MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
In that case uprating the M-88 is no big deal & can easily be accomplished for the Air Force Rafales as well during the MLU.
Damn !! Aussiebum here was under the impression this is going to be a monumental task . He'd be mighty disappointed to learn of this development.
@Optimist
Last edited:
Is it already available or you need to start the work?
How much money extra will cost for such upgrade?
I cannot give information to the competitor.
Do you realise how many years they have been saying about an engine upgrade? At least 10 that I know of. If it was simple and cheap, it would have been done by now.
Quite frankly except for the Russians I've not come across any other AF which changes / upgrades their engines within a span of 10 years & they have their reasons to do so .
The Lightnings could well be the exception to the rule.
It'd be very interesting to see how the Chinese go about their business now that they've gotten into indigenous development & mfg of engines in a big way replacing the Russian ones powering their birds in a fast paced manner , as I suspect they acquired a lot of their design & material skills & knowhow thru reverse engineering of Soviet / Russian designs.
The Lightnings could well be the exception to the rule.
It'd be very interesting to see how the Chinese go about their business now that they've gotten into indigenous development & mfg of engines in a big way replacing the Russian ones powering their birds in a fast paced manner , as I suspect they acquired a lot of their design & material skills & knowhow thru reverse engineering of Soviet / Russian designs.
The Rafale has had 3 engines so far. The US and 2 French models, M88 1 and 2. They were the ones talking about 9t, which is now 8.3t. I hope you don't mind if I wait and see. It may share a new engine with their next gen aircraft.
Last edited:
While it is well known that M88 can be easily rated to 83KN wet thrust without any changes to the air intakes of Rafale, but the timelines for recertification and proving the flight envelope remains unclear. SH has already been proven with newer engines.
Then I suppose it depends on whether the IN is fine with waiting. The French have at least 4 years, 1 year for negotiations and signature and 3 years for delivery.
It's interesting that Rafale's and SH's positions have been reversed since MMRCA. At that time the SH was promising a new engine and became one of the reasons for rejection.
IAF urgently needs to order more Rafales or MRFA's.
By end of 2024, China will probably complete deliveries of 36 J-10C and 30-32 JF-17 Blk3 to Pakistan, which means PAF will have 65+ AESA radar equipped fighters. Infact, it could be more as there are unconfirmed claims that PAF has ordered about 60 J-10C.
Meanwhile if no emergency order of MRFAs, IAF have at most 52 AESA radar equipped fighters by end of 2024 (36 Rafales and 16 Tejas Mk-1A); excluding Jag Darin 3.
Which means PAF will have some numerical edge in this category, unless IAF takes urgent steps.
On top of that IAF needs to cater for two fronts.
By end of 2024, China will probably complete deliveries of 36 J-10C and 30-32 JF-17 Blk3 to Pakistan, which means PAF will have 65+ AESA radar equipped fighters. Infact, it could be more as there are unconfirmed claims that PAF has ordered about 60 J-10C.
Meanwhile if no emergency order of MRFAs, IAF have at most 52 AESA radar equipped fighters by end of 2024 (36 Rafales and 16 Tejas Mk-1A); excluding Jag Darin 3.
Which means PAF will have some numerical edge in this category, unless IAF takes urgent steps.
On top of that IAF needs to cater for two fronts.
Any new purchase today will take years to arrive. We can only rely on what we have today.
I wouldn't be too worried about Pakistan though, the Rafale gives us a massive qualitative edge while the MKIs still retain their superiority over the JF-17s, even with AESA. Plus our slow procurement process is why we have focused on SAMs. The Pakistanis have only ineffective ways of dealing with our SAMs today.
Over China, we have a massive terrain advantage. The Chinese are unlikely to address that for many more years. We also retain a SAM advantage due to the terrain, not to mention technology, like the MRSAM.
I am only speculating THAT
If ( And that is a Big IF )
1 ) RVV --BD ,Astra mk2 and SFDR can become Substitutes of METEOR ,
2) and ALCM BRAHMOS
Becomes the Substitute of SCALP
3) SKY SHIELD and / or KHIBINY
and / or DRDO Jammers , All Together become the Substitute of SPECTRA ,
4) UTTAM MK 2 AESA or Russian AESA become substitute of RBE2 AESA
THEN how will IAF justify purchase of 114 Rafales
What will substitute Rafale's airframe?
You can replace the engines, avionics and weapons, but you can't replace the airframe.
Supercruise, low RCS and easier maintenance gives advantages that the MKI can't match.
The easier maintenance alone makes it many times superior to the MKI, up to 4 times. The turnaround time gives it 2x superiority. The surge capability of the Rafale extends to a month, the MKI cannot match that either.
These qualities explain why the CDG carrier was able to generate 80% of the missions of an American carrier when they were both in the Persian Gulf. And both ships were trying to generate as many missions as possible.
This performance is remarkable when one considers that the CDG at the time had only 12 Rafales and 16 Super étendards, while the American carriers had at least 80 fighters. In addition, the Super Standard is not more efficient in terms of maintenance than the American fighters.
Now that the CDG can carry 30 Rafales (it regularly carries 24) it is probably capable of generating as many missions as an American aircraft carrier.
As usual you're arguing in bad faith. The GE 404 was used in early prototypes as the M-88 was under development followed by M-88 Mk1 which was a TD used as proof of concept. The Mk-2 is what powers the aircraft today.
As far as the rest of the argument goes , let's wait & watch .
Because it doesn't conform to your pet peeves ? Sometimes I wonder if the Aussie mind can actually grasp complex / medium / heavy engineering as opposed to light engineering !
Does that explain the absolute lack of an indigenous automotive , aviation & space industry ?
Ever the optimist!
The GE404 was used in the tech demonstrator. (Of which only one was built.) It was a larger aircraft than the actual Rafale. After it was built, the "peace dividends" happened and the entire program was put on hold (no funding) for two years, before being restarted with updated requirements requiring a thorough redesign. Yes, the general shape was retained, but that's like comparing a Mirage III and a Mirage 2000.
There are more differences between the Rafale A and the Rafale C than between, say, the X-35A/B and the F-35B. (Note that the X-35A/B was powered by an F119 engine. So by the same token, the F-35 is going for its third engine!)