Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
I don't see India as being ungrateful, just willing to state their wishes. It is the UK government that forced is desire to continue giving aid to the Indians. For what reasons, we do not yet know.
If I may hazard an opinion, it has been suggested before that most of the so-called "aid" is an offset grant allowing the Indian govt to purchase from British companies at a reduced cost. Now I don't know how true this is, but it might actually aid British manufacturing. Cutting this kind of aid may not be ideal.
The Rafale looks like an aircraft should, not like a bunch of bits from multiple manufacturers just bolted together.
The French know how aircraft should look; sexy, curved, aggressive, useful. The Typhoon looks like a bunch of sharp pointy bits glued together.
That airplane, your Rafale or Rachel or whatever you call her, would look a lot prettier without that refueling probe sticking out prominently in the breeze. It's like a big wart on an otherwise pretty woman's face.
Grand Daddy's A-6 has a plumbing pipe like that sticking out. It's old fashioned:
In addition, that pipe, which looks to be close three feet long, probably creates siignificat drag as well as a noticeable humming or buzzing sound which can be heard in the cockpit..
Can't D'Assault devise a retractable refueling probe for the sexy, curved, aggressive Rafale? It would improve her looks.
Last edited by Modern Elmo; 5th Feb 2012 at 01:40.
I flew for years those fighters with the extended probe (F1, 2000) and also the ones with the retractable device (Jaguar, Super-Etendard) Regarding drag, as you always have external loads nowadays, it's not such a big deal.
Having the probe permanently and rigidly extended (isn'it ?) means that it would not suffer from an electric or hydraulic failure, and stay inside the body when needed...
The diameter of the radar in post 105 looks quite small, smaller than typhoon. How much smaller is the Rafale scanner in diameter when compared to captor/ECR-90?
In general, the radar aperture (antenna area) doubles with a 1.41 times increase in diameter. With all else being constant it takes an increase in aperture of 10x to double the range of a radar. Technologies like AESA antennas increase the output and sensitivity of a radar for any given size. Advanced T/R module technology and smaller T/R modules also do that. PESAs generally reduce sensitivity. Both types of ESAs allow instantaneous beam steering and high beam focus. Only the AESA can form multiple beams simultaneously.
The problem with radar improvements is that while output and sensitivity gains have increased radar performance by about 20~30x in the past 30 years translating to an increase in range for a given physical aperture of up to 2.6 times. The advent of VLO airframes has reduced RCS to roughly 1/1000~1/10000th that of 4th generation jets. To make up for this through radar improvements will require an improvement of radar performance by 1000~10000x which is not projected to be possible with known and projected technological road maps.
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 42
Posts: 323
Don't forget that the next RBE2 will be an AESA WITH sidelobe antennas, greatly improving Field Of View without needing a gimball and total number of T/R sensors is not limited by the nose diameter.
Something which was also planned for the F22 BTW but never materialized.
Andrew gilligan says it had the 'latest' ESA radar in Libya - surely this would have been the pesa version, which I thought was largely considered a technology deadend and not as good as captor?
I'll admit the true aesa due in rafale from 2013 production - should - be better, but who knows, they said that about the pesa.
I thought aperture size would always be linked to range, all other things being equal. Radar equation hasn't changed I don't think.
I doubt radar range played much of a role - the IAF is transitioning to AEW-controlled sorties so the drop in effective range, if less, wasn't a top priority. Also, isn't the current CAPTOR mechanical while the RBE2 a phased array?
Anyway, it has been proved that THIS is the reason the Rafale won:
DT running a very balanced, sensible and well written article by Andrew Gilligan:
Turbulence ahead with Indian jet deal - Telegraph
Also points to the German lead as a limfac.....
The Telegraph article starts like that:
Quote:
By preferring the French Rafale jet rather than the British-built Typhoon, they rejected, according to the Prime Minister, a “superb aircraft with far better capabilities”.
A reminder:
Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH (English: Eurofighter Fighter aircraft GmbH) is a multinational company that co-ordinates the design, production and upgrade of the Eurofighter Typhoon, this includes incorporating the jet engines designed and manufactured by EuroJet Turbo GmbH.
Founded in 1986, it has its head office in Hallbergmoos, Bavaria, Germany. The company is made up of the major aerospace companies of the four Eurofighter partner nations.
46%: EADS
-----33% EADS Deutschland GmbH (Germany)
-----13% EADS CASA (Spain) 33%: BAE Systems (United Kingdom) 21%: Alenia Aeronautica (Italy)
Cameron wrongly comparing the French Rafale and the "British-built Typhoon" tells a lot about the accuracy in the second statement of his sentence: superb aircraft with far better capabilities.
For an Air Force without aircraft carrier, the Typhoon could be a choice.
Fact is that in 2012 in the Airplanes (Airbus/Dassault), helicopters (Eurocopter), space (Arianespace) and nuclear (Areva) top industry Europe could do without UK, but definitely not without France. A fact that Cameron should understand before comparing his "British-built Typhoon and French Rafale".
...............At a more immediate level, the decision to buy the fighters, which has been greeted with unabashed glee in Paris, could provide the leverage for India to hold France to its promise of increasing cooperation across a whole range of areas, but especially in the nuclear and defence fields, including the greater sharing of technology and expertise. Of particular interest to New Delhi, is the question of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) equipment transfers. The Nuclear Suppliers Group reneged on its 2008 bargain with India last year by banning the sale of ENR items but France — a key member of the nuclear cartel — has said it will not be bound by the new restrictions. The French must now be held to their word..................
rds, and is tearing up the next cheque.
