Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Feb 2012 00:25

These images of the Rafale's HUD show what the terrain following and avoidance modes will look like for the pilot on the HUD..

And a video of the HUD

Youtube

Cross posting from Keypubs

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 00:29

ramana wrote:The MRCA competition has revealed the self admitted wrongs that UK and others did to India!

While I have no preference between Taffy and Raffy, I want the French to win this one just to drive home that point. Also to emphasis our long memories of their behavior will impact future ties.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Feb 2012 00:31

How does Rafale on offer compare with the current MKI in aerodynamics , avionics/radars ,MMI and weapons ? CM ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2012 00:33

Its good SDRE psyche to point out that the winner was chosen only on technical (Rafale and Typhoon) and cost (Rafale) considerations.
All other points are interesting but not germane.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 00:35

My comparison points for public consumption would be

1. Price
2. Tech
3. TOT
4. Local sourcing

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 00:52

Indian jet deal proves surprise of the week - FT

In defence, this week’s big news – and even bigger surprise – was India’s decision choose France’s jet fighter over the pan-European Typhoon in a contract that could eventually be worth $20bn.

The win was a lifeline for Dassault’s Rafale jet, which has not managed to secure a single export order.

For Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK and the host of companies involved, including pan-European EADS, which led the Indian pitch, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce of the UK, and Italy’s Finmeccanica, the news has led to a fair bit of soul-searching, but more importantly, to a redoubling of their efforts to knock Rafale off its new-found perch.

That is because the India decision, which was based on Rafale’s lower sticker price, could still be overturned, given the country’s history of changing its mind often before the final contract is signed, the losing side and industry analysts stressed.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 01:00

EADS Still Waiting in the Wings - WSJ

Executives at Dassault Aviation, Thales and Safran may have cracked open the champagne this week when the Indian government chose Dassault’s Rafale multirole combat aircraft over the Anglo-German-Italian Eurofighter to supply the Indian Air Force with 126 jets. But like Grand Prix racing, one podium finish doesn’t a champion make.

To be sure, the news that Dassault and New Delhi are now in exclusive talks about delivering the Rafale was welcome for the French. Dassault has still to win an export contract for a plane that the company is marketing as a Swiss army knife for the world’s air forces, capable of air-air, air-ground and land and carrier-based roles.

But Dassault has been here before. Over the years, it has been reported to be in the final stages of winning contracts with South Korea, Morocco, Switzerland, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates only to see these deals disappear like a desert mirage.

Not only that, the Indian defense ministry says the proposal by Dassault involving a technology transfer on an unprecedented scale for the plane maker was cheaper than the Eurofighter. That raised some eyebrows in French government circles where at least one minister has said that, while the Rafale may be the most sophisticated combat aircraft on the market, its complexity comes at a price.

Indeed, in international arms deals of this magnitude, it’s not clear what the notion of “price” is.

The tough negotiating on the Indian contract starts now, and it could take six months to a year to iron all the details, especially those governing technology transfer. The deal as it stands calls for Dassault to supply the first 18 planes out of a total of 126 off the shelf while India is setting up a production line for the rest.

The Team Rafale negotiating the finer points of the deal comprises specialists from Dassault, Thales (which supplies radars and avionics) and Safran (which makes the two M88 engines). The issue of how much technology can be transferred without risk to the loss of intellectual property will be central in these talks.

It remains to be seen how much technology India’s aeronautical industry can absorb, especially as the three French contractors may be obliged to offer offsets equivalent to 50% of the estimated $10 billion to $15 billion value of the contract.

Indian defense company Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which is likely to get the work, already has its work cut out managing cooperation programs with many other aircraft manufacturers, notably Russia’s Sukhoi with whom it is developing a new fighter jet.

Meanwhile, local rules in India forbid foreign companies from owning more than 26% of a joint-venture. The Rafale contract, even if it materializes, could also disappoint for other reasons further down the runway.

Doing business in India is notoriously difficult for foreign companies. According to a World Bank survey, India is second only to East Timor in its poor record for enforcing contracts.

Then there are the losers. Dassault can expect considerable interference from its competitors as they try to derail the French bid. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament this week that he will do everything he can to get the Indian government to change its mind and buy the Eurofighter Typhoon made by BAE Systems, European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co and Italy’s Alenia Aeromacchi, a unit of Finmeccanica.

Whatever the outcome, EADS is a winner of sorts from the Indian competition. It owns 46.3% of Dassault Aviation, and it has a 46% stake in the Eurofighter consortium, acting as the prime bidder for the Indian contract. Still, this is an expensive way of winning new business.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2012 01:07

A couple of questions;

- In the above competetions in South Korea, Morocco, Switzerland, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates that the Rafale lost which aircraft was finally chosen?

- If EADs owns 46.3% of Dassault Aviation(~ equal to the one in Typhoon) then why this heartburn at the choice of Rafale? Why would they want to undermine their own investment in Dassault Aviation? Looks like a Kalidasa move.

- I understand Uk takleef about major loss of jobs for BAE.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 01:13

ramana wrote:A couple of questions;

- In the above competetions in South Korea{American ?}, Morocco {???}, Switzerland {Gripen}, Brazil{Still on} and the United Arab Emirates{Still on} that the Rafale lost which aircraft was finally chosen?

- If EADs owns 46.3% of Dassault Aviation(~ equal to the one in Typhoon) then why this heartburn at the choice of Rafale? Why would they want to undermine their own investment in Dassault Aviation? Looks like a Kalidasa move.

- I understand Uk takleef about major loss of jobs for BAE. {All this noise is from UK onleeeeee!}

Just my guesses! I don't follow defense news regularly.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 01:28

India as 'cricket and curries'? That won't help win a fighter jet bid - Al-G

The right is outraged by India awarding a fighter jet contract to the French, but it is this arrogance that damages our relationship

"What on earth do they know about cricket and curries," was the acerbic response of Tory MP Peter Bone to the news that the French firm Dassault has emerged as the lowest bidder for a $10bn (£6.3bn) contract to supply India jet fighters. And, in one crisp sentence, Bone encapsulated the problem: a lingering British attitude towards India enveloped in the language of colonialism and entitlement, which is buckling any attempt at a modern, co-operative relationship.

Of course, Bone is not the only one. This week the Sun newspaper has been running a campaign demanding Britain ends its aid programme. "Britain can no longer justify sending aid to India," it announced, since "this superpower in the making is treating us like mugs."

All of which led the BBC's Andrew Neil to ask why, if the French had no aid budget for India, it could be in pole position to supply India's air force, while the British Eurofighter bid had been left stranded despite us bunging billions towards New Delhi. Immediately, we were back to the 1980s: "aid for trade", Pergau Dam and Alan Clark signing it all off. Of course, there are all sorts of solid arguments for ending our aid to India, but failing to secure arms deals is not one of them.

Nevertheless, preferred bidder status for Dassault Aviation is a wretched blow for the British defence industry. It is also a humiliating rebuff to David Cameron's ambitions for "an enhanced strategic partnership" with India. Having condemned the previous Labour government for ignoring our relations with New Delhi, shortly after his election the prime minister packed an aeroplane with high-profile businessmen to secure new contracts from the rising Bric power.

There was even talk of having the ex-head of the Confederation of British Industry, Richard Lambert, take the British high commission job. This mercantilist Anglo-Indian strategy all formed part of the government's grander ambition to turn the Foreign and Commonwealth Office into a high-end sales outfit, with ambassadors acting out the role of regional reps.

But this week it came to naught.

Perhaps this is due to a new generation of politicians, policy-makers and businesspeople in Mumbai, Chennai, and Bangalore who can sense a British political class still stuck in the past. In London, there remains a world view that somehow Britain – because of a connection with India stretching back to the Fort St George in 1640s Madras or Job Charnock in 1690s Lal Dighi (soon to become Calcutta) – has an automatic right of access. The fact we laid the railways, nurtured the bureaucracy, even designed the parliament should put us at the front of the queue. Within the Tory party and its press, it is naturally taken that these historic ties of language, culture, and kin give us an "in" above and beyond other middle-rank powers.

But any encounter with modern India instantly dispels such arrogance. Of course, London is nice to visit and an MA from Oxford is a decent degree (after Harvard, Yale, and Columbia), but the terms of trade have changed. First of all, it is Britain that is now in need of Indian investment – as Tata Motors' purchase of Jaguar Land Rover and Tata Steel's takeover of Corus proves most obviously. And, second, today's Indian elite is focused on America; they are vying with China; they are concerned about Afghanistan. What we think, how we act, who we value: these are all third-order questions.

Where India is interested in Britain is as a business partner – but, crucially, as part of a broader European Union trading bloc. Yet here the colonial mindset of the Conservative party continues. With great gusto and a lot of air miles, our Eurosceptic foreign secretary has left the tarmac to "rebuild" bilateral relations across the world. He has put in sterling work, but the truth is the UK matters much more as part of a European commercial entity rather than on its own. It is through supranational bodies, not from the Foreign Office Locarno room, that our voice is heard.

What is more, the government has so often bungled the soft-power fundamentals in India. First they tried to end the BBC's Hindi programming on the World Service and then they wildly trumpeted our new "closed-door" education policy. Even if the coalition's immigration strategy is the right one, the tone and manner in which it has been advanced has told Indian students they are not welcome in the UK. One of the greatest motors for Anglo-Indian collaboration has been needlessly undermined by a headline-chasing Home Office. In a globalised media world, domestic policy is consumed very differently abroad.

However, we should not get ahead of ourselves. The jets deal with India is not yet dead. The low bid by the French could all be election-year posturing by President Nicolas Sarkozy. But a mature reaction to the negotiation process is paramount. Any more talk of curries and cricket, Rudyard and the Raj, and we can wave goodbye to those valuable BAE jobs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2012 01:40

So whats the problem? its not like the Typhoon won all those contests?

And who will invade Switzerland? They will freeze the bank accounts.

Again the threats those countries face are not comparable those that India faces.

--
PS: is a 'r' missing from that MP's name?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 01:49

ramana wrote:So whats the problem? its not like the Typhoon won all those contests? {That is the problem! job cuts at BAE}

ramana wrote:PS: is a 'r' missing from that MP's name?

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 04 Feb 2012 04:42

pankajs wrote:EADS Still Waiting in the Wings - WSJ

Whatever the outcome, EADS is a winner of sorts from the Indian competition. It owns 46.3% of Dassault Aviation, and it has a 46% stake in the Eurofighter consortium, acting as the prime bidder for the Indian contract. Still, this is an expensive way of winning new business.

Actually the "national" ownership structure is confusing to say the least both wrt dassault and eads.

my understanding....corrections are welcome

DASSAULT : "French" Aviation gaint.
Dassault Group (50.55%)
EADS (46.32%)
Private investors (3.13%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EADS :
41.63% Publicly traded (may have significant french german and british holdings here )
Contractural Partnership (58.37%):

27.38% SOGEADE (owned by the French State and Lagardère)
22.41% Daimler AG (German)
5.46% SEPI is a Spanish state holding company
3.12% Dubai Holding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidaries with little or no direct control by EADS board.
AIRBUS (French controlled)
EUROCOPTER (French-German controlled)
EUROFIGHTER GMBH
EADS(46%)
33% EADS Deutschland GmbH (Germany)
13% EADS CASA (Spain)
33%: BAE Systems (United Kingdom)
21%: Alenia Aeronautica (Italy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct control by EADS
ASTRIUM
CASSIDIAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others
MBDA
37.5% EADS
37.5% BAE Systems
25% Finmeccanica
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically dassault is 46% owned by EADS.
EADS in return is 27% directly owned by french govt and may be a significant percentage also by french citizens.
However Eurofighter GMBH is 33% controlled by BAE in competition to 46% control of EADS (germany 33% +spain 13%).
Although as highlighted BAE will any way see few crumbs falling its way through MBDA armaments procured along with Rafale.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 04 Feb 2012 05:04

also dan....its the gorgeous squall that shall see IAF colours

Awesome job by the IAF as expected (yes yes Badar

)
Now to hope that Dassault takes this to the end and pens the contract ASAP please begin anti jinx mantra now...

I feel there will be some major wind pattern disturbances in the north east in the next decade if things go hot onlee.

enough talk now for a vid or two

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Feb 2012 05:15

Should not it be named as RAWfale nou?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Feb 2012 08:10

A must watch for all jingos. Gives you an idea what goes into a producing a modern fighter. This is about the Eurofighter Typhoon production line.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 04 Feb 2012 08:13

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Britain dumped the STOVL because of the financial crisis of 2008, which also was the cause of Royal Navy slashing its aircraft carrier program.
Umm, RN didn't just dump the STOVL component, but switched over to CATOBAR. This didn't save money but increased program cost (installing and operating the catapults). Saving might accrue from mothballing one deck, not from dropping STOVL. However it is painted, RN bailed out on the F-35B as a lemon.

I beg to disagree. There are two ships planned out of which the second one will have the CATOBAR capability.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:US denied UK and its various partners source code, yes. But now it is faced with a situation, where it needs money to finish this program. If the estimated 500 billion USD cuts in pentagon over a period of a decade are anything to go by, then we can safely assume that money is no longer freely flowing into US Defense projects. This is where we have the leverage, where the other partners of US lacked.
JSF is not facing trouble due to increased development costs (though they are a factor, it will not impact program viability). There is sufficient money for development *if* there is a reasonable expectation that the final product will meet some semblance of projected capability, purchase and operation costs. All three are quite iffy at the moment.

F-35 breaks a lot of ground in a lot of technological areas. That is why it is a game changer. That is why we should aim for it. It brings capabilities to IAF and possibly IN which will take time for PLAAF/PLAN to acquire.

Badar wrote: US *may* make us an exception and give us source code that it doesn't to even its most trusted industrial partners? The crown jewels of its technological capability will be handed over for a measly 10-20 billion purchase? You realize the prime impulse for US to continue down the JSF path is primarily industrial? You think there is any shortage of money for that? Nope.

Boss the reason for France selling its jets is industrial, to recuperate the development cost of the fighter. Ditto for the EFT fighter consortium. It was money which was the primary reason for Russia to sell SU-30MKI. Ditto for PAK-FA fighter. And yes there is a shortage of money in US. If there had not been shortage of money, the F-22 program would not have been stopped well short of its proposed target.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:We have not asked what US is willing to offer. US has not outlined what it is willing to offer. But based on experience of some tom-dick-and-harry we are all saying with supreme confidence that technology will not be on offer. Yaar, if the offer is not too one's liking then don't take it. But at least don't jump to conclusion on flawed premises. In other words let us have an open mind.
We did. The US offered us a desultory F-16 and an outstanding F-18IN.

Again the same variant of the same logic. The yanks have been castigated. Dont forget the F-35 offer came immediately after the decision to kick out F-16 and F-18IN.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Is there any 5th generation fighter, planned or currently flying, which can meet the capabilities of F-35B and F-35C variant?

The question is not if a non-US aircraft can meet the F-35 specs. Can the F-35 reality meet the F-35 power-point specs? Or will there be another 'restructuring' another set of lowered targets which the F-35 will pass with 'flying colors'.

F-35 might ultimately turn out to be the P-51 of its generation. But at the moment the program is on very shaky ground. Hitching IAF's future to the unknown perils and pleasures of F-35 is a risky business at best. Even the immature FGFA looks a safer long term bet at the moment.

Yes boss F-35 will meet the specifications that it is meant for. It has to meet the specifications, or the entire USAF/USN/US Marines calculus gets upturned in the western pacific. Moreover the same can be said for PAK-FA and AMCA. If we follow this line of reasoning, then we need not go in for any cutting edge research. There are risks. But there are rewards too. We should not let the obstacles demur us.
And the sad part is that if F-35B and F-35C meet its operational requirements, we would have already spent some 10-15 billions on a 4th generation fighter.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:We got a fighter which exceeded F-15 fighter capabilities, i.e SU-30MKI, only in 1990s, approximately 20 years after F-15 was first inducted into USAF. Do we want to have an encore ?
The fundamental flaw is not the ability or lack thereof of the F-35. But the reliability and trust in the US of A as a defense source.

We have purchased items which will not impact the bottom line security wise (C-17). Or where no good alternatives existed (P-8) or where they will make a minimal impact if they decide to screw us (C-130) or cheap training equipment (Jalashwa). But a core purchase like a quarter of the air fleet combat strength? I don't think India is ready to get into bed with the to that extent.

Let's India and US neck for a bit, fourth base can wait.

India buying F-35 does not mean that India becomes an american ally. We signed the fundamentally flawed 123-agreement with uncle sam, but that did not mean that India became the poodle of uncle Sam. The F-35B and F-35C variant should be chosen for only two things. Technical merit and financial merit. Just as the French and EFT offerings were short listed in the MMRCA tender.
USA is not reliable partner. But so are the European countries which are supplying EFT. And let us not talk about Russia, which went back on its offer of cryogenic engines. Even France is a pure blue mercenary. Let us not forget that the French jets might see service in Pakistan and in certain gulf countries. If it is in the service of gulf countries then it would imply that Pakistan and China would get a hand on this fighter too.
In this world there are no reliable friends or allay. There are just shifting alliances.

Yes we bought P-8I which did not have many american components. But the same can be done for F-35. We can develop components for a 5th generation fighter, or we can go for assembling components for a 4th generation fighter. I would prefer the former. Not only that, we can team with Japan or Israel or UK to co-develop these components if financial considerations come in the middle.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 04 Feb 2012 08:55

Rakesh wrote:A must watch for all jingos. Gives you an idea what goes into a producing a modern fighter. This is about the Eurofighter Typhoon production line.

I hope, the next set of 85 aircrafts (the one where the RFQ is from those aircraft vendors who were left out of this deal) is the F-35. Even if there is no Tech transfer. It would be a good portfolio. It would also benefit if the Army (not the Airforce) has its own squadrons of a-10 Warthogs.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 04 Feb 2012 09:49

Look who is back to negotiations table

UAE Rafale deal back on track again, MMRCA Result effect ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Feb 2012 11:12

The UK is still in a quandary as to the type of launching system, it needs for its two QE/POW carriers.Apparently the cost of e-mal/cats could vary upto 600-800m pounds per ship,adding considerably to the cost.Instead of leaving room for a later addition,many advocate that Britain "bites the bullet" and factors in the cost of cats and install them right from start for both ships. It can then choose its aircraft,using the small number of JSFs on order,which have to be complemented with larger numbers of ether the Rafale (Buy a froggie? perish the thought!) or the paper plane the Sea-Typhoon.

The IN is actually in a ,much healthier state here.We already have new MIG-29Ks in service and in the pipeline,which will give us just under 50 to equip two carriers-the Gorky/Vik and IAC-1/Vikrant.We also have to make up numbers the NLCA under development and with the IAF's purchase of the Rafale,the option of later on buying the Rafale if need be,a very expensive proposition,almost twice the cost of a MIG-29K,should we require something more capable.Here one must remember that Russia is going to develop a naval variant of the FGFA,which will be far superior to either of the two aforementioned aircraft.

PS:JSF enthusiasts.The aircraft hasn't even flown in USAF colours,not even training possible for its pilots as dev. problems persist and it has been made official now that the US did not offer it to the IAF.Nevertheless,ther was a definite media campaign to get the JSF into the running...by the back door as the GOI/MOD/IAF could not do so as the MMRCA contest was on,had shortlisted the finalists and that we would be severeley castigated had we roped in anew entrant at that late stage,that too whose technical evaluation was impossible in Indian conditions ,let alone in the US! Moreover and more importantly,after the success of the SU-30MKI acquisition programme,future upgrades,etc.,we have already signed on with Russia as "sole partners" as of now, in the FGFA/PAK-FA 5th-gen stealth fighter programme.here 200+ aircraft are planned for acquisition at a cost of around $100m only,when compared with the current JSF cost ,still not finalised AT around $120-150m depending upon best and worst case scenarios.

With the Rafale being picked for the MMRCA slot,LCA for the light fighter slot ,Sukhois for the heavyweight slot,and FGFA for the future air dominance stealth fighter slot,and a desi AMCA planned to replace the hundreds of Jaguars,MIG-27s,MIG-29 and M-2000 upgrades sometime in the next decade,there is little room whatsoever,none at all in fact if you add our classified UCAV to the list,for the JSF to appear in IAF roundels! QED.

Anant · Post by **Anant** » 04 Feb 2012 12:46

While I understand the euphoria about the Rafale selection, I also am bemused at the ugliness that emanates from users on here regarding Britain and the United States. Funny because Jaguars, which arguably are our low altitude strike air craft are British and the bulk of the IAF transport and special ops backbone will be American. Countries win and lose bid based contracts all the time. Doesn't mean you can paint such things with a broad brush or live in the past. Otherwise, even the French have blood on their hands in so far is India is concerned via Pakistan.

And Philip, I realize you love all things Russian, but your comments on the F35 not flying in USAF livery is dead wrong. I have put a link below. As you can see in the image, the plane has the Elgin Airforce base monicker on its tail. If you like or dislike the F35, that's your assessment but to call it a turkey is dead wrong. The US might have economic issues but the rest of the world isn't immune. I am an Indian American so I value both countries but give the US is done vitriol a break. Global power is cyclical. Down, doesn't mean out. Philip, here's the link for you:

http://www.dailytech.com/First+Producti ... e21593.htm

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Feb 2012 14:00

Anant wrote:While I understand the euphoria about the Rafale selection, I also am bemused at the ugliness that emanates from users on here regarding Britain and the United States. Funny because Jaguars, which arguably are our low altitude strike air craft are British and the bulk of the IAF transport and special ops backbone will be American. Countries win and lose bid based contracts all the time. Doesn't mean you can paint such things with a broad brush or live in the past. Otherwise, even the French have blood on their hands in so far is India is concerned via Pakistan.

And I am bemused at your attempt to defend the indefensible. Let us forget the past for a while and focus on this deal on the four points I had outlined before.

pankajs wrote:My comparison points for public consumption would be
1. Price
2. Tech
3. TOT
4. Local sourcing

On all count, the French have outbid the massa and its poodle. Instead of accepting the ground realities or trying to better their offer, massa and the poodle start whining.

India as 'cricket and curries'? That won't help win a fighter jet bid - Al-G

The right is outraged by India awarding a fighter jet contract to the French, but it is this arrogance that damages our relationship

"What on earth do they know about cricket and curries," was the acerbic response of Tory MP Peter Bone to the news that the French firm Dassault has emerged as the lowest bidder for a $10bn (£6.3bn) contract to supply India jet fighters. And, in one crisp sentence, Bone encapsulated the problem: a lingering British attitude towards India enveloped in the language of colonialism and entitlement, which is buckling any attempt at a modern, co-operative relationship.

If criticizing the above attitude of the massa and its poodle is 'ugly' so be it. I have stated this before and will state it again.

pankajs wrote:I am all for good relation with massa and its poodle but they have to step up to the plate and exceed the French.

India as 'cricket and curries'? That won't help win a fighter jet bid - Al-G

But a mature reaction to the negotiation process is paramount. Any more talk of curries and cricket, Rudyard and the Raj, and we can wave goodbye to those valuable BAE jobs.

Was my reaction to the buffoons different from the above?

pankajs wrote:While I have no preference between Taffy and Raffy, I want the French to win this one just to drive home that point. Also to emphasis our long memories of their behavior will impact future ties.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 04 Feb 2012 14:41

I am astounded at the whining and whinging of our past colonial masters.

And I am sure that the Yanquis are capable of producing a fabulous a/c. A game changer? The jury is out on that. Might be a bit hard to label it a turkey. They also have produced lemons before. So let us wait and see.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 04 Feb 2012 14:53

The batting for U.S stuff by Shook Lawl, Siddharth Singh and some members here is sickening to say the least. Some people really have a serious case of selective amnesia.

Also after the Hindu got taken over by the new editor, I'm beginning to see some stark changes -

For over a decade, since the controversial and exciting days of India's second series of nuclear tests in 1998 and the Kargil war of 1999, South Block has recognised the steadfastness of France in standing by India. It was perhaps the only country that did not cancel its maritime exercises after the Pokhran tests as compared with some others that happily went beyond the requirements of sovereignty by seizing Indian defence equipment to appease another country, which had sold components for that military system, that had decided to punish India by imposing sanctions.

"
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a ... 851361.ece

So it's a taboo now of naming the U.S and its poodles in their perfidy? Sick..

Coming to the thread.. wow! I never thought it would be possible for Rafale to overcome such giant obstacles to make it to the finish line first. Rafale was always the best choice for the IAF IMO. Extremely glad the IAF and the MoD caught the right bird.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 04 Feb 2012 16:00

Christopher Sidor wrote:
Badar wrote:Umm, RN didn't just dump the STOVL component, but switched over to CATOBAR. This didn't save money but increased program cost (installing and operating the catapults). Saving might accrue from mothballing one deck, not from dropping STOVL. However it is painted, RN bailed out on the F-35B as a lemon.
I beg to disagree.

Disagree with what? That RN did not lose faith in the F-35B program? That RN switched from STOVL to CATOBAR version? Or changing the design of a carrier to incorporate a catapult will increase costs dramatically? Or that F-35B is a lemon?

There are two ships planned out of which the second one will have the CATOBAR capability.

Which look increasing likely to fly Rafale or Shornets. On an "interim" basis of course

Brillant way to "save" more money.

F-35 breaks a lot of ground in a lot of technological areas. That is why it is a game changer. That is why we should aim for it. It brings capabilities to IAF and possibly IN which will take time for PLAAF/PLAN to acquire.

If a game changer is what we want - why not just invest in UCAVs then? If game changing is what is desired - then I see that as a good argument for investing in X-47 development (not that the US will let us touch it with a barge pole) rather than a F-35.

There is a building groundswell against F-35C in favor of UCAVs and serving marines are now openly questioning the utility of F-35B version from a doctrinal standpoint. F-35A is the only one currently guaranteed to linger on - in what form, what numbers and what final capability or cost is open to question. Fighter Mafia is fighting back against the robots, but it is a losing war in the long term. If one takes a long view than surely it is arguable that investing in manned aircraft is like investing in cavalry in 1913.

Boss the reason for France selling its jets is industrial, to recuperate the development cost of the fighter. Ditto for the EFT fighter consortium. It was money which was the primary reason for Russia to sell SU-30MKI. Ditto for PAK-FA fighter. And yes there is a shortage of money in US. If there had not been shortage of money, the F-22 program would not have been stopped well short of its proposed target.

OK, let me spell it out as I see it. French Rafale program is primarily a security-sovereignty issue for the French, the economic benefits are welcome, though secondary. Rafale program would have green-lighted even if there was a prospect of zero export sales. This is in marked contrast to the F-35 program. This programs prime imperative is to dominate the military aviation industry landscape and ideally eclipse every other competing manufacturer into oblivion. Battlefield domination is welcome, but secondary goal. When one understands this underlying drivers a clearer picture emerges as to what exactly is available for sale from each producer. Who will sell the fish and who the fishing rod.

It took the UK one billion development investment, five years or wrangling and begging (this during the heyday of Blair poodle'ism) for the US to 'waive' ITAR restrictions for UK. What chance India of even operational sovereignty, let alone impossible stuff like ToT.

Again the same variant of the same logic. The yanks have been castigated. Don't forget the F-35 offer came immediately after the decision to kick out F-16 and F-18IN.

Castigated? Who castigated the US? India did? Officially or unofficially? When/Why? As far as I know our official position was perfect - disinterested disdain.

Also, there was NO offer of F-35 to India. A regal hand was waved in our general direction. We were immediately expected to throw the MMRCA under the bus, and line up as a pleader for the JSF. The US would then deign to consider our supplication.

Yes boss F-35 will meet the specifications that it is meant for. It has to meet the specifications, or the entire USAF/USN/US Marines calculus gets upturned in the western pacific. Moreover the same can be said for PAK-FA and AMCA. If we follow this line of reasoning, then we need not go in for any cutting edge research. There are risks. But there are rewards too. We should not let the obstacles demur us.

Yes it would work, cause the congress will pass waivers to laws of physics and economics.

If it does work (I am fairly certain the F-35A will be fine more or less - less sure of B and C), it will much less than is promised, at a lot more expense and with a very heavy emphasis on electronic superiority to compensate for deficiencies. Just like the F/A-18E.

And the sad part is that if F-35B and F-35C meet its operational requirements, we would have already spent some 10-15 billions on a 4th generation fighter.

And the sad part of the UCAV's meeting expectations is that US would have invested untold billions in an obsolescent fifth generation design.

India buying F-35 does not mean that India becomes an american ally. The F-35B and F-35C variant should be chosen for only two things. Technical merit and financial merit.

I agree. We will be a client state. And our operational sovereignty will be held hostage to the US goodwill. Technical and financial merit is meaningless if can't operate, maintain, update our fleet without the sword of Damocles hanging over its head.

USA is not reliable partner. But so are the European countries which are supplying EFT. And let us not talk about Russia, which went back on its offer of cryogenic engines. Even France is a pure blue mercenary. Let us not forget that the French jets might see service in Pakistan and in certain gulf countries. If it is in the service of gulf countries then it would imply that Pakistan and China would get a hand on this fighter too. In this world there are no reliable friends or allay. There are just shifting alliances.

Indeed. And there are also degrees of dependability. We have Russia/France on one end of the scale and US of the far other end nearly off the scale. US has ****** too many people over in our immediate neighborhood to consider it as either "reliable" or "keeper of its word".

Yes we bought P-8I which did not have many american components. But the same can be done for F-35. We can develop components for a 5th generation fighter, or we can go for assembling components for a 4th generation fighter. I would prefer the former. Not only that, we can team with Japan or Israel or UK to co-develop these components if financial considerations come in the middle.

One of us has a completely wrong view of the US. Could be me I admit but I suspect not.

If you are thinking F-35MKI then forget about it. The US will not allow anyone to change any significant bits of the F-35. If you are very very good boy you will be permitted to integrate weapons and external systems in pods as a favor, plus the IFF or radios. Change the Avionics? EW? Additional or modified sensors? Out of luck.

Note that I am not adamant against the F-35 per se. For instance if the MMRCA +80 allows US to introduce the JSF as a contender I am all for it. Hell I would be perfectly OK with giving them some extra rope seeing as it is a developing platform rather than a mature one, so one should be willing to trade off some risk for higher capability. They go through the same 640 point or equivalent assessment the rest of the contender did. Hell relax the ToT requirements so that they can offer the minimal level of ToT to enable HAL to produce consumables and overhaul existing airframes/engines and avionics (no production or assembly tech required) to offer us operational autonomy. Plus the basic minimum of software codes/interfaces to allow integration of our own choice of weapons/kits in our own labs.

Do you think they would agree to that? If not then F-35 is a non-starter for the IAF and any acquisition is just throwing money at them to win their approval and goodwill and does nothing to further our war preparedness.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 Feb 2012 17:23

Rafale: Why it is the last plane standing

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 04 Feb 2012 17:45

@Badar. Nice post and the right amount of humour

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 04 Feb 2012 17:47

Something for Fidel to drone on about:

Another myth floating around is that the Rafale will fare poorly if it goes into combat against the F-22. However, the question of an encounter with the Raptor does not arise simply because the Raptor is stationed for the defence of the continental United States. Last heard, India had no plans to invade America.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Feb 2012 18:01

thats likely true. it will need a massive and dedicated infra to station any of them outside of homes bases. apparently many of the parts are unique to each plane so each one needs it own coded line of spares. plus ofcourse the usual AC enclosed hangers etc.

I am skeptical if they will ever deploy any to guam or japan - periodic noises notwithstanding. very 'easy' campaign like iraq or kosovo did not see its appearance...its internal bombload for the vital strike mission is less vs even a F-16 ..... it does not interwork with other planes only its own kind ... it lacks stuff standard in F15 and will need billions more to add those.

a cold war a2a dinosaur thats useful for psyops, testing new technologies, airshows and sucking up funds from ucav/uav/essential programs. maybe they should just keep 40 and retire the rest (or donate them to the pakis)

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 04 Feb 2012 18:12

Why has UAE asking for a uprated engines for Rafale , is it anything to do with hot weather out there which might result into performance loss ??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Feb 2012 18:49

yes I guess hot weather results in engine derating . and high alt also. hot+high is the killer combo stress test like Ladakh in summer.

so to be effective from Ladakh base it might carry less payload for now. there are only two fighter bases in ladakh and this bird has long legs though.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 04 Feb 2012 19:40

In hindsight, I think it was a pretty clever selection procedure. IAF test pilot(s) got to learn the "secrets" of almost all the potential rivals they might meet in the air. Hopefully, they would impart this vital knowledge to all present and future combat pilots in the force. I am sure not all the secrets were exposed to them but I believe a lot of them were exposed.
Avram

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 04 Feb 2012 20:24

Rakesh wrote:A must watch for all jingos. Gives you an idea what goes into a producing a modern fighter. This is about the Eurofighter Typhoon production line.
<snip>

Also what goes on beyond the production line. ( follow the part)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKClEx_ ... re=related

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Feb 2012 20:46

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=17203
did you guys read the well educated comments... check out on the links what 'dare2' has posted about Ef2K's design limit issues with LEX, and transonic vibration issues.

asprinzl, those learning needs to be factored as design inputs to ADA/team AMCA/LCA blocks.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 04 Feb 2012 21:48

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:I beg to disagree.
Disagree with what? That RN did not lose faith in the F-35B program? That RN switched from STOVL to CATOBAR version? Or changing the design of a carrier to incorporate a catapult will increase costs dramatically? Or that F-35B is a lemon?

You have still to give a convincing reason on why RN/UK has lost faith in F-35B program or the fact that F-35B is a lemon.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:There are two ships planned out of which the second one will have the CATOBAR capability.
Which look increasing likely to fly Rafale or Shornets. On an "interim" basis of course Brillant way to "save" more money.

Or make them impotent if they were to deployed anywhere other than Atlantic or Indian Ocean.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:F-35 breaks a lot of ground in a lot of technological areas. That is why it is a game changer. That is why we should aim for it. It brings capabilities to IAF and possibly IN which will take time for PLAAF/PLAN to acquire.
If a game changer is what we want - why not just invest in UCAVs then? If game changing is what is desired - then I see that as a good argument for investing in X-47 development (not that the US will let us touch it with a barge pole) rather than a F-35.

There is a building groundswell against F-35C in favor of UCAVs and serving marines are now openly questioning the utility of F-35B version from a doctrinal standpoint. F-35A is the only one currently guaranteed to linger on - in what form, what numbers and what final capability or cost is open to question. Fighter Mafia is fighting back against the robots, but it is a losing war in the long term. If one takes a long view than surely it is arguable that investing in manned aircraft is like investing in cavalry in 1913.

I am totally in agreement with you. The 6th gen is going to be a UCAV with our without AI/Autonomous Navigation. And that should be our goal, along with AMCA. In the interim F-35B and F-35C is what we need for IAF/IN. Not a 4th gen fighter. But I find it dubious to say the least that US Marines are openly questioning the utility of F-35B variant. If it is only numbers and capability that is open to question then so is the case of PAK-FA or AMCA and especially with UCAV. F-35B is important because it gives marines the ability to launch this fighter from Landing Ships. F-35C cannot do so.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Boss the reason for France selling its jets is industrial, to recuperate the development cost of the fighter. Ditto for the EFT fighter consortium. It was money which was the primary reason for Russia to sell SU-30MKI. Ditto for PAK-FA fighter. And yes there is a shortage of money in US. If there had not been shortage of money, the F-22 program would not have been stopped well short of its proposed target.

OK, let me spell it out as I see it. French Rafale program is primarily a security-sovereignty issue for the French, the economic benefits are welcome, though secondary. Rafale program would have green-lighted even if there was a prospect of zero export sales. This is in marked contrast to the F-35 program. This programs prime imperative is to dominate the military aviation industry landscape and ideally eclipse every other competing manufacturer into oblivion. Battlefield domination is welcome, but secondary goal. When one understands this underlying drivers a clearer picture emerges as to what exactly is available for sale from each producer. Who will sell the fish and who the fishing rod.

It took the UK one billion development investment, five years or wrangling and begging (this during the heyday of Blair poodle'ism) for the US to 'waive' ITAR restrictions for UK. What chance India of even operational sovereignty, let alone impossible stuff like ToT.

Again the same logic, this happened to UK hence will happen to us. We are a bigger market as compared to UK. We can put in more money as compared to UK. Developing a 5th generation fighter, especially one like F-35's demanding requirement, is tough, not only technically but also financially. That is why US went for a cooperative approach. Ditto for PAK-FA. Otherwise US would have gone alone like they did for F-15 and F-22.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Again the same variant of the same logic. The yanks have been castigated. Don't forget the F-35 offer came immediately after the decision to kick out F-16 and F-18IN.
Castigated? Who castigated the US? India did? Officially or unofficially? When/Why? As far as I know our official position was perfect - disinterested disdain.

Not verbally, but silently. Our actions have done the rest.

Badar wrote: Also, there was NO offer of F-35 to India. A regal hand was waved in our general direction. We were immediately expected to throw the MMRCA under the bus, and line up as a pleader for the JSF. The US would then deign to consider our supplication.

There is an offer. It is just that India has not taken it up. Pit the capabilities of Raff or even EFT against F-35. See what will one like to have.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Yes boss F-35 will meet the specifications that it is meant for. It has to meet the specifications, or the entire USAF/USN/US Marines calculus gets upturned in the western pacific. Moreover the same can be said for PAK-FA and AMCA. If we follow this line of reasoning, then we need not go in for any cutting edge research. There are risks. But there are rewards too. We should not let the obstacles demur us.
Yes it would work, cause the congress will pass waivers to laws of physics and economics.

If it does work (I am fairly certain the F-35A will be fine more or less - less sure of B and C), it will much less than is promised, at a lot more expense and with a very heavy emphasis on electronic superiority to compensate for deficiencies. Just like the F/A-18E.

We live in an information world. If electronic superiority were not of primary importance, we would have stuck with all-Russian SU-30MKI and Mig-21 BISONs.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:India buying F-35 does not mean that India becomes an american ally. The F-35B and F-35C variant should be chosen for only two things. Technical merit and financial merit.

I agree. We will be a client state. And our operational sovereignty will be held hostage to the US goodwill. Technical and financial merit is meaningless if can't operate, maintain, update our fleet without the sword of Damocles hanging over its head.

Neither an ally nor a client state. If buying F-35 does make us a client/ally/poodle then so does buying P-8I or C-130 or any other american component. Hell we might as well as throw out all of the PC's that GoI/MoD/IAF/IN/IA operate, because the heart of the PC is made in america Intel or AMD processor.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:USA is not reliable partner. But so are the European countries which are supplying EFT. And let us not talk about Russia, which went back on its offer of cryogenic engines. Even France is a pure blue mercenary. Let us not forget that the French jets might see service in Pakistan and in certain gulf countries. If it is in the service of gulf countries then it would imply that Pakistan and China would get a hand on this fighter too. In this world there are no reliable friends or allay. There are just shifting alliances.
Indeed. And there are also degrees of dependability. We have Russia/France on one end of the scale and US of the far other end nearly off the scale. US has ****** too many people over in our immediate neighborhood to consider it as either "reliable" or "keeper of its word".

So now we are discussing about degrees of dependability. Recently I read an article how the French were allegedly supplying Pakistan fighters during 1971 war, while the american president was whining that the Americans were doing nothing. This is a cause of caution and not rejection. As long as we are dependent on foreign suppliers for our weapon systems, this will remain.

Badar wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Yes we bought P-8I which did not have many american components. But the same can be done for F-35. We can develop components for a 5th generation fighter, or we can go for assembling components for a 4th generation fighter. I would prefer the former. Not only that, we can team with Japan or Israel or UK to co-develop these components if financial considerations come in the middle.
One of us has a completely wrong view of the US. Could be me I admit but I suspect not.

One of us is afraid. Afraid of history. History teaches us to be cautious and be prepared. Unfortunately many of us take history to mean do not do this and do not do that. We take from US what we want, the rest is just fly on the wall. If tomorrow US goes to war with China, I will support it whole heatedly. But if it goes to war with Iran, I doubt if anybody in India, including GoI, will be understanding. Hell we have not supported Iraq invasion, even after the royal treatment that was given to a particular NDA luminary. That is not going to change, even if buy or do not buy F-35.

Badar wrote: If you are thinking F-35MKI then forget about it. The US will not allow anyone to change any significant bits of the F-35. If you are very very good boy you will be permitted to integrate weapons and external systems in pods as a favor, plus the IFF or radios. Change the Avionics? EW? Additional or modified sensors? Out of luck.

Seriously why ??

Badar wrote: Note that I am not adamant against the F-35 per se. For instance if the MMRCA +80 allows US to introduce the JSF as a contender I am all for it. Hell I would be perfectly OK with giving them some extra rope seeing as it is a developing platform rather than a mature one, so one should be willing to trade off some risk for higher capability. They go through the same 640 point or equivalent assessment the rest of the contender did. Hell relax the ToT requirements so that they can offer the minimal level of ToT to enable HAL to produce consumables and overhaul existing airframes/engines and avionics (no production or assembly tech required) to offer us operational autonomy. Plus the basic minimum of software codes/interfaces to allow integration of our own choice of weapons/kits in our own labs.

Do you think they would agree to that? If not then F-35 is a non-starter for the IAF and any acquisition is just throwing money at them to win their approval and goodwill and does nothing to further our war preparedness.

Yes but if we are expecting F-35MKI then we need to make an approach. My concern is money. If we going towards a 4th generation fighter for MMRCA, then we will have the case of a serving IAF chief knocking on MoD/GoI doors for a 5th gen fighter, other than PAK-FA and the proposed AMCA around the time this decade ends.
The french offering is a competent one. IAF it seems is very happy with its mirage fighters and expects the same with this one too. I would hope that the mirage modernization program be scrapped and the same money be used for buying extra Raffy on top the existing 126+60/80 fighters slated for MMRCA. But it still does not eliminate that we might end up spending some 15+ billion for a 4th gen fighter. Why not put the same amount of money in AMCA or another 5th gen fighter.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 05 Feb 2012 00:53

Is anyone else scoffing in disbelief that after so many years, when we finally have the jury's verdict on the MMRCA, when the contract is yet to be signed and a few posters like arthuro have been posting constructively about the road from now to the signing of a contract {2013?} and the arrival of the first 18 Rafales, we have a few BRFites suffering indigestion and going on and on about the F-35, in a thread titled "Raffy wins - Go Katrina!".

Is anyone else having a WTF moment here?

My request to the F-35 fans is to start your own thread and watch how long that survives. Please don't pollute this thread.

I might add that I was mildly in support of the Eurofighter but at the end of the day what matters is the IAF getting their aircraft. I'm elated we have a decision and I hope nothing comes in the way of a signed agreement. This thread should include everything about the Rafale, from rivets (yes, we love them) to which variant of Tippy grey should adorn them.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 05 Feb 2012 01:01

The second set of 80 IAF requirement should go to improved F-18.
The IN requirement for 50 may go to F-35C if available.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Feb 2012 01:06

The followup order if any is likely to be more of the same.

Win By Rafale Is Gain For India As Well - AW

With French firm Dassault Aviation on the brink of signing a multibillion-dollar order to supply 126 Rafale fighter jets to the Indian air force (IAF), the Indian government may choose to enlarge the contract by adding 60 more aircraft.

The size of the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract could eventually increase, as there is a provision for boosting the order by 50% without any increase in unit price, a defense ministry official says.

Rafale jets, which will replace the aging MiG-21 fleet, are likely to be inducted into the force starting in 2014. The aircraft is expected to remain in service for more than three decades.

The French government said Feb. 1 it was expecting talks between Dassault and Indian officials to be completed within six to nine months.

Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony said earlier that the deal was not likely to be signed in the current Indian fiscal year.

The deal is a win-win for India and the French company, as it is expected to salvage Dassault’s assembly line for the fighter, which was in danger of shutting down. Until now, French authorities had been unsuccessful in selling the Rafale, which was created to replace seven types of jets used by the French military, including the Mirage series.

For India, the MMRCA contract is extremely important because the offset clause obliges the vendor to reinvest 50% of the contract value into Indian industry. With the deal’s value likely to reach $16 billion, India’s defense sector is expected to receive about 400 billion rupees ($8 billion) as offsets.

However, analysts warn that to derive the maximum benefit from the offsets, Indian industry must be in a position to absorb major technology infusions. And benefits could be lessened if the Indian government focuses only on state-run defense units like Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) and ignores the private sector.

While the first 18 aircraft will be bought off the shelf in flyaway condition within 36 months, the remaining 108 will be manufactured in partnership with HAL.

Aviation expert Ajey Lele, who works with the New Delhi-based Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, says the deal “means a lot for India’s defense preparedness. The IAF will emerge stronger, as the 126 aircraft will augment India’s squadron strength.”

India’s defense ministry chose Dassault’s Rafale after the French firm emerged as the lowest bidder, satisfying all technological parameters provided by the IAF (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 1).

“The decision will definitely strengthen France’s relations with India,” Lele adds.

France, which has landed a number of major defense contracts from India, including a deal to upgrade 51 Mirage 2000 multirole fighter aircraft with new avionics, radars and electronic warfare suites, and a deal with MBDA to equip the Mirage 2000 with 500 air-to-air missiles. The French government was predictably elated by the fighter decision.

“This announcement comes at the end of a very high-level, fair and transparent competition involving two European finalists,” the French government says in a statement. “The Rafale has been selected thanks to the aircraft’s competitive life-cycle costs, after the April 2011 preselection on the basis of its top-level operational performance. The negotiation of the contract will begin very soon and has the full support of the French authorities. It will include important technology transfers guaranteed by the French government.”

The negotiations also will include the cost of onboard weaponry and royalties for producing the aircraft in India.

While India’s defense ministry has not made any official announcement so far, Dassault, in an emailed statement from Paris, says the firm is committed “to meet the operational requirements of the Indian air force and underline their pride in contributing to India’s defense for over half a century.”

The deal will also help the French firm consolidate its presence in the Indian defense sector. In 2005, France’s Thales bagged a 190 billion rupee order to supply Scorpene submarines. India has also been flying Dassault’s Mirage fighter jets since the 1980s.

Cassidian, the defense and security division of Eurofighter consortium partner EADS, expressed disappointment over the government’s decision.

“India took the decision to select our competitor as the preferred bidder in the MMRCA tender,” Cassidian says. “Although this is not yet a contract signature and contract negotiations are still ahead, we are disappointed. However, we respect the decision of the Indian Ministry of Defense.”

Saying that with the Typhoon, Eurofighter had offered the IAF the most modern combat aircraft available, the company says, “Based on the Indian government feedback, we will now carefully analyze and evaluate this situation together with our European partner companies and their respective governments.”

The Eurofighter consortium comprises Italy’s Finmeccanica SpA, U.K.-based BAE Systems PLC and EADS. EADS also has a 46.3% stake in Dassault.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Feb 2012 01:12

ragupta wrote:The second set of 80 IAF requirement should go to improved F-18.

Saar please ponder why it did not even make it to the final round. It was rejected based on technical evaluation by IAF. How will they now turn back and accept F-18?

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 05 Feb 2012 01:12

Please! This F-35 ghost keeps returning like a wet dream.

No offer for F-35 has been made, except for public statement from LM officials that they and the US government would consider a request from India very seriously. This was more a pitch to support F-16IN than anything else.

Secondly, India has not expressed any interest whatsoever in the F-35 (much to the chagrin of many in LM/Pentagon).

Finally, F-35 timeline is not suitable for acquisition as MRCA (besides ton of bandwidth dedicated to it on BR and elsewhere about the limited internal bay capabilities).

All the F-35 discussion needs to be taken to another thread without contaminating discussion about MRCA. It was not a contender, and is not a contender.

Neither an ally nor a client state. If buying F-35 does make us a client/ally/poodle then so does buying P-8I or C-130 or any other american component. Hell we might as well as throw out all of the PC's that GoI/MoD/IAF/IN/IA operate, because the heart of the PC is made in america Intel or AMD processor.

Side Note: Answer is very simple -- difference being what is categorized as offensive weapon systems. P8I/C-130 will not go into sanctions immediately in wartime.