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

Lolwa said:
Compared to the f35 how good is the sensor fusion of the BNET or is there a possibility of that??
Click to expand...

BNET is just a radio/datalink, sensor fusion is done by the mission computer.

The pilots have to do most of the data sorting though. But then the MKI will have two pilots. However since we have made the mission computers for both the LCA and MKI, it won't be difficult to sensor fuse Rafale's data into the other two aircraft. The opposite is going to be more difficult.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lolwa
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Sensor fusion of data coming from data link is already done in Rafale.
Click to expand...

But that depends on the source and the datalink itself.

At best we know that if data from say the MKI is transmitted to the Rafale with a compatible datalink, then it will be able to display it on the Rafale's MFDs. But there's no way to know if that data can be fused with the Rafale's own sensor data to create consolidated tracks and vice versa. The alternative is the pilot will be expected to do the sensor fusion on his own and verify it independently using his own sensors as it's done today.
 
randomradio said:
But that depends on the source and the datalink itself.

At best we know that if data from say the MKI is transmitted to the Rafale with a compatible datalink, then it will be able to display it on the Rafale's MFDs. But there's no way to know if that data can be fused with the Rafale's own sensor data to create consolidated tracks and vice versa. The alternative is the pilot will be expected to do the sensor fusion on his own and verify it independently using his own sensors as it's done today.
Click to expand...
You are wrong: fusion is done for all data link, If you are able to display track on MFD, you are able to fuse them.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
You are wrong: fusion is done for all data link, If you are able to display track on MFD, you are able to fuse them.
Click to expand...

But that will result in only decluttering less important information, not consolidating and fusing data from multiple sources. For example, if the AWACS transfers much more accurate data compared to the Rafale's own radar, then the Rafale's track would simply be eliminated from the MFD. That's not sensor fusion.

Fusion should happen in the mission computer using raw data. Like how the F-35 and Patriot are fully integrated, allowing the F-35 to fire off SAM missiles using its own radar.
 
randomradio said:
But that will result in only decluttering less important information, not consolidating and fusing data from multiple sources. For example, if the AWACS transfers much more accurate data compared to the Rafale's own radar, then the Rafale's track would simply be eliminated from the MFD. That's not sensor fusion.

Fusion should happen in the mission computer using raw data. Like how the F-35 and Patriot are fully integrated, allowing the F-35 to fire off SAM missiles using its own radar.
Click to expand...
No, in every data link there is more or less the same information, when there are differences it is on information that is not essential. To answer your example, there is a Data format in each of the data links, and there is an internal format for the Rafale. When we add a data link to the Rafale, we convert the format between the two formats Data link and Rafale. To anwer to your exemple, to merge two tracks with different precision, we will use the track's quality of the track, which may have a different definition in the data link and in the Rafale's internal format, but the conversion was made when the data link was added and can therefore be used for the merge.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
No, in every data link there is more or less the same information, when there are differences it is on information that is not essential. To answer your example, there is a Data format in each of the data links, and there is an internal format for the Rafale. When we add a data link to the Rafale, we convert the format between the two formats Data link and Rafale. To anwer to your exemple, to merge two tracks with different precision, we will use the track's quality of the track, which may have a different definition in the data link and in the Rafale's internal format, but the conversion was made when the data link was added and can therefore be used for the merge.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so the MKI's data format is converted to a format that's compatible with the another aircraft before transmission. So even raw data can then be fused, which is how it would work between the MKI and LCA. But for Rafale and MKI wouldn't that require extensive data sharing between all parties concerned?
 
randomradio said:
Yeah, so the MKI's data format is converted to a format that's compatible with the another aircraft before transmission. So even raw data can then be fused, which is how it would work between the MKI and LCA. But for Rafale and MKI wouldn't that require extensive data sharing between all parties concerned?
Click to expand...
For me the MKI's data format is converted in the Data link format....It's needed if you want several plane with several technologies to be able to exchange.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
For me the MKI's data format is converted in the Data link format....It's needed if you want several plane with several technologies to be able to exchange.
Click to expand...

A more long term fix would be to integrate an Indian mission computer onto the Rafale. Like what the Israelis have done with the F-35 Adir.
 
randomradio said:
Since plenty of hints are coming in, we seem to be headed that way. Either way, I'm hoping they give it a high priority and get it done quickly.
Click to expand...
Lets hope for the best. If we are focusing on 108/114 or whatever number through mmrca2 tender, it will never materialise & iaf gonna keep flying rust buckets to next decade too.
Sathya said:
It means MMRCA tender gets post poned for atleast half a decade or forever.
Click to expand...
Better we will finish the gap by adding rafale via bach by bach.
 
Sathya said:
It means MMRCA tender gets post poned for atleast half a decade or forever.
Click to expand...

MRFA is a very long process. 5+3 years for delivery of French-made jets and 2 additional years for delivery of Indian-made jets. So it's a 10-year wait before the Indian line stabilises.

After they signed the first deal for 36, the IAF wanted MRFA to go ahead in 2017, so deliveries could begin around 2025. Of course they had set their signs on Gripen at the time, until MoD brought in other jets in 2018 and the Gripen requirement was replaced with LCA Mk2. So the first tranche was supposed to sit between the start of MRFA and first delivery. The second tranche is only buying time in order to allow MRFA's postponment by another year or two at best, although it's definitely not desirable to delay it anymore.

A delay to start MRFA by half a decade or more would be meaningless since requirements would change by the time the delivery of Indian-made Rafales happens in the mid-2030s. The idea is to get a production deal signed over the next few years so we are up by another 9 squadrons before AMCA Mk2 deliveries begin after 2035. There's no point in having simultaneous deliveries of Rafale and AMCA.

Hydra said:
Lets hope for the best. If we are focusing on 108/114 or whatever number through mmrca2 tender, it will never materialise & iaf gonna keep flying rust buckets to next decade too.

Better we will finish the gap by adding rafale via bach by bach.
Click to expand...

If it's a small fleet, then fine. But if we want to operate a large fleet, then we need a production line because it's pretty dumb to leave maintenance and operations to a foreign company.

If either the MRFA or a large scale purchase of a similar or better jet doesn't end in a contract within the next 5-7 years, we are screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
sunstersun said:
Man it's sad if India doesn't get the domestic assembly line.

The potentially 30 year tender lol.
Click to expand...

The IAF is much more interested in the production line though.

They are interested in operating at least 12 Rafale squadrons, and the tender is for 6+3 squadrons. So there is room for the second tranche.

2+2+6+3 gives us 13 squadrons or 12 squadrons + additional reserves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolwa, suryakiran and Hydra
randomradio said:
The IAF is much more interested in the production line though.

They are interested in operating at least 12 Rafale squadrons, and the tender is for 6+3 squadrons. So there is room for the second tranche.

2+2+6+3 gives us 13 squadrons or 12 squadrons + additional reserves.
Click to expand...
Finger's crossed for a good economic future I guess.
 
sunstersun said:
Finger's crossed for a good economic future I guess.
Click to expand...

A good economic future will give us better options, like the Chinese have had after 2010. It's just that at this time the money we could spend on MRFA is tied up in other areas and will free up after a few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom