MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 31 13.1%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 187 78.9%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 3 1.3%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 2.5%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • F-18 SH

    Votes: 9 3.8%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 9 3.8%
  • Mig-35

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Total voters
    237
But If I understand correctly The Neuron co-developement model, Dassault would propose some solutions and ask everyone to say how they can contribute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
But If I understand correctly The Neuron co-developement model, Dassault would propose some solutions and ask everyone to say how they can contribute.
Rafale with Neuron is the way to go. Rafale/Neuron combo shall penetrate most advance IADS and achieve complete SEAD/DEAD. Tagging 4+ gen fighters with stealth drones is going to be done by most countries in future. Dassault can't lag behind.
 
Whose analysis is this?
They just make it up as they go.

In a link posted. I don't think Pic said 5.5 tonne? He was on a mythical rant of a lot more. Was he being deceitful again?
"This snapshot, which there is no reason to doubt was taken after takeoff from the Goa Ski Jump test, shows that the Rafale is capable of carrying heavy loads, over 5.5 tonnes in external loads, and therefore to achieve a maximum take-off weight in the Ski jump configuration of between 20 and 21 tonnes, i.e. a weight very close to that commonly used on board the French aircraft carrier."
 
Last edited:
They just make it up as they go.

I don't think Pic said 5.5 tonne? He was on a mythical rant of a lot more.
"This snapshot, which there is no reason to doubt was taken after takeoff from the Goa Ski Jump test, shows that the Rafale is capable of carrying heavy loads, over 5.5 tonnes in external loads, and therefore to achieve a maximum take-off weight in the Ski jump configuration of between 20 and 21 tonnes, i.e. a weight very close to that commonly used on board the French aircraft carrier."
So you're saying that French are liars? They make stuff on the fly??
 
Seen recently on ae.net :
Question : On the other hand, if external payloads account for 90/95% of the Rafale's SER, we might as well have external payloads that are as stealthy as possible. If we divide the Rafale's SER in combat configuration by 20, we divide the range of enemy radars by 2, which is far from negligible.

Answer :
Once again: yes? no? why?

Okay, the Rafale's payload represents the bulk of its SER. But what's the point of a reduced SER? Generally speaking, it serves two purposes in our use of air power:
1) to be able to penetrate and bypass adversaries' defenses without being shot down, in air-to-ground penetration missions
2) to be able to shoot first at an airborne adversary without being counter-detected in return.

In both cases, the French choice for the Rafale has been based on different approaches, with tactical results that are not necessarily inferior (on the contrary, sometimes).
On the penetration side, we have maintained very low-altitude penetration capabilities and, above all, developed air-to-ground weapons capable of being fired from a safe distance, outside the bubble of the enemy's defences. So yes, a SCALP costs more than a GBU-24. And yes, an AASM costs more than a GBU-12. Yes, an ASMP costs more than a B61. And yes, a future supersonic cruise missile will cost more than a handful of SDBs. But in the end, all these weapons, however expensive, still cost less than the extra cost of developing a stealth fighter.
In air-to-air, same thing. Okay, we're less stealthy than an F-35 or a J-20 (maybe). But we do have MICA-IR (soon to be NG), which can take out any stealth fighter without revealing the Rafale's position, provided we make good tactical use of it. And should the stealth fighter try to flush us out with its radar, we have a SPECTRA suite designed to locate it accurately enough to throw a MICA-IR (or even a Meteor?) in its face, or at least in the right direction.


What's all this to say?

That it's probably MUCH cheaper to develop weapons that carry two or three times as far (as we've already done with the AASM in air-to-ground and the Meteor in air-to-air) than to divide the Rafale's SER by 20 to enable it to get twice as close.

In fact, the new air-to-ground weapons to be developed in the coming years will probably be designed from the outset to be more stealthy, in order to bypass enemy defenses. But this won't always be the case (especially for CAS ammunition, or for super/hypersonic weapons), and even when it is, the "weapon-fuselage" or "weapon-wing" interaction won't necessarily be hyper-stealthy. And that's where I still think we need to find the right balance between the money invested in passive stealth, and the money to be invested in electronic warfare or in the

So you're saying that French are liars? They make stuff on the fly??
I don't know if it was a frenchman, there wasn't a link. You replied, but do you know who said it? there is nothing convincing said there. You asked, but they never gave you the link.

Pic and 5.5 tonne was another and the link was given. Pic has shown himself to be deceitful.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it was a frenchman, there wasn't a link. You replied, but do you know who said it? there is nothing convincing said there. You asked, but they never gave you the link.
Yes, but you gave example of Picdel and called him deceitful again. You also said 'they' just make it up. Who are these 'they'? French, me thinks as per you;)
 
Yes, but you gave example of Picdel and called him deceitful again. You also said 'they' just make it up. Who are these 'they'? French, me thinks as per you;)
they are two different thing. The herciv post you asked about had no link. It also sound like a BS story and made up as they go.
Pic's link said max was 5,5 tonne. I'm sure he has said a lot more. Was he being deceitful again? Pic has a history of it.
 
Pic said the rafale took off with 9.5 tonne, not the quoted 5.5. You can't take anything from pic at face value.
I saw it said the hornet can take off with it's max load. Well above 5.5 tonne, but can't land with what's required. the old ship can't catch it.
 
The problem is that you haven't read all the explanations I gave before, you're too new for that. So I'll summarise for you.
  • The Rafale can take off at 24.5 t from the CDG because it doesn't depend on the aircraft but on the catapult, which can take off aircraft up to 25 t. However, the French Navy never lets it take off at this weight in peacetime, because of landing constraints.
  • When landing, the Rafale must weigh less than 15 t, and it cannot carry a heavy load (over 700 kg) under one wing if it is not balanced by the load under the other wing. The balance doesn't have to be rigorous, but the difference must be less than 700kg (I don't know the exact value, but in fact the aircraft will be able to land anyway, but the structure will be damaged, seriously for a difference of more than 700kg and in terms of fatigue for less than 500kg, for example).
Moreover, everyone thinks that the rules we know are peacetime rules and that the rules for a high-intensity conflict would be changed.

What are the consequences of these rules? The French Navy doesn't want to risk having to jettison a SCALP, so although the Rafale can carry 3 SCALPs, we limit ourselves to a single SCALP so as not to risk having to land with a SCALP under a wing that hasn't been fired because of a last-minute anomaly, even though all the others have been fired. The same problem arises with AM-39 and this considerably reduces the possible heavy operational configurations, so that the heaviest operational configuration used by the French Navy is the 'Nounou' configuration with 4 additional tanks, a nounou pod and air-to-air missiles. It weighs just over 22 tonnes.

Now there is a theoretical configuration that could be used, which is a configuration with 3 tanks of 2000 l and a total load of 9.1 t. In fact, if this aircraft had to return immediately to CDG after take-off, it could keep only 400 kg of fuel when it landed, i.e. empty the tanks (3 x 1600 kg, i.e. 4800 kg) and 4300 kg of the 4700 internal fuel, i.e. 9100 kg in all. Its weight would therefore be 24100 - 9100 = 15 000 kg. But this configuration is not used by the French Navy, which probably prefers solutions using nounou for its long-range raids so that it can use the centre point to carry a heavy weapon.

Now, what is the probability that a Rafale will have to return to its aircraft carrier as soon as it has taken off, or that it will return with a heavy weapon that has not been fired under a wing? In the event of a high-intensity conflict, wouldn't we run the risk of having to throw a SCALP into the sea from time to time to save a Rafale, if this would increase the payload of all the Rafales taking off from CDG by a factor of 3? And do two navies have to have the same policy on this point?

So I don't worry about these rules, I'm just talking about the Rafale's technical capabilities:
  • It can take off at up to 24.5 t, even on a STOBAR, provided that the critical distance from which it will continue to take off is correctly defined if an engine fails.
  • It must weigh less than 15 t on landing.
  • Its under-wing load on landing must not be more than 700 kg asymmetrical.
What the journalist says on these points is merely the general opinion of the uninformed.
 
Seen recently on ae.net :
Question : On the other hand, if external payloads account for 90/95% of the Rafale's SER, we might as well have external payloads that are as stealthy as possible. If we divide the Rafale's SER in combat configuration by 20, we divide the range of enemy radars by 2, which is far from negligible.

Answer :
Once again: yes? no? why?

Okay, the Rafale's payload represents the bulk of its SER. But what's the point of a reduced SER? Generally speaking, it serves two purposes in our use of air power:
1) to be able to penetrate and bypass adversaries' defenses without being shot down, in air-to-ground penetration missions
2) to be able to shoot first at an airborne adversary without being counter-detected in return.

In both cases, the French choice for the Rafale has been based on different approaches, with tactical results that are not necessarily inferior (on the contrary, sometimes).
On the penetration side, we have maintained very low-altitude penetration capabilities and, above all, developed air-to-ground weapons capable of being fired from a safe distance, outside the bubble of the enemy's defences. So yes, a SCALP costs more than a GBU-24. And yes, an AASM costs more than a GBU-12. Yes, an ASMP costs more than a B61. And yes, a future supersonic cruise missile will cost more than a handful of SDBs. But in the end, all these weapons, however expensive, still cost less than the extra cost of developing a stealth fighter.
In air-to-air, same thing. Okay, we're less stealthy than an F-35 or a J-20 (maybe). But we do have MICA-IR (soon to be NG), which can take out any stealth fighter without revealing the Rafale's position, provided we make good tactical use of it. And should the stealth fighter try to flush us out with its radar, we have a SPECTRA suite designed to locate it accurately enough to throw a MICA-IR (or even a Meteor?) in its face, or at least in the right direction.


What's all this to say?

That it's probably MUCH cheaper to develop weapons that carry two or three times as far (as we've already done with the AASM in air-to-ground and the Meteor in air-to-air) than to divide the Rafale's SER by 20 to enable it to get twice as close.

In fact, the new air-to-ground weapons to be developed in the coming years will probably be designed from the outset to be more stealthy, in order to bypass enemy defenses. But this won't always be the case (especially for CAS ammunition, or for super/hypersonic weapons), and even when it is, the "weapon-fuselage" or "weapon-wing" interaction won't necessarily be hyper-stealthy. And that's where I still think we need to find the right balance between the money invested in passive stealth, and the money to be invested in electronic warfare or in the

Yeah, it's the old SU method, hence their massively varied weapons options. The only problem with this method is a weapon is easier to defeat than the platform. And the platform's kill probablity is higher.

Imagine if Rafale's weapons are integrated on the F-22/F-35 then...
 
He is PolluxDeltaSeven - AIR-DEFENSE.NET on Air-defense and he is also Deputy editor-in-chief of DEFTECH and SPACE INTERNATIONAL magazines
When is MICA-NG(IR) expected? Once that becomes operational, Rafale would become a legit stealth buster. Just think about OSF-NG's range and then the supposed range of MICA-NG. Stealth plane may just die equally stealthily, lol.
 
  • Agree
  • Haha
Reactions: Herciv and Valhalla
Yeah, it's the old SU method, hence their massively varied weapons options. The only problem with this method is a weapon is easier to defeat than the platform. And the platform's kill probablity is higher.

Imagine if Rafale's weapons are integrated on the F-22/F-35 then...
I suppose that you compare with drone and how they are defeated by EW. But AASM for example is hardened against by construction physically and also lectronically using several way to be guided. You also have to detect an incoming AASM. That's not so easy when it has a low level flying profile.
 
MiCA NG just uses a dual-pulse engine. How did he become a legit stealth buster ?
When is MICA-NG(IR) expected? Once that becomes operational, Rafale would become a legit stealth buster. Just think about OSF-NG's range and then the supposed range of MICA-NG. Stealth plane may just die equally stealthily, lol.
 
I suppose that you compare with drone and how they are defeated by EW. But AASM for example is hardened against by construction physically and also lectronically using several way to be guided. You also have to detect an incoming AASM. That's not so easy when it has a low level flying profile.

No, I wasn't comparing weapons, I was comparing platforms.

If Rafale's weapons are so superior that reducing RCS of the Rafale is not necessary, then what will happen if the same weapon is used from an aircraft that's much more stealthy, like the F-35.

For example, a Rafale may go undetected at 75Km and can fire away a MICA stealthily. But an F-35 can go undetected until 40Km and the MICA will become even more effective.
 
No, I wasn't comparing weapons, I was comparing platforms.

If Rafale's weapons are so superior that reducing RCS of the Rafale is not necessary, then what will happen if the same weapon is used from an aircraft that's much more stealthy, like the F-35.

For example, a Rafale may go undetected at 75Km and can fire away a MICA stealthily. But an F-35 can go undetected until 40Km and the MICA will become even more effective.
If I undestrand what you mean, I think there's a balance to be finded. The weapon range have to be adapted to this undetected capacity of the plateform. The weapon range is related to its compacity and then its ability to be loaded internally or not.
 
This weapon range also give you an ability to engage more distant targets simultanously or not. This ability is uncorrectly adressed if you have only a small internal load. For example you can adress 6 targets distant by 50 km simultanously by a single rafale when you will need six f-35 for the same job.
 
Last edited:
This weapon range also give you an ability to engage more distant targets simultanously or not. This ability is uncorrectly adressed if you have only a small internal load.

I don't know about Hammer, but as per Vstol, the MICA's form factor is very small and you can pack in more missiles compared to the bigger BVR missiles. That's why he chose it for his own jet design.

And Hammer is still quite sleek, the 125 and 250Kg versions with folded wings should be manageable. Especially if you consider Neuron will carry them.
 
MiCA NG just uses a dual-pulse engine. How did he become a legit stealth buster ?
Current MICA-IR has 60kms head on range. Our Rafale has got OSF-NG that is QWIP based and much more modern and long-range. Americans claim that Super Hornet's IRST 21 detects gliders, F-117/F-22/B-2/F-35 from over 100 miles, i.e., over 160kms. So, if Rafale's IRST is tech wise as good as the American IRST then Rafale will detect subsonic J-20 from 150/160kms away. But with current MICA-IR, it can only engage J-20 from 60-70kms. By that time, J-20s IRST would also detect Rafale. Since, MICA-IR has longer range than PL-10, so Rafale has good chance of blowing J-20.

Now give Rafale MICA-IR NG and it'll have 120kms engagement range. So, it will complement the longer range of IRST by allowing Rafale to fire it completely stealthily from over 100kms. Your J-20 won't even realise what hit it. So, 'in my opinion', MICA-NG(IR)= Perfect stealth buster.
 
Current MICA-IR has 60kms head on range. Our Rafale has got OSF-NG that is QWIP based and much more modern and long-range. Americans claim that Super Hornet's IRST 21 detects gliders, F-117/F-22/B-2/F-35 from over 100 miles, i.e., over 160kms. So, if Rafale's IRST is tech wise as good as the American IRST then Rafale will detect subsonic J-20 from 150/160kms away. But with current MICA-IR, it can only engage J-20 from 60-70kms
Your assumption here is that France and the United States have the same level of optical and electronic technology, It is impossible.
Next you quote the US Navy using IRST to find targets at 100 nautical miles to demonstrate that Rafale can detect J-20, which is also impossible. This is the result of an extremely ideal situation, which is not available on the battlefield, Especially in a region as complex as the Himalayas, a dark cloud can greatly affect the performance of IRST.And the J 20 EODAS far superior to the Rafale's IRST.
Finally, your premise is wrong, MICA NG range is 40KM, not your fantasy 120KM.
VL-MICA-NG-1024x578.jpg