Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Sep 2012 19:37

Thank goodness, we have the French.. else the world will see only two poles - USA vs USSR. I hope France realize this is important deal, and ensures a good relationship with India. This actually help them as well, as many of Rafale technologies can be seen into future projects - 5th gen and AMCA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Sep 2012 00:18

Viv S wrote:As an aside, can I please ask the we stop piling on George Welch.

The Super Hornet provided arguably the best value-for-money of all the aircraft involved in the competition. A pertinent factor given the prevaling economic conditions. Unfortunately for Boeing, the competition was structured such that the pricing arguments did not come into play until the shortlist was released and that the IAF placed a somewhat greater emphasis on the performance of the platform vis-a-vis its avionics that could probably be upgraded/modified to the service's requirements.

These were factors that were known from the RFP stage itself and Boeing just like Lockheed Martin, SAAB and MiG had to balance risk with reward. The expenses involved in flight trials, while not insignificant, were certainly not high enough for a company the size of Boeing to rue its decision to compete for the contract.

So GeorgeWelch is wrong only insofar as his claim that irregularities in the evaluation unfairly put the SH out of contention. So what? Its certainly not enough to justify the vitriol spewed over the last few pages. I've had several heated debates with him, but never felt he was troll. Biased perhaps, but certainly not a troll.

Viv, there is no doubt that the SHornet is a great aircraft and probably the most mature of the 4th generation fighters with cutting edge AESA radars that participated in the MRCA (even more so than the Block 60, whose APG-80 was causing UAE problems till recently). It is also reliable, and Boeing has an enviable track record of on-time and on-cost deliveries for this program. There is no doubting the wide variety of cheaper weapons that it can carry which would’ve made it cost effective to equip.

The ‘International’ roadmap was interesting, although what was not clear was who was going to fund it. It was called International because most likely the USN wasn’t going to fund it. If India had to fund it (like Switzerland is going to have to do for the Gripen E, at least partly), the costs of development for the SHornet ‘International’ would have been needed to be accounted for since no other major customer exist for the SHornet apart from the USN, and their interest in the International Roadmap is uncertain to say the least.

We’re seeing how OEM’s advertise a capability during a competition, but when it comes to delivering that capability, it actually needs to go beyond laboratory conditions and sometimes hasn’t even been prototyped. The Gripen E is a case in point- SAAB was advertising and offering a variant that wasn’t even developed and now turns out, needs another 5-6 years, and customer involvement to fully develop. The Rafale doesn’t require a F4 variant anytime this decade- possibly in the mid-2020s, the IAF may start looking at the F4, like how it had started looking at the Super-MKI within the first 10 years of the Su-30MKI being in service itself, but at least the burden of the F4 development costs won’t rest solely on India.

The biggest drawback of the SHornet however, will always be its design as a carrier strike fighter (apart from other compromises like the drag increasing pylons). It lugs around weight it doesn’t need and you only have to see the massive undercarriage and nose gear on the SHornet to get what I mean. I’ve seen an F-15 side by side with a SHornet and the difference is huge.

If Boeing seriously intended to have the SHornet compete with land-based fighters for a piece of the land-based fighter pie, they needed to optimize the SHornet’s airframe. Both, the airframe and the landing gear are strengthened to be able to take the rigours of landing on an aircraft carrier where the sink rates are much higher. It also carries an arresting hook that is not needed for land based fighters. Plus, the folding wings limit the SHornet to +7.6Gs max, which is a drawback. Boeing did state that it can fly to 9Gs, but AFAIK it requires the FCS to be over-ridden and generally the OEM gives a max G limit for a reason. I’m not sure any customer would want to have to over-ride the FCS to get to 8 or 9Gs. Some might argue that the benefits of 1.5G in combat might be marginal, but that call belongs to the customer only. Those intent on selling the SHornet will obviously state that +7.6Gs are enough, but the IAF had a choice of other fighters that weren’t restricted below 9Gs. Not having taken care of these deficiencies means that the SHornet’s flying characteristics are handicapped by considerations that are not required for a land-based fighter.

If you look around, you’ll find that for all fighters that have naval and land-based versions, the variants differ. The Rafale M carrier version is different from the Rafale B/C for a reason. It reduces the weight by a whopping 500 kgs on the Rafale B/C. That is quite a bit of additional weight that the M variant carries, and the SHornet, being larger, would be unnecessarily carrying possibly ~700 to 800 kgs. Reducing that weight would have helped the SHornet’s acceleration and and removing the wing folding mechanism and hinges would’ve improved its G limit, that would make it a lot more attractive to Air Forces.

Even the MiG-29M2 (basically the same as the MiG-29K/KUB) being marketed to Air Forces is optimized for land-based operations, because no land-based operator would want to carry around weight that isn’t required, for a carrier landing mission they don’t ever need to perform.

Airframe optimization is a somewhat costly and time-consuming exercise, which is probably why Boeing hasn’t gotten around to doing it (also since their primary customer is the USN and they won’t fund it), but it would’ve yielded performance benefits almost on par with adding a new, higher thrust F-414 engine and substantial savings in fuel burn over its life time- which would’ve reduced life cycle costs, an important factor for the MRCA competition.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Sep 2012 00:43

excellent analysis Kartik.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 18 Sep 2012 08:16

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 18 Sep 2012 12:08

Viv S wrote:
That is not the issue that I was referred to. Point is, Mr Welch has certain opinions that he should be welcome to have, without other members getting riled into a mob-like fury. Whether one agrees with him or not, overall his posts are usually detailed and interesting enough, and contribute well to the diversity of opinion that I imagine the forum would like to foster.

Thats from the past viv, and i have mentioned my appreciation of welchs past, good posts in my previous post.

His current series of posts are borderline trollish, like a peevish schoolboy. The reaction that they got was justified.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2012 19:54

Kartik wrote:Viv, there is no doubt that the SHornet is a great aircraft and probably the most mature of the 4th generation fighters with cutting edge AESA radars that participated in the MRCA (even more so than the Block 60, whose APG-80 was causing UAE problems till recently). It is also reliable, and Boeing has an enviable track record of on-time and on-cost deliveries for this program. There is no doubting the wide variety of cheaper weapons that it can carry which would’ve made it cost effective to equip.
.
.
.
Airframe optimization is a somewhat costly and time-consuming exercise, which is probably why Boeing hasn’t gotten around to doing it (also since their primary customer is the USN and they won’t fund it), but it would’ve yielded performance benefits almost on par with adding a new, higher thrust F-414 engine and substantial savings in fuel burn over its life time- which would’ve reduced life cycle costs, an important factor for the MRCA competition.

Kartik,

I agree completely except for the point about the SH International. While you may in fact be right and Boeing may have expected the customer to fund it, I believe with over 500 already in service, if the upgrade enhances combat potential, the USN will order it eventually. Even the older AN/APG-73 radar is still a fairly decent piece of kit, but its already being replaced by the AN/APG-79 after just a few years in service. Also, the Super Hornet's G-limits can be exceeded in flight at the pilot's discretion; the restrictions only apply to conserve airframe life. A land based aircraft on the other hand doesn't go through the stresses of CATOBAR operations and can be employed to its limits. In fact it was George Welch who pointed out the fact that Boeing was offering a 9G fighter to the IAF, which I was unaware of (later confirmed by Vishnu Som).

With regard to the airframe, no dispute there. Thanks to its canted pylons, large LERX and low sweep angle on its wings, even the F414EPE won't make its performance competitive. As a matter of fact, I was plugging for the EF over the Rafale, partly because unlike the latter its design hasn't made any compromises to enable carrier operations (and partly because of the Captor-E's projected output power and WFoR). Combat doesn't end at the detection stage, and unlike the lessons from a guns-only exercise (one that was played up on the forum), the efficacy of an F-pole maneuver may actually be the difference between victory and defeat in BVR combat.

In any case, my point was different. What I was trying to say was that the Super Hornet, even if it wasn't the IAF's (or my) aircraft of choice, did have its merits even vis-a-vis the Eurocanards, particularly in terms of price (the rate of production is four times that of the Rafale and the pool of aircraft sharing upgrade and maintenance costs is massive). And that is something, that unlike you, many others have failed to appreciate. All in all I'd like to continue seeing George Welch's posts at least in aerospace related forums, even when I totally disagree with his opinion.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2012 20:07

Manish_Sharma wrote:Plus if a 60s design which couldn't even take off from Leh with any load, the great SH is just 3 years older then Rafale , in that case we should have gone for Mig 35 which should be counted as the latest of all 6 participants.

The post was not about being latest or youngest, it was about its expected service life. An aircraft commissioned in 2015 will serve till 2045+, to which point DoD/USN support is assured, which in turn was the subject of the discussion with Nakul. Now did you honestly not get that point, or were you being deliberately obdurate?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2012 20:10

Surya wrote:
Viv S wrote:
So GeorgeWelch is wrong only insofar as his claim that irregularities in the evaluation unfairly put the SH out of contention. So what? Its certainly not enough to justify the vitriol spewed over the last few pages. I've had several heated debates with him, but never felt he was troll. Biased perhaps, but certainly not a troll.

wow and you certainly are the one to certify as such

I have no intention of certifying anything to anybody. Just stating an opinion. Something the mods may choose to keep in mind while considering all the appeals for a ban. Or they may not, in which case... so be it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Sep 2012 23:13

Viv S wrote:All in all I'd like to continue seeing George Welch's posts at least in aerospace related forums, even when I totally disagree with his opinion.

+1

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Sep 2012 00:20

Viv S wrote: Kartik,

I agree completely except for the point about the SH International. While you may in fact be right and Boeing may have expected the customer to fund it, I believe with over 500 already in service, if the upgrade enhances combat potential, the USN will order it eventually. Even the older AN/APG-73 radar is still a fairly decent piece of kit, but its already being replaced by the AN/APG-79 after just a few years in service. Also, the Super Hornet's G-limits can be exceeded in flight at the pilot's discretion; the restrictions only apply to conserve airframe life. A land based aircraft on the other hand doesn't go through the stresses of CATOBAR operations and can be employed to its limits. In fact it was George Welch who pointed out the fact that Boeing was offering a 9G fighter to the IAF, which I was unaware of (later confirmed by Vishnu Som).

With regard to the airframe, no dispute there. Thanks to its canted pylons, large LERX and low sweep angle on its wings, even the F414EPE won't make its performance competitive. As a matter of fact, I was plugging for the EF over the Rafale, partly because unlike the latter its design hasn't made any compromises to enable carrier operations (and partly because of the Captor-E's projected output power and WFoR). Combat doesn't end at the detection stage, and unlike the lessons from a guns-only exercise (one that was played up on the forum), the efficacy of an F-pole maneuver may actually be the difference between victory and defeat in BVR combat.

In any case, my point was different. What I was trying to say was that the Super Hornet, even if it wasn't the IAF's (or my) aircraft of choice, did have its merits even vis-a-vis the Eurocanards, particularly in terms of price (the rate of production is four times that of the Rafale and the pool of aircraft sharing upgrade and maintenance costs is massive). And that is something, that unlike you, many others have failed to appreciate. All in all I'd like to continue seeing George Welch's posts at least in aerospace related forums, even when I totally disagree with his opinion.

Viv, there is no way other than to have the customer fund the International Roadmap, at least partly. AFAIK, it has not been offered to the USN and they have their own set of requirements for the future growth of the Super Hornet Block 2. And only a small portion of the USN upgrades overlap with the International roadmap.

USN developing new Super Hornet upgrades

Super Hornet International Roadmap

As you can see from the USN’s upgrades for the SHornet, the IRST is a podded one. The International Roadmap OTOH features an internal IRST. The USN wanted to avoid retrofit costs and is willing to accept the disadvantages of the podded IRST for lowered costs. The USN has not spoken out on the F-414-EPE engines whereas the International Roadmap features EPE engines to improve T/W ratio and transonic acceleration. No talk of the CFTs for the USN as yet either, and those are costly additions to develop and flight test. Same goes for the enclosed weapons pod. What the USN may be interested in is more network centric warfare and better situational awareness through tying in all the sensors into one clear tactical picture- basically sensor fusion. That and the future displays are what the USN is interested in from the International Roadmap.

The issue with folding wings is that they are just not as stiff as the regular wings that don’t fold. The spars basically don’t extend all the way to the wing tip without a break and that means that for aircraft that carry wing tip missiles or with pylons that are located beyond the wing-folding hinge, the G restrictions are real. Even the IN’s MiG-29Ks are not 9G aircraft. So while I’ve read that the pilot can over-ride the FCS to go to 9Gs, this is not an ideal situation at all. If it was, they wouldn’t restrict the max Gs to just +7.6Gs for the USN. And all the other fighters in the MRCA competition had 9G max loading and are not restricted since they can sustain that load and not get into a possibly dangerous situation. Any and all aircraft suffer from higher Gs (European F-16s suffered wing spar cracks due to persistent usage at high Gs), so it’s not just the SHornet that needs to conserve airframe life. After all the USAF’s F-16/F-15/F-22 all have 9G max loading and they too have 6000+ airframe hours built into their design. If the OEM specifies a lower limit, it’s because they know the design of the aircraft and just how many Gs it can sustain safely over a period of usage. Perhaps, they’d have it limited to a lower max G for a particular load out. Anyhow, the Boeing offer that Vishnu Som mentioned didn’t talk about optimizing the airframe to reduce the weight that the IAF’s missions just didn’t require. Although, on the flip side, perhaps that would only result in a more robust airframe that would comfortably sail past the 6000 hours that the MRCA requirements demanded.

As far as price goes, I agree that the SHornet offered a very capable package for a competitive price. But that would have come into the picture had the SHornet made the cut to the last stage. It didn’t and the IAF may have had other reservations that are not in the public domain. Perhaps we’ll get to know what they were in several year’s time when one of the evaluation personnel gets to retire from the IAF and writes a detailed article in Vayu or on BRF.

I for one, wouldn’t have shed any tears had the IAF selected the SHornet, because while it’s not the most glamorous of the MRCA competitors, it is certainly a very effective strike fighter. What I don’t like about GW’s posts are his earlier insinuations and later accusations that the IAF cheated and didn’t offer a level playing field to the SHornet. He simply hasn’t gotten access to the level of information required to make such assertions. He’s even gone so far as to question why the IAF laid down some requirements, which is patently unfair. They are the customer and reserve the right to demand what they feel they need, not what another service (the USN in this case) feels is ok for them.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Sep 2012 01:06

indranilroy wrote:
Viv S wrote:All in all I'd like to continue seeing George Welch's posts at least in aerospace related forums, even when I totally disagree with his opinion.
+1

I think that should be the attitude for everyone with everyone, including George Welch.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Sep 2012 05:00

enough with the dramabazi - we allow even the drones to buzz for ages

Viv S wrote:
All in all I'd like to continue seeing George Welch's posts at least in aerospace related forums, even when I totally disagree with his opinion.

No one has kicked him out.

He could not deal with the kitchen heat while sloshing hot oil around

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Sep 2012 06:17

So, instead of cool aid, the requirement is welch grape juice. let us get off this discussion now.

--

Q: Is Rafale's cannon better than MKI's?

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 19 Sep 2012 07:55

OT but necessary, not to rehash (but I’ve spent some time writing it)…

Rakshaks, it seems there has been some confusion as to what has been going on with this thread of late. Far be it for me to try to re-frame what has gone on. Interested readers who haven’t been following can always go back and catch-up reading what has been written (even though it is not advisable). This is why I don’t favour ‘trash-can clean-up’ as a solution. Let the record stand as it has been ‘written’.

Yet, I would like to address a number of preceding posts in an attempt to clear the air and to develop the kind of shared understanding and appreciation of things that would be to everyone’s benefit, in service of the purpose of this thread. Yes, the following is not strictly pertinent to a specific thread entitled “Raffy Wins – Go Katrina!” but just maybe it bears relevance to the entirety of BRF (and other internet fora too).

Allow me to make my point by interpolating a few choice posts and my subsequent remarks. I will not attempt to seem even-handed WRT the topic at hand; and instead will be <blunt> and will use appropriate <sarcasm> just so my PoV is crystal clear and plainly non-contentious.

eklavya wrote:GW is essentially saying "You Indians are a bunch of slimy cheats, because if you were not slimy cheats, my SH would have won the MMRCA contract". The forum members are essentially saying "Get lost you lying sore loser and stick the SH where the sun doesn't shine."

^^^^This may be the most succinct summary of perhaps hundreds of the posts-and-counter-posts in this thread. I will not attempt to parse such a sparse yet rich encapsulation of so much time, effort and energy as has been expended in posts re: the ‘Super Hornet’ since the down-select in the MMRCA.

At that time, IIRC, this thread was re-named “Raffy Wins – Go Katrina!” and I thought “GREAT” because I always did favour the Dassault Rafale (if not the plane’s BRF moniker). RECOGNIZE, from that point onward, the topic of the thread, the title of the thread *focussed* on a single aircraft which was publically announced as L1. With this in mind (REPEAT), keeping this in mind; posts regarding the Dassault Rafale and perhaps the Eurofighter Typhoon on-offer to the IAF are GERMANE to this thread, and such posts certainly belong here in this thread, regardless of the opinions expressed therein. HOWEVER, non sequitur posts regarding other aircraft of whatever nation are to be considered OFF TOPIC in this thread. This is just basic internet forum hygiene.

IMO, the *OFF TOPIC* posts regarding the ‘Super Hornet’ are *spam* at best and after posting many such posts; after receiving widespread negative feedback and continuing to make such posts; many of which are openly inflammatory and *libelous*; one opens himself to charges of “trolling”.

Viv S wrote:So GeorgeWelch is wrong only insofar as his claim that irregularities in the evaluation unfairly put the SH out of contention. So what? Its certainly not enough to justify the vitriol spewed over the last few pages. I've had several heated debates with him, but never felt he was troll. Biased perhaps, but certainly not a troll.

Given that even his most contentious posts are at the very least as interesting as a debate on the merits of Katrina as a suitable nick for the Rafale, the outpouring of scorn may end up as a poor reflection on the forum.

………………. and some more cheerleading……………..

khukri wrote:Hear hear. Someone understands what a forum is intended for, reasoned debate between reasonable men (and women, oops!) with room for all to express their opinions even if they don't correspond to our views!!

………………. much of it coming from the same cheerleader……………..

Viv S wrote:Point is, Mr Welch has certain opinions that he should be welcome to have, without other members getting riled into a mob-like fury. Whether one agrees with him or not, overall his posts are usually detailed and interesting enough, and contribute well to the diversity of opinion that I imagine the forum would like to foster.

With respect, Viv S et al.; you are wrong-headed WRT this issue. I think you must lack understanding of the ‘Rules of the Internet’. http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/30662 Allow me to list the immediately pertinent rules everyone should be aware of here:

11. All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored
12. Anything you say can and will be used against you
13. Anything you say can be turned into something else - fixed
14. Do not argue with trolls - it means that they win
15. The harder you try the harder you will fail
16. If you fail in epic proportions, it may just become a winning failure
17. Every win fails eventually
18. Everything that can be labeled can be hated
19. The more you hate it the stronger it gets
20. Nothing is to be taken seriously

^^^^This is why I have implored reasonable Rakshaks following this thread not to engage with GeorgeWelch and Septimus P. on the topic of the ‘Super Hornet’ while in this thread. If GeorgeWelch or Septimus P. want to start another thread here on BRF entitled “Rehashing/Revisiting the MMRCA” or even if they wanted to start a thread entitled “Super Hornets for India”, that would be fair and legit, and it might actually be valuable and worthwhile and interesting and all that. Indeed, we’ve heard so much about the ‘Growler’; perhaps it would be advantageous to consider a number of these aircraft in support roles for specialized ops (when surprise isn’t that important)………… I really don’t know, but I would be interested to read reasonable arguments on such a topic in such a thread. What I don’t like, what I don’t want, is to read about the (impossible) ‘Super Hornet’ while I’m trying to read about the (imminent) Dassault Rafale as the IAF’s MMRCA.

^^^^That summarizes my *basic* takleef with many of the posts of GeorgeWelch and Septimus P.

What raises the Kolaveri in me is the repeated, ugly, entirely-unfounded, defamatory and *libelous* accusation of impropriety in the MMRCA and by extension, of the state of debate/opinion of some members here on BRF. Flat-out, GeorgeWelch and Septimus P. have both levelled *unfounded accusations* of criminal acts such as bribery on the part of the French; which would amount to treason on the part of the IAF officers taking the bribe. This is much worse than obnoxious OT posts. This is trolling. They have engaged in this trolling with no grounds whatsoever, and both of them are shamelessly making such ugly accusations while remaining hidden behind the veil of internet anonymity (unlike me; as I post here using my real name). Making matters worse, some here (ahem!) would argue to allow them; making excuses for GeorgeWelch in particular; instructing others not to degenerate into a furious mob when a pointed retort hits home. It would seem they prefer Rakshaks maintain a polite smile while being kicked in the teeth. I and others have refused to oblige. Is all of this OT? Yup. Unfortunately, it also seems necessary – another sure sign of trolling activity in the vicinity.

<sarcasm>I suppose it all turns on one’s definition of ‘troll’. One Rakshak’s troll is another Rakshak’s “reasonable” man.</sarcasm>

Rather than try to arbitrate the definition of the word ‘troll’, please allow me to quote the accepted definition http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html

troll
1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.”

Now, WRT the question of one ‘member’ or another being a troll; or the question of groups of members becoming a ‘furious mob’ while handling said trolls in the customary fashion (flaming torch in one hand, pitchfork in the other); the written record still stands as of this writing. If there is any doubt in your mind, please re-read what has been written in this thread. While doing so, please keep count of three things in particular:

1. Instances where accusations of incompetence have been made (which are insulting).
2. Instances where accusations of bribery have been made (specious allegations of crime/treason – a well known ‘dirty trick’).
3. Instances where accusations of an ‘anti-American’ bias have been raised (which is sooo wrong, in soooo many ways, as explained below).

Rakshaks, mods especially, within the context of this thread, given its name and history, instances of any of the three aforementioned types of posts are de facto ‘troll’ posts (aka ‘flames’). Such posts cannot be written-off as a ‘difference of opinion’, which is something I ordinarily welcome. The OT posts that have no relation to the Dassault Rafale in the IAF’s sights for the MMRCA, are just bitter icing of spam on a foul cake made of BS. Both the spam posts and the overt troll posts have badly hurt this thread and have significantly reduced the value of the forum IMO. A great proportion of such posts have come from two ‘members’. Does this mean that GeorgeWelch is a troll? Does it mean that Septimus P. is a troll? Does it mean that either or both of them should be banned?

I would say ‘No’ – unless they fail to heed this post, and continue-on as they have been, in which case they MUST be considered “wanton, reckless trolls”, and then I would argue that they should be banned. To paraphrase Forest Gump, “A troll is as a troll does”. If all these ‘members’ can be seen doing is trolling and OT posting, then ban them for the sake of the forum, please. Yet, some here have argued that they enjoy having GeorgeWelch around, and I am glad to take them at their word. Perhaps he’s more reasonable in other threads. I don’t know. I sure hope so. Indeed, IMO much of what he’s written in this thread would be fine if only he’d written it in another thread (where I didn’t have to read it).

But some of what he wrote in this thread is worse than OT – much worse – and even though it doesn’t deserve a response, I have always enjoyed throwing sticky mud or snowballs or crab apples or water balloons or dirt bombs in their proper season, and this is mud-slinging season……..

GeorgeWelch and Septimus P.,

1. If you want to post on BRF; calling into question the competence of the IAF; insulting their intelligence; you should expect a pointed retort questioning your own knowledge, competence, intelligence, motives, et cetera. Don’t expect to sidestep this. Don’t expect to convince us. Expect to be considered a troll.

2. If you want a platform to anonymously make unfounded accusations of others’ bribe making and bribe taking, this isn’t it. Kindly do your trolling elsewhere. If you want such a platform from which to troll, then you’ll have to ‘man-up’ and at least use your real name and not some cowardly anonymous forum moniker. That way, if you’re proven correct in a court of law, you can secure damages and soothe your takleef; and if you’re wrong, you can be (counter)sued as a libelous liar as you should be, according to the law. Don’t expect others to passively sit-by and watch you abuse your internet anonymity to commit crimes here on BRF (even if some here proudly proclaim that they’re okee-dokee with it). It’s not kewl. It is illegal. On top of which, you’ve got no proof whatsoever, and moreover; that’s a hilarious prospect that an American company should be out-bribed by a French company!

Don’t you Americans literally just print that stuff out of thin air? Don’t the French have to buy their Euros from the ECB? What exactly are you saying; that you Americans couldn’t print enough of a bribe to win the MMRCA for the supposedly ‘super-doooper’ hornet?

If this whole allegation weren’t so offensive, it would have the making of a really funny joke at the SHornet’s expense!

3. If you want to play the “anti-American” card; baselessly ascribing ugly motivations or intentions to others (like trolls typically do); you should be prepared for that card to appear in someone else’s hand. [Rakshaks, mods, please; he brought it up and so I’m gonna quickly ‘break it down’; even though I find it quite distasteful and certainly OT for this thread, it seems necessary for the etch and dee of BRF, not to mention some much-needed remedial instruction on how to play nicely with others.] With your indulgence….. I have myself been accused of harbouring such a foul sentiment, and it was distasteful in the extreme. [Much like being asked “Do you beat your wife with your fists?” or “Where are the WMDs?”; whatever the answer, merely the answer, the refusal to answer or even a well-written, thoughtful and impassioned answer will all serve to prove you’ve got something to hide or defend or justify or moderate or reconsider or compromise -- distracting you, deterring you, deflecting you and eventually directing you as per their will and their interests, not yours. Hence the reason behind “Don’t feed the trolls!”] Fighting fire with fire; trying to stay on-topic; I will therefore address the possibility of ‘anti-American bias’ in the MMRCA down-select decision.

<blunt>
Leaving aside the evidence, the logic, the established track record and all other reasonable considerations….

Let us imagine that there was indeed an ‘anti-American’ bias in the MMRCA contest that pre-ordained the down-select, excluding American warplanes.
The corollary here is that the IAF would have rejected any plane put-forth by Americans, and likely would have bought any plane from the French.

Even if one allows for a weasel’s retort; curtailing the supposition to merely state that Americans were judged to a different standard….

Such is life. What’s your point?

If a decision was taken at the outset by the Indian establishment not to buy any American warplane; and the American establishment made a decision to show their *non-competitive* aircraft nonetheless; what other outcome could anyone expect? No doubt, the IAF was happy to understand more about the F-16 in particular, especially since it is in the TSP’s inventory (placed there as a matter of largess delivered for free from unkil with love). A better understanding of the F-18’s much-touted avionics suite was also probably instructive; hopefully providing lessons that can be designed-in to the AMCA. That’s the game. America chose to play, though she didn’t have to, even though the odds were stacked against her, and predictably, the American entrants lost.

Such is life. What’s your point?

My point (chosen only for convenience) is that Americans were foolish to think that Indians would buy an American warplane of this description, for this critical role, with America’s long-established pro-Pakistan tilt, and deep and deepening debt to China. To be perfectly honest, America is not seen as an honest broker or a fair dealer by many people around the entire world, including an increasing number of American citizens. Indeed, America has a long track record of double-dealing, backstabbing and abandonment. America’s stated geostrategic interests remain in ‘dominance’; which cannot be an inviting message, internationally.

Moreover, the American political establishment, with its (in)famous ‘checks and balances’ is routinely held hostage by fringe elements who’ve bought-off two-bit congressmen and senators who will eagerly take payola from Paksitanis, Saudis, Chinese and whoever else has the cash. Leaving all technical considerations aside; I have personally argued against an American warplane winning the MMRCA on geopolitical grounds alone. Indians watch as Americans coddle Pakistani generals; providing cover for covert nuclear weapons programs and un-checked nuclear proliferation activities via AQ Khan Labs; and they also see Chinese spies looting US secrets and technologies at-will; while ‘black money’ flows into the American election cycle from all and sundry. Is this really what constitutes a ‘reliable partner’, geostrategically speaking? I don't think so, and if you or whoever else wants to label it 'anti-American', well that's no skin off my nose.

More to my point: The Americans have for years proclaimed that Pakistan was a “Major Non-NATO Ally” and a "friend" in the war on terror. We all know this is simply risible. Even a prominent US pollster can provide the survey data proving that Pakistan is the most vehemently anti-American country on earth. Yet, America continues to coddle and appease the TSP even to this day, while the TSP continues to target and kill Afghans, Americans and Indians alike.

Specifically: On July 7, 2008 (if memory serves), the Haqqani network attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul. This was the consensus of evidence and opinion as publically announced by the Afghan government, the Indian government and the American government. I believe the Haqqanis themselves claimed responsibility. Yet, the Haqqani network was only proclaimed a US-designated ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’ a couple of weeks ago – over four years later. Why the delay? What was going on in the interim? (Imagine US dollars flowing to Haqqanis for protection money, and you’ll get the picture, also here http://www.firstpost.com/world/blacklis ... 55743.html) Whatever the reason, should such a thing really be overlooked? Should Americans expect to be able to pay-off the Haqqanis who blew-up the Indians, and still sell warplanes to the Indians? Could such an expectation ever be reasonably considered in any other context, between any other two nations on this planet or any other? Or perhaps, this is an American expectation of too much?

What I’d really like to know is whatever happened to George W. Bush’s proclamation that “You’re either with us or you’re against us”?

What if we can plainly see that those who are supposedly “with you” are also obviously “against you”?

Should ‘we all’ join you two, so that we too can also be against you?

Would that really be in anyone’s best interest or advantage?

Isn’t this ridiculous to discuss here or anywhere?

Do you see the stupidity trolls generate?

Even troll-fighting is stupid!

Don’t feed the trolls!

Dammit!

Jaybhatt · Post by **Jaybhatt** » 19 Sep 2012 08:28

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:OT but necessary, not to rehash (but I’ve spent some time writing it)…

Rakshaks, it seems there has been some confusion as to what has been going on with this thread of late. Far be it for me to try to re-frame what has gone on. Interested readers who haven’t been following can always go back and catch-up reading what has been written (even though it is not advisable). This is why I don’t favour ‘trash-can clean-up’ as a solution. Let the record stand as it has been ‘written’.

Yet, I would like to address a number of preceding posts in an attempt to clear the air and to develop the kind of shared understanding and appreciation of things that would be to everyone’s benefit, in service of the purpose of this thread. Yes, the following is not strictly pertinent to a specific thread entitled “Raffy Wins – Go Katrina!” but just maybe it bears relevance to the entirety of BRF (and other internet fora too).

Allow me to make my point by interpolating a few choice posts and my subsequent remarks. I will not attempt to seem even-handed WRT the topic at hand; and instead will be <blunt> and will use appropriate <sarcasm> just so my PoV is crystal clear and plainly non-contentious.

eklavya wrote:GW is essentially saying "You Indians are a bunch of slimy cheats, because if you were not slimy cheats, my SH would have won the MMRCA contract". The forum members are essentially saying "Get lost you lying sore loser and stick the SH where the sun doesn't shine."

Bravo, Ravi.

After what he has written so perceptively, accurately and fairly, I think we should move on.

It is pathetic that people like George Welch, Septimus et al (aided and abetted by Viv S and a few others (admittedly very few) have spewed utter nonsense and fertiliser on this thread. It is a travesty of logic and ethics to grandstand that someone is free to add 2 and 2 and say that the result is 22.

Welch, for some reason, summarises the worst of Pox Americana. While the rest of his compatriots are generally noted for their openness and willingness to analyse facts (otherwise how could they have won the largest number of Nobels in the universe ?), our friend here is more interested in propagating his darkest fantasies. Thereby, if he casts reprehensible aspersions on the integrity and character of others, he doesn't care a fig. The less said about Septimus P Q etc, the better.

Time the moderators stepped in.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 19 Sep 2012 08:50

^^^^^ No, please, and thank you.

I don't think we actually need moderators.

Just some moderation will suffice (demonstrated by what/how each of us posts, from here-on down).

PLEASE NOTE: The title of this thread is "Raffy wins - Go Katrina!"

So.................... there ya go!

To re-start the discussion, I would like to propose one of two topics.

1. Indian-sounding alternatives to the current name 'Katrina' in reference to the Dassault Rafale.

or

2. The fact that there has been much muck-raking about the relative size of the radar on the Rafale, as compared to some other planes like perhaps the SHornet; simply by counting-up T/R modules and the size of primary arrays; without any public accounting of secondary conformal arrays; OR module density, sensitivity, impedence, gain, draw, drain, sweep, rate, scale or thermal efficiency; nor has there been much light shed on the peculiarities of the Rafale's SPECTRA system, which reportedly employs a towed-array; conceivably with the ability to control the flight behaviour of the towed array, which certainly would have some T/R modules of its own; likely other sensors too.

Specifically: What might such a novel system enable the Rafale to do, radar-wise and sensor wise?

or

What might be a better name for India's Rafales?

Kali!

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Sep 2012 19:19

An important milestones for the rafale programme revealed : first picture of the very first serial rafale with AESA, OSF-IT, DDM-NG and M884-E as well as other spectra improvements. This is exactly the configuration offered to india during the MMRCA competition. this rafale C137 is the first of the 4th rafale batch at the F3-O4T standard for the french airforce. It is currently performing its acceptance flight in the end of Dassault test pilots prior to the formal delivery for the french airforce.

picture at link (post 3852)

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ws/page257

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Sep 2012 20:07

^where? I don't see it (post #?)

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 19 Sep 2012 20:10

Direct link

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ost6371225

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Sep 2012 20:35

oh okay, I thought there was a pic of the open nose.

btw, anyone can link to a specification site that talks about wet and dry thrusts and other t:w aspects of m88-4e?

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 19 Sep 2012 22:02

^^^^^^^22 seconds of Googling revealed the following (in part).......

Basic wiki page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

SNECMA Safran corporate pages here....
http://snecma.safran-group.com/-newslet ... =20&cat=10
Interview with French Air Force General about M88-4E http://snecma.safran-group.com/-newslet ... =24&cat=11
http://www.snecma.com/-m88-.html?lang=en (has links to brochures on the M88)
Brochure they used at Farmborough Airshow here http://www.snecma.com/IMG/pdf/snecma_m8 ... h_2012.pdf

Defensetalk article here http://www.defencetalk.com/rafale-fight ... ine-26198/

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 19 Sep 2012 22:10

The above links prove that m88-4e is a cheaper version of the existing m88-2. The aim is to deliver the same performance at lower costs.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 19 Sep 2012 22:16

^^^^^^ Cheaper, yes, but that's the perspective of a desk jockey. For the warfighter, this translates into longer duty cycles, longer MTBIs and MTBFs, and therefore more 'uptime', meaning quicker tempo of ops, more sorties and more 'bombs on target'.

That's a good deal, especially when 'bundled' with lower 'Total Cost of Ownership'.

member_23667 · Post by **member_23667** » 20 Sep 2012 21:50

“The negotiations are absolutely on. We hope that at least this financial year we should be able to finish the negotiations and finalise the deal,” he said.

“It is a very complex project, as we are discussing various areas like transfer of technology, the offset (clause), what HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) will do and the cost as well,” Browne told reporters on the margins of an event in Bangalore.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/iaf-to-f ... 62741.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Sep 2012 05:56

thanks ravi karu..

M88-2 & M88-4E ECO demonstrator
A/B thrust (lb) 17,000 20,250
Dry engine thrust (lb) 11,250 13,500
A/B specific fuel consumption (kg/daN.h) 1.70 1.70
Dry engine specific fuel consumption (kg/daN.h) 0.80 0.80
Air flow rate (kg/s) 65 72
Turbine Inlet Temperature (K) 1,850 (2,871°F) 1,850 (2,871°F)
Pressure ratio 24.50 27
Bypass ratio 0.30 0.30
Length (in) 139 142
Inlet diameter (in) 27.50 31
Weight (lb) 1,977.50 2,171.50

so, that is it.. even the ECO demonstrator is maxed at 90kN wet. Where in they are going to satisfy IAF's 100-120kN needs with their core? It has to be a brand new co-development.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 21 Sep 2012 06:29

^^^^^^^^^
It would seem that those engine plans are some years away from fruition; and for the time being, IAF Rafales will fly on 90kn SNECMA M88-E4s, just like the French. It is possible that there is more thrust available, but not discussed in the press. It is possible that under 'combat conditions', that the existing M88-E4s will top-out above 100kn, at risk of damaging the engines, but perhaps necessary to save the pilot or airframe. Of course, I've got no proof of this whatsoever, admitedly.

If they are working on an engine that will produce up to 120kn, but still fit under the Rafale's skin; likely in time for that MLU; there is probably only one way to do it.......

<conjecture>

Build an afterburning turbojet engine that does not have a central shaft; by affixing the turbine blades into a rotating cuff that revolves on roller bearings; thereby allowing more airflow through the engines; therefore producing more thrust. Such an engine could concievably produce that extra 20%+ of thrust, while still fitting in the existing engine bays on the Rafales.

</conjecture>

................. PLUS..............

Dassault Rafale News Round-up (sorry if these are duplicates)
_____________________________

EADS and Elysée politics threaten Dassault
September 16, 2012 5:14 pm
By James Boxell in Paris and Giulia Segreti in Rome

(Discusses European political implications/ dimensions of EADS and BAE merger talks)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/76e53564-000d ... z272Q8NevX

&

After India Success, Is Dassault Rafale A Favorite In Brazil?
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 13:30 CET

Brazil has taken up India’s offer to review its notes on selecting a winner for the MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) competition, as the emerging South American nation looks to add 36 fighter aircraft to its Air Force.

While visiting New Delhi, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff met with Indian officials on the sidelines of the BRICS conference to confer over India’s selection of the Rafale.......... <SNIP>

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... n%20Brazil

&

Defense Merger to Push Rival Deals?
September 14, 2012, 5:25 p.m. ET

By DANIEL MICHAELS and DAVID GAUTHIER-VILLARS

The proposed merger of Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. EAD.FR +1.17% and Britain's BAE Systems BA.LN -0.44% PLC to create a global titan could prompt rivals to strike deals that they have long debated but failed to complete, say industry officials.

Smaller European rivals, in particular, have danced around each other for years, but differences over valuations and strategies have scuppered the talks. French aerospace and defense groups Thales SA HO.FR -0.47% and Safran SA, SAF.FR -0.21% for example, have acknowledged repeated talks that came to no resolution.

If EADS and BAE succeed in plans they revealed Wednesday to create the world's largest aerospace-and-defense company, rivals in Europe and the U.S. could feel pressured to grow, analysts said............<SNIP>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 64622.html

nash · Post by **nash** » 21 Sep 2012 07:06

SaiK wrote:thanks ravi karu..

so, that is it.. even the ECO demonstrator is maxed at 90kN wet. Where in they are going to satisfy IAF's 100-120kN needs with their core? It has to be a brand new co-development.

This 90 wala will be for rafale(MMRCA) and might be for AMCA in beginning,meanwhile, there would be co-development of >100 for future LCA ...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Sep 2012 08:03

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:..
Build an afterburning turbojet engine that does not have a central shaft; by affixing the turbine blades into a rotating cuff that revolves on roller bearings; thereby allowing more airflow through the engines; therefore producing more thrust. Such an engine could concievably produce that extra 20%+ of thrust, while still fitting in the existing engine bays on the Rafales.

q: The area /volume covered by the central shaft is greater than the area/volume covered by your new design? How are you saying your design increase air flow?

What IAF needs are on the lines of GE F110 specs at GE 414 size/volume. GE seems to have an answer for IAF, but I am not sure about Snecma yet.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 21 Sep 2012 10:21

Snecma does not have 120 kN. It even does not have a 90 kN. What India is getting (Rafale F4 with M88-4) is 75 kN. The ECO core promises 90 kN. But not available yet. 75 kN -> 120 kN is a bit too much IMHO

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 22 Sep 2012 16:45

During the MMRCA, France was claiming to provide 100% ToT. If they do that for the engine, a GTRE - Snecma joint venture could power the Tejas. They were willing to support the Kaveri for the Rafale as well. This will allow Kaver/M 88 engines to built in India from scratch.

The ECO core promises 90 kN. This matches Kaveri's requirements for AMCA. Perhaps, a joint venture in engine tech might have long term ramifications for our home grown jet programs. More importantly, the ECO provides a fallback option for AMCA if Kaveri fails.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 22 Sep 2012 18:41

India Looks to Finalize Fighter Deal By March

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

NEW DELHI -- India expects to finalize the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) deal by March 2013, according to the country's air force chief, N.A.K. Browne.

"The negotiations are absolutely on with Dassault Aviation," Browne says. "We hope that at least this financial year [which runs through March 2013], we should be able to finish the negotiations and finalize the deal" for 126 Rafale fighters. After a global competition, the Rafale beat out the other finalist, the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The Indian air force is likely to get 18 aircraft from Dassault in fly-away condition; the rest would be manufactured by the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) under license from Dassault.

"It is a very complex project, as we are discussing various areas like transfer of technology, the offset [agreements], what HAL will do and the cost as well," Browne says.

Though Browne didn't detail the latest cost estimates, the deal is expected to cost India $15 billion to $20 billion.

The multibillion dollar deal will be first export order for Dassault. The French fighters are expected to replace India's aging MiG-21 fleet from the Soviet era.

Rafale and Typhoon were the finalists after India in April 2011 ruled out the Boeing F/A-18, Lockheed Martin F-16, Saab Gripen and United Aircraft Corporation MiG-35.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Sep 2012 19:11

2 x 90KN, with a future M88-5 in 10 yrs to upscale that using new materials and tech to 2 x 100Kn would be enough to keep the AMCA in good business. AMCA will be a considerably smaller machine than the PAKFA and not aspire to shakinaw style t:w figures and raw performance. instead more a JSF focus on getting a balanced multi role platform at a reasonable COST. maintainability and COST are vitally important for 5th gen planes and so far Khan is a big failure on that front. starting from the handbuilt 120 F22 each with uniquely numbered parts, to the retired F117 that could not stand rain to the 20 B2 that need 5* hangers and maalish to the massive cost increase in JSF, they have not found the magic bullet yet. maybe their x-plane UCAVs are more rugged, who knows - all thats run out of black budgets with little to no oversight.

pakfa while being less stealthy than raptor could be more sustainable design paradigm if it can hold the cost and uptime levels desired. cheen is likely running down same channel not trying chi chi tactics to get it down to sub micron level perfection.

Jaybhatt · Post by **Jaybhatt** » 23 Sep 2012 12:14

CROSS POSTING FROM THE KARGIL WAR VI THREAD

THE EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE OF OUR AIR WARRIORS IN THE KARGIL WAR
__________________________________________________________________

Although this article does not strictly pertain to the Rafale thread, I am taking the liberty of cross posting it here, so that BR colleagues can visualise the future performance of the IAF when it gets a potent aircraft like the Rafale.

ramana wrote:Thats dumb when you consider Kargil was mainly a ground war in the high mountains!

Airpower at 18,000’: The Indian Air Force in the Kargil War
By Benjamin Lambeth

Again an article to dissect Indian capabilites in the absence of Indian analysis.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the full report :

http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/09/20 ... l-war/dvc4#

It is a perceptive analysis and deserves to be read in its entirety.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 23 Sep 2012 12:18

IAF choice of multi role aircrafts in its acquisition policy for all aircrafts can be well understood by reading the above.

The smaller size of our air force necessitates aircrafts to be used for roles they were not originally designed for. Perhaps that is why IAF keeps its aircraft upto date to maximise capabilities. Even the Rafale would be of the F4 std. We see a similar attitude towards the LCA too.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 24 Sep 2012 01:12

There are reports in the Swiss press (all three languages) that detail Dassault's renewed efforts to sell Rafales to the Swiss (who are currently settled on the Grippen, but have not formally signed-for yet).

Reportedly, the Swiss had chosen from among the Rafale, the EF and the Grippen. In the end, the Swiss chose to buy 22 Grippens for about 3.1 billion Swiss francs.

Now the Dassault bid team has re-issued their best offer and proposes to sell 22 Rafales for the same amount. (!)

In Italian here http://www.tio.ch/Svizzera/News/700073/ ... r-i-Rafale
In German here http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/sta ... y/22708741
In French here http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/nouvelle-offre ... y/30455437

(NB: You can visit 'translate.google.com' and cut-and-paste these hyperlinks into the translation box, and an English or whatever your choice translation will appear in a mock-up with the same page graphics.)

It is quite telling: In the German report, there is mention of a BAE offer that was rejected by the Swiss in June for 33 second-hand EFs for the price of 3.2 billion Swiss francs. IOW, the Swiss preferred 22 Grippens for 3.1 billion francs, instead of 33 used EFs for 3.2 billion Swiss francs. (!)

(Any way you slice that, it's a rebuke of the EF -- I'm guessing because it is very narrowly optimized for high-altitude intercept. JMT)

If the Swiss sweeten to the French deal, it could be very bad for SAAB, GE the engine maker, and yet another arrow in the heart of EF.

Go Raffy Go!

(Can someone do the math there -- RE: Indian Rupee vs Swiss Franc exchange rates?)

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 25 Sep 2012 14:06

Exclusive: Brazil delays jets decision until 2013; Boeing ascendant
09/24/2012 | 02:26pm US/Eastern

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has decided to wait until mid-2013 to make a decision on a multibillion-dollar Air Force jets contract, and Boeing's chances of winning the deal have improved due to its recent alliances with local aircraft maker Embraer, two senior officials told Reuters.

The contract to overhaul Brazil's Air Force with more than 36 new fighter jets will be worth at least $4 billion and is one of the most closely watched defense deals in the emerging-market world. The finalists are Boeing, France's Dassault Aviation and Sweden's Saab.

Rousseff plans to apprise U.S. President Barack Obama of the delay during a possible meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly this week, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Rousseff herself will make the final decision on the jets, which will help mold Brazil's military and strategic alliances in coming decades as it seeks to establish itself as a major global power.
<snip>

http://www.4-traders.com/DASSAULT-AVIAT ... -15222821/

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Sep 2012 14:19

^^^

The biggest drawback of the American bid has been ToT. If the Americans work that out, they could have a real chance of competing with the French. The French were extending ToT to the point of helping Brazil in SSN construction.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Sep 2012 22:10

For all intents and purposes I think the deal will be for US$ 19 billion. One pointer is the over one lakh crore rupees mentioned in the news report regarding the MMRCA deal. Second, is the Dassault offer to Switzerland for 3.1 billion Swiss francs (22 aircrafts). That gives an approximate US$ 150 million (Rs 800 crore) per aircraft.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Sep 2012 22:44

Actually, we have not done french tot, or for that matter france has never done toting deal with any nation yet. I think India is opening a big new market, and not all countries can afford toting.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Sep 2012 23:12

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Exclusive: Brazil delays jets decision until 2013; Boeing ascendant
09/24/2012 | 02:26pm US/Eastern

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has decided to wait until mid-2013 to make a decision on a multibillion-dollar Air Force jets contract, and Boeing's chances of winning the deal have improved due to its recent alliances with local aircraft maker Embraer, two senior officials told Reuters.

The contract to overhaul Brazil's Air Force with more than 36 new fighter jets will be worth at least $4 billion and is one of the most closely watched defense deals in the emerging-market world. The finalists are Boeing, France's Dassault Aviation and Sweden's Saab.

Rousseff plans to apprise U.S. President Barack Obama of the delay during a possible meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly this week, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Rousseff herself will make the final decision on the jets, which will help mold Brazil's military and strategic alliances in coming decades as it seeks to establish itself as a major global power.
<snip>

http://www.4-traders.com/DASSAULT-AVIAT ... -15222821/

The Brazilian acquisition is the biggest farce out there. There were some people on other forums who were criticizing the delays in the Indian acquisition program, saying that the Brazilian one was better and holding the Swiss acquisition as the model. Turns out, the Indian MRCA competition turned out better than both of those, with the Brazilian one in a perennial limbo.