India FINALLY signed for their Rafales.

>>31429238
Prepare for a lot of namecalling and butthurt from russboos.

Does it come with a varient that has poo designated area behind the cockpit?

>>31429273
Aren't Pajeets buying more Su-30s ?

>>31429282
They had to remove a hardpoint to accomodate the chemichal toilets pod.

>>31429289
>Aren't Pajeets buying more Su-30s ?
Thought they drop that idea, since to many russian plane broke down maintance wise.

>>31429301
It think it's their MiG-29s that are complete shit, the Flankers work pretty well, and since they stopped putting money in the PAK FA, they're gonna need some heavy fighter at some point.

>#RafaleDeal: So it is now clear no #MakeInIndia component or #ToT for 36 Rafale. First delivery in 36 Months. Meteor, Scalp #missiles.

https://twitter.com/kalyugikalki/status/779223635789623296

File: 1456345651909.png (95KB, 918x1024px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 918x1024px

FACT: India will become a superpower by 2020.

>>31429376
POO

>>31429238
It only took them FIFTEEN YEARS to get the stick out of their ass

so uh... how bout that PAKFA? looking good right?

>>31429376
And China will be on Mars by 2020 as well. Yeah sure

File: Rafale and drogue from RAAF KC-30.jpg (229KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1600x1066px

I wonder if the Indian navy will pick up on this if their next carriers are CTOL.

>>31429238
About fucking time.

>>31429273
Why would they?

The Russians are making a killing over Su-30s and MiG-29s.

Not to mention they recently renegotiated the FGFA, for 100 planes.

>>31429376
>>31429385
INDIA WILL BE THE LONE SUPOOPOWER
CHINA WILL NOT GROW STRONGER
AMERICA WILL FALL

YOUR LOOS WILL QUAKE IN FEAR

So if I got this straight.

They're getting hundreds of Su-30s from Russia. Upgrading their Mirage 2000s and MiG-29s. Will produce Tejas to replace most of their MiG-21s and MiG-27s, and FGFA/PAK FA will actually go ahead.

>>31429401
Yeah.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-and-russia-agree-on-details-of-new-joint-production-of-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft/articleshow/54203573.cms

>>31429406
I think they are already on it as Indian Navy held talks with Dassault earlier this year

>>31429355
>Trusting them with Meteor

fuck me

>>31429289
They are.
They are also upgrading their remaining Su 30 fleet to the latest standard under a 8 billion $ contract

>>31429312
Do you realize that the Rafale can carry more weapons than the Su 35?
Up to 15 tons, 150% of its own weight.

The "med/heavy" distinction is moot.

>>31429516
>Up to 15 tons, 150% of its own weight.
Its 9.5 tons with absolute maximum payload, and it will carry two drop tanks anyway. Su-35 can carry full 8 tons of actual weaponry and still have his 9 tons of fuel without using any of its hardpoints. Compare the range, retard.

>>31429405
>China will be on Mars by 2020
does china believe that?

>>31429549
but it's still a shit tier russian jet

>>31429574
>but it's still a shit tier russian jet


Not even that anon, but you can quit posting if you're going to suck frog cock, m8.

>>31429574
>o-our jet can carry 15tons! I swear! Its actually 9 o-ok. And 2/3 of it is fuel. And we have to use our best centerline and inner wing hardpoints to carry drop tanks cuz without them it will run out of juice at the end of the runway. But your jet is shit! SHIT!

>>31429427
>hundreds of Su-30s from Russia
From India, they make their Su-30MKI's themselves. They already got hundreds of them and are getting something like 50 more for total of around 300
>Upgrading their Mirage 2000s
The cost of the upgrade program was a bit steep and waste of money imho, but that's their nuclear delivery platform until Rafale takes over that role and it seems the India's strategic arm didn't want to risk any further delays in MRCA
>and MiG-29s.
IN is going to keep theirs in the roster until the new carriers are operational so might as well do the same with Air Force as the fighter shortage they have is getting severe and 29's are not that old compared to rest of the scrap metal they are flying
>Will produce Tejas to replace most of their MiG-21s and MiG-27s,
and Jaguars. 1 for 1 comparing what replaces what however isn't that accurate as all their new fighters have multirole capabilities
>and FGFA/PAK FA will actually go ahead.
Don't believe everything you read, it's been going forward just fine this whole time

>>31429549
If the speculations are correct it'll be something like 10.5 tons for Indian Rafales as they are getting theirs with upgraded engines

>>31429592
http://defense-update.com/20140127_rafale_omnirole_configuration.html

9.5 tons of payload, and 4.7 tons of extra fuel.

My point stands : a Rafale's payload can be heavyer than a Su 35's.

File: Rafale (3).jpg (2MB, 3266x1937px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3266x1937px

Pretty happy for my girl, Rafale.

Wasn't so long ago everyone made fun of her for no sales.

Egypt - 24
Qatar - 24
and now India -36

>>31429593
>>31429625
>If the speculations are correct it'll be something like 10.5 tons for Indian Rafales as they are getting theirs with upgraded engines
Irrelevant, since internal fuel load is, like, 4 tons? Yeah, it can take off with 10.5 tons, immediately request refuel and then request it every 300km. Or it has to use significant part of its payload to carry 2-3 drop tanks that HAVE to be on centerline and inner wing hardpoints. And hardpoints have weight limits themselves. Guess what hardpoints can carry most load. Yeah, its centerline and two on inner wings. Which leaves us with 8 hardpoints. Su-35 still has its 12 hardpoints at this point, plus space for 9 tons of fuel, and still has more range.
>My point stands : a Rafale's payload can be heavyer than a Su 35's.
With fuel, yes.

>>31429625
You specified weapons to begin with, so you're just retarded. But if you're talking STORES capacity;

9500kg hardpoints, 4700kg fuel
vs
8000kg hardpoints, 11500kg fuel

Guess which one is heavier, genius.

>>31429625
>9.5 tons of payload, and 4.7 tons of extra fuel.
Gay as fuck.
Su-34:
12(others say 14) t hardpoints, 12.1 t fuel

>>31429436

I wonder if the proposed Japan-UK upgraded seeker Meteor will be as widely available. Part of me hopes Japan forbids wider technology transfer as part of the contract.

http://www.janes.com/article/57196/japan-reveals-details-of-joint-missile-project-with-uk

File: CCZg484UgAILxw9.jpg (22KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1024x683px

>>31429632
Don't get me involved in this shitposting montage, I completelly agree with you that comparing the two is retarded because pic related size difference
t. >>31429593

>>31429632
>Yeah, its centerline and two on inner wings.
There's 5 points that can handle heavy loads, only 3 that can do something as massive as the 2000L subsonic tanks (the 1250L supersanics are fine in any of the 5), but most ordinance is much lighter than that. The typical load for strike missions (for example in Syria) has been 3 2000L, 6 250-500lb bombs, pod and at least one MICA (sensor fusion makes use of the IIRS in them)

>>31429714
>Don't get me involved in this shitposting montage, I completelly agree with you that comparing the two is retarded because pic related size difference
Fair enough.
>There's 5 points that can handle heavy loads, only 3 that can do something as massive as the 2000L subsonic tanks (the 1250L supersanics are fine in any of the 5), but most ordinance is much lighter than that. The typical load for strike missions (for example in Syria) has been 3 2000L, 6 250-500lb bombs, pod and at least one MICA (sensor fusion makes use of the IIRS in them)
So, 1380kg of actual weapons. Which is the entire point of our special olympics here.
>at least one MICA (sensor fusion makes use of the IIRS in them)
Which is actually the only thing Su-35 needs desperately to compete against Rafale. Su-30MKI have Litenings tho.

>>31429516
Flankers are better at air to air.

Remind me again. Why does /k/ hate the Rafale?

>>31429812
Overpriced

No BVR weapon since introduction, and will begin to recieve a gimped version of the Meteor 2 years from now.

Frenchfag shilling

>>31429812
/k/ hates every single plane because /k/ isn't one entity.

But the main arguments agaisnt the Rafale are :

High cost per unit compared to other planes.
Poor A2A capabilities, especially in BVR.
Limited RCS reducing features.

>>31429812

I remember the day that everyone hated Typhoons and loved Rafale.

>>31429826

What's been gimped about the french Meteor?

>>31429833
One way datalink instead of two ways

>>31429828
>High cost per unit compared to other planes.
It seems to be indeed a bit above Typhoon, though there are so many additional items in these contracts it is hard to judge a "per unit" price. But it gets competitive when you take into account airframe life, engine life and sortie rate. A dollar of Rafale pays for a lot of plane in the air.

>Poor A2A capabilities, especially in BVR.
granted. I hope the Rafale will get a 2-ways datalink for the Meteor at some point.

Limited RCS reducing features.
>It has acceptable RCS and very strong e-war, the existence of one and a half 5th gen planes out there able to perform combat missions hardly make 4.5 obsolete overnight.

>>31429273
and ameriboos, and yuroboos, and swecuckboos, and chinaboos, and everyone else and their respective shills.

Fuck you all. Rafale stronk.

>>31429934
Yeah, the Rafale is definetly cheaper to fly than some of its alternatives, and it's really reliable.

I'm not sure about the 2 ways link, if it's not planned it might be because the plane isn't equipped for it.

The Rafale protoype actually had some kind of RAM coating, as well as an airbrake, but those were ditched in the production series.

Its countermeasure systems is really good though, but especially tailored towards ground threats, like the rest of the plane.

>>31429833
>What's been gimped about the french Meteor?
Meteor uses different data link than MICA and French air force opted to modify the hundred or so Meteors they get in the first patch to use link that is compabtible with the one that is already in the planes and in the 9000 MICAs they have as they don't have infinite budget to play with. Bang for buck is what matters, once MICA goes through its upcoming modernisation the Meteor will get its two-way as well. That early-mid 2020's timeframe would also match with the proposed cheek/comformal AESA antenna upgrade (the real advantage of two-way link comes when its combined with wide radar FOV)

>>31429934
>hardly make 4.5 obsolete overnight

Thinking in such short terms is the mistake.

There are two US 5th gens in service, many countries have programs, as well as a few beginning to put their designs into production. You don't buy a plane because its good right now, you buy it because it would be useful for its entire service life. Which the Rafale won't be unless you're using it as a bomb truck.

Apparently the contract is 10.000 pages thick. At that point i can't even imagine what the hell could be in here.

The need for Rafale is at least 5 squadrons of 16-18 planes. I fail to see how they could put the assembly line off the ground before dassault could be ready to deliver 18 more planes, and at that point you have to wonder wether it is worth building local. My bet is that they will cut the future orders into small batches and buy all Rafales off the shelf, but with the significant amount of local reinvestment they ask from Dassault they mostly get what they actually want, and it's not like it is wasted money for Dassault either to developp their aeronautics industries in that part of the world.

>>31430076
Its is not like everyone will run fifth gen in 25 or even 50 years. Pakistan surely wont. Even US will most likely still have 4+ in service in 25 years.

>>31430097
No, of course not. Some countries still fly 3rd gen aircraft. But those generally aren't the threats you worry about.

But the US isn't buying NEW 4th gens. Its replacing them. F22 has replaced air superiority, F35 is replacing strike mission aircraft, and the F/A-XX (scheduled for 2025) is replacing the Hornets. So in 25 years? No. Nothing frontline will be 4th gen anymore.

>>31430076
too bad most 5gen planes have actually critical flaw that need a least a good 5 years of ironning out ebfore being comabt worthy...

maybe takign rafale isnt the "best choice" long terme but at least they work.

f22 an f35 still have massiv problem with pretty much every part of the planes

>>31429934
>>31430097
>>31430076
>>31430131
>5th gen
Let's hear it from Dassault themselves what they think about your generation nonsense:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=4765987
>"Frankly, sir, no. We consider this discussion about the generations as a pure marketing tool. Ever since the end of World War II, the philosophy of our company has been to develop successive prototypes and improve them with the improvements in technology. Our experience comes from the development and the building of more than 100 prototypes since 1946. Each time, we have built step by step on progressive improvements from one aircraft to the other."
>"Regarding the Rafale, I explained to you that one of the founding principles of the Rafale design is a very open, very high-growth potential thanks to an open architecture. That means what? That means that Rafale entered service in 2004 with the French navy. Today, we are in 2010. We have already seen three different improved standards within the Rafale system: F-1, which was purely air-to-air; F-2, which was air-to-air and air-to-ground; F-3, which is an improvement on F-2 with the added capabilities in anti-shipping missiles, reconnaissance, nuclear strike, and so on."
>"Rafale is not a frozen aircraft. Rafale has an evolutionary concept in its systems that allows it to keep pace with the development of the technologies, and there will be successive standards and improvements throughout the 30 years of the operational life of Rafale."
>"Now, how does a generation fit into this concept? Is F-3 going to be 4.87 generation; and F-4, tomorrow I shall wake up and say that today I'm going to be 5.3 generation? No, not really. The philosophy for the development of Rafale is completely different and is out of this generation debate."
>Mr. Yves Robins, [at the time] Assistant Director, International General Directorate, Dassault Aviation

>>31429273
>200 Su-30MKI
>Bought another 72
>B-but muh 36 Rafales after years of negotiations, Russia BTFO r-right guys?..
Kek.

>>31429430
>>31429406
Also with Boeing but you don't see anyone claiming we are gonna get Super Hornets do you? and this is when we are negotiating EMALS for IAC-II(Vishal).
Nothing is planned beyond taking deliveries for the remaining Fulcrum-Ds for a total of 45.

>>31430157
Who cares what he says? All the big boys use the generation label. I'm sure the opinion of the country with what, the sixth best Air Force maybe, is very relevant.

>>31430251
Generations are still pretty subjective though.
Look how Ruskies claim the PAK FA is 5th gen, while LockMart says it isn't

>>31430265
True. Its not like it cant be argued that F-35 isnt fifth gen.

>>31430274
Yeah, that's the thing, I think the standard for each generation is more or less set by the most advanced aircraft at a given time.

>>31430281
No, you see, there is problem with that. Is F-35 more advanced than F-22? Sensors-wise yes, definitely. Propulsion wise F-35 cant into supercuise, stealth wise F-35 is most likely aslo inferior. So which one of them is more advanced?

Didnt Brazil buy 36 Gripen Es for like 4,7 billion USD?

How much did this deal cost?

>>31430338
Just looked it up, 9 billion USD. Seems like a shitty deal to me.

>>31429238
Give it a month. Something will go wrong and they'll go back to the Russians. Then a month after that, back to the Rafale.

How long has this been going on now? It's comedic at least.

>>31430338
Package deals, you can't just divide the bottom line with number of planes. More than half of that Brazil deal for example is from setting up a production line (to build far more than those initial 36).

>How much did this deal cost?
7.8bn euroloos of which 2.7bn is the planes themselves

>>31429739

Said no one ever.

>>31429631
There's reason to be proud. The Rafale is a good fighter. It beat the F22 hands down.

(yes, yes, pilot was dead from being choked, engine was from a go-kart, the kookoobird lens was more powerfuler than stuff, wah wah, wah. We get it, your self-esteem is based on a plane.)

>>31430412
>luneburg lenses aren't real
Get a load of this guy.

>We get it, your self-esteem is based on a plane.

4 seconds before this

>There's reason to be proud.

Jesus Christ.

>>31429312
They've expressed interest in upgrading the 1st gen Flanker fleet

>>31429376
They need a decent carrier. Viraat is obv. being decommisioned, Vikramaditya ( a reworked, redecked Kiev) is a ski jump carrier but at least it has 25-30 years left in her.
They could buy the Kitty Hawk, it will cost billions to refit and probably only last 20 years but they could have a supercarrier by 2020 instead of waking up one day to a china that has several

>>31429631
It's bullshit that she isn't making more sales, she's better than Typhoon

>>31429739
Maybe the later flankers - Su-35,upgraded/second gen Su-27's - the difference is minimal. besides range

>>31430399
>Brazil
>producing gen 4.5 fighters
>The best they ever did was make a jet trainer
I forsee alot of teething issues

>>31430513
I actually think that women with huge asses will be better than guys from designated shitting street.

>>31430491
>No HMD
>Not integrated with any foreign A2A weaponry and almost no foreign A2G weaponry aside from Paveways, no current plans to do so either
>No full Meteor capability

I'll take the Typhoon thanks.

>>31430543
Only the Gripen C has Meteor capability today.

>>31430563
Yes, but the Rafale will only be capable of one-way datalink with Meteor when it gets it.

>>31430571
Thats correct.

I really dont understand why the indians would want the Rafale anyway...

>>31430543
>I'll take the Typhoon thanks
How's that AESA coming along?

>>31430491
>she's better than Typhoon

That depends on exactly what you want. However, Typhoon's future looks far brighter then Rafale's.

File: rafale, raptor and typhoon.jpg (2MB, 4928x3280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4928x3280px

Come on guys, let's be friends.

It's China that's the bad guy.

Fuck the J-XX series.

>>31430092
Toilet paper perhaps?

>>31430131
Are you drunk again, Spey?

>>31430661
See OP. India just bought 36 Rafales, the contract signed stipulates Dassault to set up production in India. Originally India was looking for 126 jets (+another 90 + ~50 for the navy) but HAL is such a joke that they couldn't deliver. Do the math.

And speaking of future prospects, Dassault & co have been producing high tech upgrades (especially Thales) for the plane on time and within reasonable budget for a decade now which tells that their talk about high-growth potential open architechture is not just marketing bullshit. Just compare the timelines and budgets it took to get AESA in service between EF and Rafale, and please try not to commit suicide senpai.

>>31430594
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/typhoon-captor-e-awaits-flight-testing-as-kuwait-con-423938/

>>31430274
Depending were you put the threshold in RCS reducing measures you could perfectly see Rafale and Typhoon at 5th gen. It's mostly semantics and marketing tools decided by LockMart and friends.

>>31430805
>the contract signed stipulates Dassault to set up production in India

No, that was part of the M-MRCA contract which was cancelled before signing. All 36 are off the shelf, and i'm ready to bet they will at the very least by 18 more planes off the shelf, though it requires Dassault to reinvest a signifcant part of the deal's benefits in India, which is not an overly shitty prospect considering their ambitions for ALCA and AMCA.

>>31430543
>No automatic terrain following feature
>inferior cockpit layout
>inferior sortie rate
>inferior engine life (it seems to be corrected now however)
>inferior airframe life (seems to be corrected as well)
>no strategic strike capability
>no full 360° IR surveillance at same range in all direction
>inferior Ewar suite, might be around 110% of the peak power of Rafale but only around 50% of beamforming precision

I could cherry-pick as well the other way around. Each to their own. Both are perfectly solid.

>>31430974
It depends. If you consider the PAK FA 5th gen with it's .1m^2 RCS, the Rafale and Typhoon aren't too far off from that (it's about the difference between them and the PAK FA as the estimated difference between the F-22 and F-35). A clean Rafale or Typhoon could probably match that RCS though there'd be no point. That's part of the reason some people don't consider the PAK FA 5th gen though, so it all depends on your perspective I suppose.

Nice. India will be a useful American partner to counterbalance China. Make India strong.

>>31429273
Bait is bait

>>31430805
>Just compare the timelines and budgets it took to get AESA in service between EF and Rafale, and please try not to commit suicide senpai.

Program mismanagement is not related to the actual airframe itself. Typhoon's lacking in certain areas comes from Eurofighter consortium mismanagement.

>>31429405
China will eat itself.

>>31429812
/k/ is 90% butthurt Americans

>>31429739
>much lower RCS
>much better electronics
>better IRST
>better HMDS
>Mica
>Meteor

Yeah man, Flankers are so much better.

>>31430770
Pretty much this. The Rafale is a great option for countries that can't go full fifth gen yet, and it's got a beautiful cockpit layout.

>>31431044
Not really.

>>31431134

Both China and India are a hotpot of social problems.

>>31431136
I don't think that's it. The Rafale isn't really a major competitor to the F-35 anywhere where that decision is still up in the air. It's more the Gripen right now, since the main factor is cost.

>>31431172
>Not really.
India + Rafales + Meteor = Dead Chinks

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21707562-india-wise-speak-softly-it-could-do-bigger-stick-guns-and-ghee

>16% flight readiness for Mig-29K
>looking for a new assault rifle since 1982
>78% of tanks incapable of use
>aircraft carrier originally due in 2010. Not expected before 2023.

Will you guys stop shitting on countries that don't design everything domestically now?

>>31431195
You're assuming Indian pilots are any good.

That said we don't know if Chink pilots are any good either, but still. Good equipment doesn't make a good military, just look at the Saudis.

>>31430974
No, the MMRCA envisaged HAL making the jets under licence and ToT, that thing however didn't pan out. This contract and its offset clauses do it differently and stipulate that France needs to invest certain % of the total contract back to Indian aviation industry, i.e get Indian industrial base up to snuff to manufacture Rafale parts. Kickstart like that is needed to get the MII stuff to actually work, the contracts, details to follow, for those additional jets come at a later date

Get in here you fags

>>31431152

File: SR_DSF6870.jpg (196KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1000x669px

>>31431094
Program (mis)management playes huge role in future prospects of the platform senpai.

>>31431226
how did I do?

>>31431136
Most of them are americans for sure but they aren't thath hostile toward the Rafale

>>31430157
Muh growth

Call me when it gets an upgrade package to not have an RCS >1m2 and we'll talk about generations being irrelevant

>>31431195
Lel this is delusional

>>31431364
Effectively the active cancelation tech it has might actually be doing much better than that already as they have been rolling out SPECTRA GaN upgrades to their in service planes since early 2015 (in comparison Growler might get GaN based EW sometime past 2020, F-35 2025+). If you were talking about structural stealth improvements then that's more of a Rafale MLU territory

>>31431523
Well, calm the fuck down anon, I'm quite the Rafalefag myself and even I have fair doubt about the fabled active noise cancelation tech.
SPECTRA is solid as all fuck and i'll leave it at that so far.

File: CoXqDGqUMAATZJN.jpg (131KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x720px

>>31431691
>noise
Nope, you are mixing things with the older style noise jamming that is all about blasting the sky so full of em radiation that it becomes harder for real radar signals to be heard. Growlers for example are excelent platforms at this flying behind the plane it is protecting making it extremely hard to target it from the front. Active cancelation in Rafale however is completelly different beast.

The material that is in public about how it works is scarce for obvious reasons but its been said that it works by matching radar energy reflecting from the plane with EW system generated pulse that is exactly at half wavelenght offset so the waves cancel each other out. Conceptually it's fairly trivial to work out what needs to be done, engineering challenges is the hard part.

>>31431195
This is delusional, even the chinks know India isn't worth the effort.
They only have a handful of units near India, anyone who tries crossing the mountains is going to get destroyed.

>>31430794
well i dotn consider a plane tha tneed its engine to work at 80% power to avoid fire and potential control lock a finished product.

once finished it will be excellent but we are far from here. the DOT still think their are lots of problem witht he f35

>>31431931
Considering that I specificaly wrote the words "active noise cancelation", i fail to understand how you could imagine i mixed it with power jamming. And you are a moron if you think that growlers only perform this, there are a multitude of ways to perform active jamming without simply raining power down from the sky.

You are welcome to deliver any substantiable proof or public material, as you claim there is, that the Rafale is actualy equipped with active noise cancelation technology besides situational hints here and there like the Mace XIII exercise. For all we know it could just be very strong at traditional jamming.

And trust me I want to believe the active cancelation theory to be true.

>Conceptually it's fairly trivial to work out what needs to be done, engineering challenges is the hard part.

No shit sherlock

File: Happy Rafale.jpg (100KB, 728x1029px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 728x1029px

>>31429631

>>31432831
oh God, may it be serious this time, I feel so sorry for her...

File: 1448827244772.jpg (865KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 2048x1363px

Step 1 of creating the worlds most aesthetic air force complete. Now they just need Super Hornets.

File: Rafale.jpg (139KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1600x1063px

>>31430974

>I could cherry-pick as well the other way around.

Some of your cherrypicks are incorrect though. I agree that both are excellent planes, but in the interests of accuracy:

>No automatic terrain following feature
It's had this for a while, just via different means. Same system the RAF developed for low level flying in Tornados.
>inferior cockpit layout
They're both just different. Typhoon has a rightful rep as being very comfortable and easy to control, and it has both HMD and Striker II augmented reality displays, while Rafale has touchscreen and side mounted stick.
>inferior sortie rate
Never been independantly verified on comparible versions.
>inferior engine life (it seems to be corrected now however)
EJ-200 has very high engine life and reliability. It's hitting a very notable reputation for it right now.
>no strategic strike capability
2017 for Storm Shadow integration, so absolutely has it. They've already live fired.
>no full 360° IR surveillance at same range in all direction
>inferior Ewar suite, might be around 110% of the peak power of Rafale but only around 50% of beamforming precision
Praetorian was integrated ages ago, which does many of the same things in different ways. At Red Flag (notably the harshest EW environment of any exercise in the world) it went completely undetected by Russian/Chinese equivilent radars, much like how Rafale went undetected by the S-300 in an exercise. Both excellent systems.

Same thing as anyone who knows both planes says. Rafale has the longer legs for range, naval variant, some edges in the EW spectrum and has had a faster development cycle. Typhoon has the higher performance, superior munitions selection and larger on board systems.

Rafale is EXACTLY what France needs. And thats the biggest thing that matters.

It's also fucking sexy. I mean jesus christ look at those curves.

>>31432887
How many fuel tanks does she need?

>>31431931
>Implying doing that with energetic, LPI AESAs is feasible

>>31433067
Deep strike load-out obviously.
So as many as possible.

>>31432721
Oh but you used the word "noise" you dindu, specially crafted radar pulse that matches the reflection from your own plane with a half wavelenght delay can in no shape or form be considered "noise", get that to your thick skull.

>>31432721
>You are welcome to deliver any substantiable proof or public material, as you claim there is, that the Rafale is actualy equipped with active noise cancelation technology besides situational hints here and there like the Mace XIII exercise. For all we know it could just be very strong at traditional jamming.
If you are actually interested then start with Fox Three's and Thales marketing material, Air&Cosmos and few other French publications over the past decade have had quite nice articles as well

>>31433331
No but the received radiation can be considered as noise in the broadest range of the term, that you have to cancel, which is the very exact definition of the principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control

Get that to you own oxygen depleted brain, my chromosome-enriched friend.

>>31433094
Frogs can't air refuel?

>>31433741
It's more of no one wants to send up tankers to get lit up constantly by Syrian & Russian radars.

>>31433067
Considering 4,7t of internal fuel capacity - three. Either that or craptons of tankers.

File: B-be gentle, Senpai...webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>31433741

File: 193.png (500KB, 916x984px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 916x984px

>>31433842

How will the pilots poop?

>>31434156
They have designated shitting airlanes.

>>31434156
While we don't have all the details public yet we know that 20% of the contract price is from India specific modifications to the plane, I'm sure they'll find an acceptable solution to the issue with a budget like that

>>31433842
I wonder how much spare fuel a plane can transfer and how much further it can go. And if it is really worth it. To me a fighter can't carry that much fuel.

File: oh rly.jpg (119KB, 992x623px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 992x623px

>>31430483
Do tell me how the Luneberg lens mounted below is affecting the radar return on the top.
>inb4....I still think the Raptor is the best there is. And more should be made. But a Rafale is good too.

>>31435007
>>31435007
Not him but I believe at very short ranges the lens wouldn't make a difference anyway. As stealth as the F-22 is, the AESA radar and/or the IRST of the Rafale would certainly manage to get a lock at this distance.

But I'm not an expert so feel free to correct me.

>>31435298
You're correct, at dogfighting ranges stealth makes absolutely fuck all difference.

>>31435298
Yeah, at this distance not even a head first Have Blue could evade a radar lock. Not even mentioning the IRST.
Meh, I'm just bored with all this chattering about nothing. There's no 100% effective technology and no invincible equipment anyway. This is just the usual "stop liking what I don't like" kind of thing.

>>31429376

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl0b2LGf9jM

>>31435007
This is about as stupid as those
"hrr how can it be stealth if i can just see it with my eyes hrr burger BTFO"-posts

>>31435582
What?
I was talking about the position of the reflector in relation to the position of the Raptor when seen by the radar. In that particular situation. And how the only reflection (in that particular situation, when viewed from the top) would be from the airframe not the lens. Viewed as in scanned by the radar.
Or maybe you meant something else. My internet doesn't do sarcasm.

File: aaok.jpg (66KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 450x600px

>>31435571
Perfect.

>>31436043
Holy shit what a qt. Would so hard.

>>31432846
She's got solid orders from Egypt and Qatar, 24 each.

>>31436778
Yeah she's insanely beautiful

File: ChiukASXEAAuj9k.jpg (157KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 2048x1365px

>>31430543
>No HMD
What benefit would a HMD even give to Rafale as it can already shoot MICAs at any target 360deg around the plane. I know Indians are throwing some money to get theirs with Israeli HMD (likely Elbit DASH IV), but what for?

>>31441110
>What benefit would a HMD even give to Rafale as it can already shoot MICAs at any target 360deg around the plane. I know Indians are throwing some money to get theirs with Israeli HMD (likely Elbit DASH IV), but what for?
Wrong. Rafales have only demonstrated the ability to shoot "over the shoulder" when the target was illuminated by another aircraft. There's no proof that Rafales can shoot "360" alone.

>>31435571
It's not India 2030. It's London 2016.

>>31441176
>no proofs
Good god. The plane has 360deg IR visibility around it and even SPECTRA feeding targeting grade data to the same sensor fusion of course it can shoot using its own sensors. Being able to utilize sensors of another plane is even more impressive feat

>>31441110
HMD will be more usefull for AtG than AtA for opportunity target.

>>31429631
And unlike the EF the Rafales were actually sold at a profit. The EF's sold to SA were basically given away in a last ditch bid to keep the plants from shutting down.

>>31429826
>Overpriced

Not really. When you add all the Tranche upgrades to the EF (which are needed to make the EF more than just a glorified interceptor) the Rafale is competitive.

>>31441429
Now, I'm happy for the Rafale, but that's no reason to make up blatant lies.

Unless you're a Chicom.

Typhoon sales to the Saudis still made a profit, they just had better terms if the consortium had more time to spare and they also made additional savings by using some of the UK's production slot.

>>31431000
>A clean Rafale or Typhoon could probably match that RCS
Highly doubt this. Rafale has that horrendous refueling probe, the gap between the inlet lip and the frame, and of course the canards, and the Tyffie has those except for the probe but in turn the godawful IRST. The only holdup with PAK-FA is the supposed non-stealthy inlet that is only partially serpentine and supposedly would use a radar blocker, which is a canard because the YF-23 had almost the same inlet design and yet it was considered stealthier than the YF-22.

File: BFMtraining.jpg (1MB, 1142x1752px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1142x1752px

>>31441110

HMDs are enormously beneficial in target cueing, retaining information where-ever you look, being capable of single plane "over the shoulder" arc shots, being able to target anywhere in general and having to do much much less by turning back to the main displays and physically reaching forward.

They're a game changer.

Also, MICA is hardly unique in being able to launch high off-bore shots. AIM-9X, IRIS-T and ASRAAM can all do it too. HMD helps in this process enormously. Rafale pilots have admitted in the past to being surprised by planes that use both HOBS mssiles AND an HMD at once. (Pic related)

>>31441334

I'm pretty certain it's IR -detection- spherically, the OSF IRST is not a 360 degree view like the F-35's DAS system.

I am willing to be proven wrong on that one though. I'm not massively familiar with the OSF and Pirate IRSTs compared to the F-35s. However I never did hear anything of Rafale having IRST cameras around its fuselage to look through, and it being mounted on the front of the plane would mean it can't see 360.

>Being able to utilize sensors of another plane is even more impressive feat

It's actually pretty normal amongst 4.5th gens.

>>31441512

Thats not entirely how you decide RCS though. They both have the superior ducts, they likely have more advanced RAM and the Typhoon at least has a canard management system to keep it as low as possible. Bear in mind the T-50 is likely to gain "doodads" on the outer fuselage as well.

>>31442054
The Rafale pilots did have a HMD in dotation but it was heavy as all fuck in their opinion and extremely uncomfortable when maneuvering and they considered the drawback to outweigh the benefits as that they got enough situational awareness out of the cockpit's visual and sound interface. There are rumors that they'll get a new one "soon™" (as Thales bought that manufacturer, Visionix) around a Scorpion HMD over each eye.

>I'm pretty certain it's IR -detection- spherically, the OSF IRST is not a 360 degree view like the F-35's DAS system.

Most recent version of Rafale doesn't have IR channel on the OSF, the new 360° sensor mounted on the tail equals it in sensibility and has full coverage. In know one is square-ish and the other one is a tiny sphere, but can't remember which one is the new one.

>>31442138
When I say "in dotation", i should have said "dropped almost instantly when introduced to first pilots". It has never been in widespread use.

>>31442138

I think you might be confusing a few elements between IR detection and the actual IRST itself

It's the IRST that you target with for these, and the Rafale certainly doesn't have more than one IRST.

F-35 is the only fighter that has that full 360 bubble of effect, thats one of the most regularly touted and noted things that makes it unique. Rafale has good IR effects around it, but I am almost certain that it isn't all IRST level detection, tracking and targeting.

It feels to me like something is being mushed together in terms to try and give it an ability that it doesn't actually have, to be honest.

> on the tail equals it in sensibility and has full coverage

If it's on the tail then it doesn't have full coverage. Can't see through the plane. You need multiple systems to do that.

>>31441437
Its overpriced to be buying it now, when its more expensive than buying F-35As.

>>31442138

>Most recent version of Rafale doesn't have IR channel on the OSF, the new 360° sensor mounted on the tail equals it in sensibility and has full coverage. In know one is square-ish and the other one is a tiny sphere, but can't remember which one is the new one.

The one on the tail is an IR Array Detector, it's used purely as a missile warning system in the Spectra suite.

It is not an IRST that can be used to target missiles with in the same vein as the OSF-IT on the cockpit front. Thats a fantasy that one known Rafale blog mentioned incorrectly, and due to their popularity it started spreading.

>>31442258
>I'm pretty certain it's IR -detection- spherically, the OSF IRST is not a 360 degree view like the F-35's DAS system.
AFAIK the current version of OSF (the one that's at the front) has dropped the IR sensor all together and it's just near IR TV and laser rangefinder now. Main use of it is for visual long range target identification (something that ROE these days usually mandate). The old MAWS got replaced with DDM-NG that provides spherical IR coverage around the plane (and functions as a MAW).

You are right that there is no IR feed to pilots eyes, just automated target detection that gets processed and displayed in the main SA screen

>>31442258
Sorry I wasn't clear. The OSF has two sensors, a IR wide angle sensor (the leftmost blocky thing) and the TV/IR targetting sensor with laser rangefinder (the rightmost roundy thing). The left one is empty on the latest rafales (but left there for aerodynamic purposes) and the wide angle is managed solely by the tail mounted new fisheyes things, even it does have a blindspot below the plane it has apparently the same sensibility all around as the old frontal wide angle sensor, which most certainly beats the older system. When I used the term "360°" i was indeed thinking in a planar way around the plane, not a bubble, so your F-35 is safe it can still dickwave its bubble coverage. Does that make more sense to you?

>>31442390
AH! but yes, I re-read your first post and finally understand your point. No indeed it cannot target with it.

>>31442390
>>31442400

Yeah I think we've just been discussing things in circles with different terminology.

>>31442370
MBDA whose sensors those are lists targeting and situational awareness among the other applications that the high-quality imagery produced by the sensor can be used for

>Impossiple, no proofs, only F-35 can do that as it has the Official™ 5th-Gen® badge
BTFO

File: 27942095475_103ba3de61_h.jpg (380KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1600x1066px

>>31442138
>one is square-ish and the other one is a tiny sphere, but can't remember which one is the new one.
Browsed through my Rafale pics, it seems the oldest are definitely squares, then sphereres (Egyptian Rafales for example), then confusion as fresh pictures of French planes are showing those new black RWRs (Egyptian are still the previous gen greens) but with square sensors in the tail again. Going back to old style external housing as it works aerodynamically better, or what?

File: 38972_1329589844.jpg (1001KB, 1400x952px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 1400x952px

>28 C's
>8 B's
Interesting, wasn't India demanding twin seats left and right from all their past planes, what happen?

Also post more Rafales

File: CnQJ7iMWYAAh3Pb.jpg (64KB, 1092x800px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1092x800px

>>31443599

File: 141212_ER_Q7.jpg (63KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 667x1000px

>>31443606

File: RIAT2013PANV5805_zpsec4c9238.jpg (280KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1024x683px

>>31443617