Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Dec 2, 2017
1,654
1,949
USA
I liked Parrikar, even if he sounded like Amol Palekar and had a tendency to occasionally put his foot in his mouth. Too bad he had to head back to Goa due to political compulsions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,850
8,196
India
Safe to say, Karnad really isn't crazy about this Rafale deal. I don't think anyone has written with the same consistency and intensity against this deal as him.

Rafale canards, aren’t they problems?
Posted on December 10, 2017by Bharat Karnad

(Rafale)
The Indian Air Force has a proud 70-year record of BONE-HEADED acquisition decisions. Among them (1) the purchase of the under-powered British Jaguar DPSA at the expense of the entirely indigenously-designed but supposedly “under-powered” Marut HF-24 Mk-II (aka HF-73) and, in the process, registering of a collateral kill — as intended — of the indigenous Indian combat aircraft industry for nearly two generations (until an indigenous capability was revived from zero baseline with the Tejas LCA; (2) preferring the MiG-23 BN rather than a squadron of the Tu-22 Backfire bombers painted with IAF roundels that were ready to take-off for India had the Air Marshal Sheodeo Singh mission in the early summer of 1971 made the decision to take it as the Russians were urging it to; (3) No Tu-22, so no follow-on aircraft to the medium range Canberra bomber, and hence, disastrously, the complete elimination of the bomber from the IAF fleet; a decision not corrected by leasing the Tu-160 Blackjack; (4) the contretemps over inducting the Tejas LCA and derivatives in large numbers as the main bulk aircraft and, most recently, (5) the Rafale buy.
Because IAF has been so critical about all the things ostensibly wrong with the Tejas, may be we should put the inordinately expensive Rafale combat aircraft, that makes no cost-benefit sense whatsoever, under similar scrutiny, and see all the things structurally and otherwise wrong with this French item.
Let’s focus in this post on the canards on the Rafale. Canards are the rear horizontal wings in normal planes that are moved forward to near the nose for better aircraft control and hence featured in some combat aircraft like this French plane. It can contribute to lift, replacing the horizontal stabilizer and, therefore, reducing overall drag.
So, what’s the problem? Unlike the Su-30MKI — IAF’s front line advanced air dominance/air superiority fighter, which also sports canards, but uses its 2-D thrust vectoring nozzle for braking operations, the Rafale uses its canards. Using the canards thus generates enormous stress and strain on that part of the aircraft frame and can lead to stress fracture in the canards and can start developing cracks. Not sure if the IAF flew the Rafale, during the MMRCA test trials, in a sustained fashion over months in summer to see how the aircraft stacked up against the competition. Had they done so, they’d have witnessed the canards starting to fall apart. Combat aircraft experts give it 2-3 months of regular takeoff and landings in the hot tropical conditions of the subcontinent, for this problem to become apparent. Then what?
Replacing fractured and disabled canards is not an easy thing and when the entire fleet is so afflicted, as it will be, the IAF will have more of the Rafale down, resting in their airconditioned hangars than pulling duty in the skies. Soon, because it cannot be used too intensively or extensively, it will be reduced to another grand and expensive piece of hardware that, in terms of actual ready use, cannot reasonably be counted in the air order-of-battle. So much for the Rafale’s low down-time and quick-turnaround capability!!!
IAF doesn’t see this awful problem heading its way — and that’s par for the course. But the plane’s producer, Dassault, must be licking its chops in anticipation, because every canard repair and refit will require the aircraft to be ferried to the company’s production line in France. One can safely assess the additional costs of this major structural flaw over the aircraft’s lifetime for the 36 Rafales to be in billions of Euros. As Government of India is clueless, it will do what — grin and bear it?
Won’t the IAF then complain about a degraded fighter force and about not enough fighter aircraft in the air? Of course, it will but only to pitch in for more Rafales in the belief that one horrible mistake should be followed up by a cascade more such mistakes!
Incidentally, thanks to the intervention by the IAF in the design stage of the LCA and insistence on a canard on the Tejas — a movement headed by an ex-test pilot Air Marshal M. Matheswaran, who retired as Deputy Chief at HQ Integrated Defence Staff, the entire project was delayed by several years. The insertion of the canard in the original design required a major reworking of it, and the ultimate decision by its designers, who knew better but tried to humour its customer, to do away with it, cost the project time and hurt the LCA delivery schedule. And, which delays were then used by the IAF and Matheswaran in particular (and an ignorant/illiterate press and media), in general, to slam the Tejas.
This same Matheswaran after retirement was recruited by HAL as “adviser” for the LCA programme — why is not clear. He has since jumped ship to something lots more lucrative — a sinecure with Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence that has signed up with Dassault for offsets to produce some knick-knacks that will go into the IAF Rafales to be manufactured — minus any transfer of technology — wholly in France. Neat!


Link: Rafale canards, aren’t they problems?

Karnad's canards, aren't they problems?
 

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Dec 2, 2017
1,654
1,949
USA
Karnad's canards, aren't they problems?

I wonder why he's so firmly anti-Rafale and why he's now starting to practically make things up in respect to the Rafale. Earlier also he was posting something about the Rafale's survivability over Chinese skies and its use for strategic purposes.

I understand his heartburn over the HAL Marut, and I definitely agree with him that the Tejas needs more support, but I think he's going after the wrong target here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
957
1,893
24
Vizag, India
I wonder why he's so firmly anti-Rafale and why he's now starting to practically make things up in respect to the Rafale. Earlier also he was posting something about the Rafale's survivability over Chinese skies and its use for strategic purposes.

I understand his heartburn over the HAL Marut, and I definitely agree with him that the Tejas needs more support, but I think he's going after the wrong target here.

Sir ji, this is Karnad we're talking about. This man has displayed an inability to tell the difference between a C-17 and C-130J.

Therefore, I personally don't care in the slightest what this man has to say. (y)
 

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Dec 2, 2017
1,654
1,949
USA
Sir ji, this is Karnad we're talking about. This man has displayed an inability to tell the difference between a C-17 and C-130J.

Therefore, I personally don't care in the slightest what this man has to say. (y)

Ye bhi point hai. When it comes to greater strategy and policy though, I like some of his ideas, the guy isn't a total idiot. And he shows a lot more nerve and aggression in his policy suggestions than a lot of traditional Indian thinkers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,920
853
France
Safe to say, Karnad really isn't crazy about this Rafale deal. I don't think anyone has written with the same consistency and intensity against this deal as him.

Rafale canards, aren’t they problems?
Posted on December 10, 2017by Bharat Karnad

(Rafale)
The Indian Air Force has a proud 70-year record of BONE-HEADED acquisition decisions. Among them (1) the purchase of the under-powered British Jaguar DPSA at the expense of the entirely indigenously-designed but supposedly “under-powered” Marut HF-24 Mk-II (aka HF-73) and, in the process, registering of a collateral kill — as intended — of the indigenous Indian combat aircraft industry for nearly two generations (until an indigenous capability was revived from zero baseline with the Tejas LCA; (2) preferring the MiG-23 BN rather than a squadron of the Tu-22 Backfire bombers painted with IAF roundels that were ready to take-off for India had the Air Marshal Sheodeo Singh mission in the early summer of 1971 made the decision to take it as the Russians were urging it to; (3) No Tu-22, so no follow-on aircraft to the medium range Canberra bomber, and hence, disastrously, the complete elimination of the bomber from the IAF fleet; a decision not corrected by leasing the Tu-160 Blackjack; (4) the contretemps over inducting the Tejas LCA and derivatives in large numbers as the main bulk aircraft and, most recently, (5) the Rafale buy.
Because IAF has been so critical about all the things ostensibly wrong with the Tejas, may be we should put the inordinately expensive Rafale combat aircraft, that makes no cost-benefit sense whatsoever, under similar scrutiny, and see all the things structurally and otherwise wrong with this French item.
Let’s focus in this post on the canards on the Rafale. Canards are the rear horizontal wings in normal planes that are moved forward to near the nose for better aircraft control and hence featured in some combat aircraft like this French plane. It can contribute to lift, replacing the horizontal stabilizer and, therefore, reducing overall drag.
So, what’s the problem? Unlike the Su-30MKI — IAF’s front line advanced air dominance/air superiority fighter, which also sports canards, but uses its 2-D thrust vectoring nozzle for braking operations, the Rafale uses its canards. Using the canards thus generates enormous stress and strain on that part of the aircraft frame and can lead to stress fracture in the canards and can start developing cracks. Not sure if the IAF flew the Rafale, during the MMRCA test trials, in a sustained fashion over months in summer to see how the aircraft stacked up against the competition. Had they done so, they’d have witnessed the canards starting to fall apart. Combat aircraft experts give it 2-3 months of regular takeoff and landings in the hot tropical conditions of the subcontinent, for this problem to become apparent. Then what?
Replacing fractured and disabled canards is not an easy thing and when the entire fleet is so afflicted, as it will be, the IAF will have more of the Rafale down, resting in their airconditioned hangars than pulling duty in the skies. Soon, because it cannot be used too intensively or extensively, it will be reduced to another grand and expensive piece of hardware that, in terms of actual ready use, cannot reasonably be counted in the air order-of-battle. So much for the Rafale’s low down-time and quick-turnaround capability!!!
IAF doesn’t see this awful problem heading its way — and that’s par for the course. But the plane’s producer, Dassault, must be licking its chops in anticipation, because every canard repair and refit will require the aircraft to be ferried to the company’s production line in France. One can safely assess the additional costs of this major structural flaw over the aircraft’s lifetime for the 36 Rafales to be in billions of Euros. As Government of India is clueless, it will do what — grin and bear it?
Won’t the IAF then complain about a degraded fighter force and about not enough fighter aircraft in the air? Of course, it will but only to pitch in for more Rafales in the belief that one horrible mistake should be followed up by a cascade more such mistakes!
Incidentally, thanks to the intervention by the IAF in the design stage of the LCA and insistence on a canard on the Tejas — a movement headed by an ex-test pilot Air Marshal M. Matheswaran, who retired as Deputy Chief at HQ Integrated Defence Staff, the entire project was delayed by several years. The insertion of the canard in the original design required a major reworking of it, and the ultimate decision by its designers, who knew better but tried to humour its customer, to do away with it, cost the project time and hurt the LCA delivery schedule. And, which delays were then used by the IAF and Matheswaran in particular (and an ignorant/illiterate press and media), in general, to slam the Tejas.
This same Matheswaran after retirement was recruited by HAL as “adviser” for the LCA programme — why is not clear. He has since jumped ship to something lots more lucrative — a sinecure with Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence that has signed up with Dassault for offsets to produce some knick-knacks that will go into the IAF Rafales to be manufactured — minus any transfer of technology — wholly in France. Neat!


Link: Rafale canards, aren’t they problems?
TOTAL BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish

Rakshit

Kane0610
Dec 2, 2017
88
86
Safe to say, Karnad really isn't crazy about this Rafale deal. I don't think anyone has written with the same consistency and intensity against this deal as him.

Rafale canards, aren’t they problems?
Posted on December 10, 2017by Bharat Karnad

(Rafale)

So, what’s the problem? Unlike the Su-30MKI — IAF’s front line advanced air dominance/air superiority fighter, which also sports canards, but uses its 2-D thrust vectoring nozzle for braking operations, the Rafale uses its canards. Using the canards thus generates enormous stress and strain on that part of the aircraft frame and can lead to stress fracture in the canards and can start developing cracks.

Link: Rafale canards, aren’t they problems?

1512904605347.png


Sukhoi 30MKI has a dedicated air brake on its back. Since when did it start using its 2-D thrust vectoring for braking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish

ashkum2278

Member
Dec 4, 2017
24
20
New Delhi
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Bali78 and Aashish

bonobashi

Well-Known member
Dec 3, 2017
887
412
I liked Parrikar, even if he sounded like Amol Palekar and had a tendency to occasionally put his foot in his mouth. Too bad he had to head back to Goa due to political compulsions.

Interesting, Sir.

What DID you like about Parrikar? Apart from the obvious, that he belonged to the right wing?
 

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Dec 2, 2017
1,654
1,949
USA
Interesting, Sir.

What DID you like about Parrikar? Apart from the obvious, that he belonged to the right wing?

Quite a few things actually, but I suspect you're itching to get straight down to what you didn't like about him, so go ahead...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,180
1,196
India
Is it possible to add Thrust vectoring in Safran Kaveri future blocks ?
Around the time of Rafale 4.2 ?
 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
788
A Place
Thrust vectoring as breaks, " weirdest thing i have heard."
Perhaps he got confused between thrust vectoring and thrust reversing. Airliners often have thrust reversers to help braking. The design is a bit harder to adapt to a fighter (with its engine in the tail, rather than on underwing pods) but it has sometimes been made, like on the Saab Viggen or the Panavia Tornado.

There's no way you could use thrust vectoring to help braking. Unless you have a design like the Harrier or the F-35B where it can be used to land vertically, but then you need additional sources of vertical thrust otherwise you just unbalance the aircraft and crash nose-down.

By the way, the Gripen also use its canards for aerobraking.
Here you can see Dassault Rafale with integrated Ladder system for pilot.
That's only on the Rafale M. The French Navy didn't want to have to worry about ladders on the deck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

Rakshit

Kane0610
Dec 2, 2017
88
86
When it comes to engineering which focuses on everything then its one and only French engineering.
Here you can see Dassault Rafale with integrated Ladder system for pilot.


The built-in ladder is only part of the Marine Versions. For the air force versions, we only have the conventional external ladder. Would be interesting to know the reason behind this modification.
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,180
1,196
India
The built-in ladder is only part of the Marine Versions. For the air force versions, we only have the conventional external ladder. Would be interesting to know the reason behind this modification.

Yup what advantage will take bring over conventional ladder.
Why not retractable refuel probe instead.