at low altitude. This gives you the 50% drop rule of thumb.

and it is against a non maneuvring target ! once the target moves, the range drops.
There is a factor 2 to 3 between max range (against 0 G target) and the no escape range (where a 9G target will be destroyed at 99,99%)

 

[Bon Plan]

MICA sacrifices range for agility

It's not a sacrifice. It was a french air force request ! As the french combat rules need a positiv recognition of the target, a too great range was useless. MICA is congruent with the Rafale optronic system.
I've not exemple of AMRAAM destroying a target at more than 50km...

Since things evolved. But Meteor is not specially a french air force request. But we integrate it on Rafale for marketing reasons (not to let the other eurocanard with this special prestige asset). After all, we only ordered 150 of it !

The Aim-120D simply uses a more powerful motor to get 50% more range than the Aim-120C.

is it sure? for me it is mainly another trajectory mastering that give more range.

 

[randomradio]

I did not:
I literally pasted your own arguments.

Even above: Where you claim I twisted something I didn't

I said:
Derby = AMRAAM
And MICA < Derby

You've twisted my argument into:
Derby > AMRAAM
MICA < Derby
highlighted is same as you said, and apparently I twisted.

You claim : verbatim
Derby vs amraam
The Derby is 20% smaller than the Aim-120 and is also 20% lighter, thereby requiring 20% smaller motor and 20% lesser fuel to achieve the same range. (Smaller missile same range)

and then
Derby vs Mica
You really think a smaller MICA has more range than a bigger Derby? (Smaller missile not same range)

but then: (180 turn) Mica Vs RVV AE
I am not disputing the 80Km range of both RVV-AE and MICA. (Larger missile same range)

And RVV AE vs Derby :
So where you plot the RVV-AE as 37-40Km in the graph, I'd put the Derby at 50Km. (larger missile lesser range)

For your Size theory
Size wise
Derby < Armraam (Equal range)
RVV AE > Derby (Derby has more range)
Mica< Derby (Still Derby has more range)
Mica< RVV AE (Equal Range)

above acurate?

You've basically twisted everything without understanding the basic concept.

With the same tech base, the MICA has lesser range than Derby, since even though the MICA is smaller, the weight difference is only 6 Kg.
However the Derby and AMRAAM have similar range because the Derby is both smaller and lighter than the AMRAAM by the same margin.

MICA is 15% smaller and 5% lighter than Derby.
Derby is 20% smaller and 20% lighter than Aim-120.

If all you do is take the word "smaller" without also considering "lighter", then you are obviously not going to understand.

 

[randomradio]

It's not a sacrifice. It was a french air force request ! As the french combat rules need a positiv recognition of the target, a too great range was useless. MICA is congruent with the Rafale optronic system.
I've not exemple of AMRAAM destroying a target at more than 50km...

Since things evolved. But Meteor is not specially a french air force request. But we integrate it on Rafale for marketing reasons (not to let the other eurocanard with this special prestige asset). After all, we only ordered 150 of it !

The entire combat philosophy of the French is different. In our case, we use both American and French philosophies, so no loss for us.

But I suppose France will buy more Meteors once enough AESA-equipped Rafales are inducted. Right now I think France barely has 2-3 squadrons. The PESA obviously can't use the Meteor to its fullest extent hence there's no need for it.

is it sure? for me it is mainly another trajectory mastering that give more range.

The Aim-120D was installed with a more powerful motor.

At first people thought it came with the dual pulse motor that was developed for ERAAM, but it just turned out to be a more powerful motor. Plus I suppose more modern electronics allowed further miniatiurisation and further increase in fuel carried.

With more efficient trajectory, it's possible that the range is even greater than published figures, I don't know that, but there's definitely a more powerful motor involved. I don't know if there was a change in fuel either.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

But I suppose France will buy more Meteors once enough AESA-equipped Rafales are inducted. Right now I think France barely has 2-3 squadrons. The PESA obviously can't use the Meteor to its fullest extent hence there's no need for it.

We have enough AESA Radar to use all our Rafale with meteor if necessary. We just need to make a fleet of 3 Rafales with 2 PESA and 1 AESA. The tracks of the three Rafales are fused together so all three can shoot at long range.

 

[Bon Plan]

The entire combat philosophy of the French is different. In our case, we use both American and French philosophies, so no loss for us.

But I suppose France will buy more Meteors once enough AESA-equipped Rafales are inducted. Right now I think France barely has 2-3 squadrons. The PESA obviously can't use the Meteor to its fullest extent hence there's no need for it.

The PESA Rafale can fire Meteor. But for max range it probably need the information given by an Awacs or another Rafale AESA fitted.

 

[Milspec]

You've basically twisted everything without understanding the basic concept.

With the same tech base, the MICA has lesser range than Derby, since even though the MICA is smaller, the weight difference is only 6 Kg.
However the Derby and AMRAAM have similar range because the Derby is both smaller and lighter than the AMRAAM by the same margin.

MICA is 15% smaller and 5% lighter than Derby.
Derby is 20% smaller and 20% lighter than Aim-120.

If all you do is take the word "smaller" without also considering "lighter", then you are obviously not going to understand.

And conveniently ignore the warhead weight, right? Per you smaller derby pushes same warhead weight to a higher range than larger RVV AE does, sound legit.

 

[randomradio]

We have enough AESA Radar to use all our Rafale with meteor if necessary. We just need to make a fleet of 3 Rafales with 2 PESA and 1 AESA. The tracks of the three Rafales are fused together so all three can shoot at long range.

Are the AESA Rafales distributed among all squadrons or have they simply raised new squadrons with only AESA Rafales? If it's the latter, then I suppose the Meteors have been distributed only to the AESA squadrons, hence the small numbers.

 

[randomradio]

And conveniently ignore the warhead weight, right? Per you smaller derby pushes same warhead weight to a higher range than larger RVV AE does, sound legit.

Let me replace a word there.

"Per you smaller Aim-120 pushes same warhead weight to a higher range than larger RVV AE does, sound legit."

 

[Milspec]

Let me replace some words there.

"Per you smaller Aim-120 pushes same warhead weight to a higher range than larger RVV AE does, sound legit."

Yes quite possible.
You forget, the dimension being the benchmark of the range is your theory, not mine. And you seem to struggle to reconcile with your own theory.
When you replace missile names, it's just your theory that gets into trouble.

I have maintained ranges are an outcome of chemistry, propellent properties, nozzle design, charge optimization, not just volume or weight.

the idea that the range of missile is attributable from size is similar to saying the energy of the bomb is determined from its size.

 

[randomradio]

Yes quite possible.
You forget, the dimension being the benchmark of the range is your theory, not mine. And you seem to struggle to reconcile with your own theory.
When you replace missile names, it's just your theory that gets into trouble.

I have maintained ranges are an outcome of chemistry, propellent properties, nozzle design, charge optimization, not just volume or weight.

the idea that the range of missile is attributable from size is similar to saying the energy of the bomb is determined from its size.

That's 'cause you are complicating something that's actually simple. You forget that the Israelis are more advanced than anyone else when it comes to missile electronics, which compensates for the merely 10Kg extra weight difference of the warhead. The stuff that others are still developing, the Israelis have been already using on the field since a decade.

What you are trying to say is since the Derby uses the same warhead as the Aim-120C, then it makes sense that the missile only manages less than half the range of the Aim-120C. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Going by my view, it all makes sense. But going by your view, it borders on the ridiculous.

Rather, it's for exactly the reasons you've pointed out that the Israelis have simply used far more advanced technology, in terms of electronics and propulsion, in order to significantly surpass all AMRAAM versions with the Derby ER. Which is why the Israelis claim the Aim-120D is only 50% as capable as the Derby ER and the IAF is actually going for the Derby ER as their primary long term BVR missile.

 

[Milspec]

That's 'cause you are complicating something that's actually simple. You forget that the Israelis are more advanced than anyone else when it comes to missile electronics, which compensates for the merely 10Kg extra weight difference of the warhead. The stuff that others are still developing, the Israelis have been already using on the field since a decade.

Hehe, You have to reconcile the above statement with the your own attribution of french Mica, which has remarkable seeker, and a warhead which is exactly half the size of the Derby.
Are you saying the french and Americans are decades behind the Israelis in the field? Same Americans who have been testing Aim120D with 160km SFRM in late 2000's and the french who by your own claims will field a MICA NG with a DPRM in the same sized airframe behind the Israeli's?

What you are trying to say is since the Derby uses the same warhead as the Aim-120C, then it makes sense that the missile only manages less than half the range of the Aim-120C. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Not at all, I am saying Derby's range is 50km at a comparable altitude of 80km for rvv-ae. You seem to forget Derby is Python IV derivative. And no where does rafael claim medium-altitude range specs for either Derby or Derby ER. This notion is completely your figment of imagination and in the last three pages you have not provided a single shred of evidence that refers to any such claims. To support this claim you present dimensions theory which keeps backfiring on you when applied to other platforms.

Going by my view, it all makes sense. But going by your view, it borders on the ridiculous.

Rather, it's for exactly the reasons you've pointed out that the Israelis have simply used far more advanced technology, in terms of electronics and propulsion, in order to significantly surpass all AMRAAM versions with the Derby ER. Which is why the Israelis claim the Aim-120D is only 50% as capable as the Derby ER and the IAF is actually going for the Derby ER as their primary long term BVR missile.

Israeli's claim Aim120D is only 50% capable as the Derby ER is quite interesting. I couldn't find the claim. It will be helpful to see where Rafael claims the above.
Lastly coming to IAF, you have categorically claimed Derby outranges RVV-AE. Derby's were ordered by IAF in 2008, but then the same IAF ordered th inferior RVV-AE in 2012. Sure as hell IAF won't field an inferior RVV-AE when it has access to superior Derby, right?

 

[Ashwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1306251409508114432

 

[shaxm]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1306266912171659264

 

[randomradio]

Hehe, You have to reconcile the above statement with the your own attribution of french Mica, which has remarkable seeker, and a warhead which is exactly half the size of the Derby.
Are you saying the french and Americans are decades behind the Israelis in the field? Same Americans who have been testing Aim120D with 160km SFRM in late 2000's and the french who by your own claims will field a MICA NG with a DPRM in the same sized airframe behind the Israeli's?

That's why I said take the same tech base. With the same tech base, the warhead weight is compensated by the extra 400+mm length of the Derby, and it's only 6 Kg heavier than MICA even after that.

In reality, Israeli tech used on the Derby is better. 15% larger, but only 5% weight difference. That's pretty impressive.

Not at all, I am saying Derby's range is 50km at a comparable altitude of 80km for rvv-ae. You seem to forget Derby is Python IV derivative. And no where does rafael claim medium-altitude range specs for either Derby or Derby ER. This notion is completely your figment of imagination and in the last three pages you have not provided a single shred of evidence that refers to any such claims. To support this claim you present dimensions theory which keeps backfiring on you when applied to other platforms.

Haha. You haven't understood the evidence.

It doesn't matter if the Derby is a Python derivative. That's not a reason. The only difference between an AMRAAM and Derby is a 20mm diameter difference, the same difference that's between the RVV-AE and the AMRAAM. So what missile has the AMRAAM been derived from then?

Israeli's claim Aim120D is only 50% capable as the Derby ER is quite interesting. I couldn't find the claim. It will be helpful to see where Rafael claims the above.

Google past news from 2015 onwards.

They also claimed the Derby ER provides 80% of the Meteor's range.

Would recommend reading the article.

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY: Seoul ADEX 2015: Rafael exhibits I-DERBY ER Multi-Range Air-to-Air Missile

www.miltechmag.com

Now featuring long range performance, I-DERBY ER will allow Rafael to compete with MBDA's METEOR BVR missile at more favourable terms. Rotem claims that Rafael, "can deliver 80% of the range at 50 percent of the price. On top of that I-Derby ER has LOBL capability and it maintains short range performance."

Look at the names on the left.

With the Meteor's range being 200-250, then 80% of that is 160-200Km.

Case closed.

Lastly coming to IAF, you have categorically claimed Derby outranges RVV-AE. Derby's were ordered by IAF in 2008, but then the same IAF ordered th inferior RVV-AE in 2012. Sure as hell IAF won't field an inferior RVV-AE when it has access to superior Derby, right?

IAF never ordered Derbys for fighter jets. You are confused with the IN's Sea Harrier. What the IAF did order were the SAMs.

India did not have either the ToT or the permission to integrate non-Russian weapons on the MKI for many years.