Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 21 Oct 2013 01:27

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 21 Oct 2013 01:33

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Oct 2013 01:57

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Oct 2013 02:22

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 21 Oct 2013 02:36

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Oct 2013 02:55

F-15 is long in tooth in it's existing form and knowing the pace at which we order and time taken to deliver them the fighter would have needed a MLU .
By the way what is this SH not being on offer talk about ? Wasn't SH one of the MMRCA contenders ? It failed in our trials.

The F-15 is a very long shot no matter what, but there is one that was offered to SK that is latest-n-greatest.

On the SH, there is the SH, SH International and now the Advanced AH. The SH did not meet IAF criteria. The SH-I and ASH were never considered. The USN is looking the ASH - just demoed last week or two.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Oct 2013 03:15

eklavya wrote: 1) What the USN and Boeing are up to with each other is 0% relevant to the MMRCA.

2) Boeing offered an inferior aircraft to the IAF, and they were politely shown the door.

3) A rigorous selection process identified the Rafale, and the contract, which is obviously very complex, is under negotiation. It is useless to speculate about anything else.

(I have inserted the numbers in the above post.)

1) It should matter (what any native country, vendor or user) does (or does not do). Especially for the MMRCA.

In the case of the MMRCA the plan is to build (most) the plane in India. This can lead to being a supplier to the native country to either drive the cost down or share some of the costs. - that is from a user's PoV. From a vendor any newer techs that the vendor may propose to the native user could be considered for the MMRCA - again a benefit (granted provided the IAF wants such new gadgets). Finally we experienced what happened when a country breaks - the Soviets and the associated impactS it had and still has on the IAF. Disastrous

2) Boeing offered what it thought was right, then went on to attempt to modify the offer as the testing progressed and nearly proposed what today we call the "International" version. The then offer was based on the dynamics of that time. Those dynamics have changed (substantially). I would expect the US to OK a better version of the SH - the ASH. And, I would nto be surprised if they offer the latest F-15 either

3) There is speculation and then there are facts and at times when people do not follow facts they assume facts to be speculation (internet does not allow proper communication - I am not trying to knock you or anyone else). The fact is that France has provided just about enough funds to make the Rafale exportable and India is the only one that has selected it. Secondly, ever since India selected it and teh negotiations got into a muddle France (the nation) bailed out - they reduced their order AND told Dassault to make sure they rely on exports for survival.

So, yes, it is the appropriate thing to do to see this MMRCA process through, but, all I am saying is that if we were to bury our heads in the sand and say we need to do the thing we promised and not the right thing India will end up paying too large an amount for her freedom. the issue is not about the quality of the machine or that of the vendor, it is of the financial situation of the country that the vendor relies on to survive. And, India just does not have the clout that France has. France is done with the Rafale, India is just about to start and has some 30-40 years to go. France - I am betting - will negotiate future Rafale costs at a very low price and force Dassault to make her living from Indian contracts (which is OK, if the places of the two nations were reversed)

The proper thing to do is to follow through with the negotiations. The right thing to do is to look at the revised picture and then act. Up to India - as usual ball in her court with a minute left on the clock

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Oct 2013 03:16

^I may be wrong but I think the Advanced Super Hornet is the same thing as the "Super Hornet International".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Oct 2013 03:28

{Sorry to wipe out my previous post.}

They are different.

Wiki:

International;

In early 2008, Boeing discussed the development of a Super Hornet Block III with the U.S. and Australian military, featuring additional stealth capabilities and extended range; a long-term successor is to be developed under the Next Generation Air Dominance program.[20] In 2010, Boeing offered India and other international customers the Super Hornet "International Roadmap", which included conformal fuel tanks, enhanced engines, an enclosed weapons pod (EWP), a next-generation cockpit, a new missile warning system, and an internal infra-red search and track (IRST) system.[21][22][23]

Advanced:

Northrop Grumman and Boeing have been self-funding a prototype of the Advanced Super Hornet.[34] The Advanced Super Hornet is to demonstrate several improvements to the aircraft; the prototype has a reduced radar cross-section (RCS), is outfitted with conformal fuel tanks (CFT), and a new enclosed weapons pod.[35][36] The new RCS treatments reduce the frontal radar cross-section by 50 percent and the CFTs boost its range by 260 nmi (300 mi; 480 km). Other efforts include the integration of an internal infrared search and track system, and increasing the engine power by 20 percent. The improvements of the Advanced Super Hornet can also be integrated onto the EA-18G Growler.[37] Flight tests of the Advanced Super Hornet began on 5 August 2013 and continued for three weeks, testing the performance of CFTs, the enclosed weapons pod (EWP), and signature enhancements.[38]

The Advanced was JUST demoed to the USN - it flew off a carrier in the past month or so.

The point being that I feel that the US will offer the ASH this time around.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Oct 2013 07:15

^ ASH in all probability is made ground up for operations from Nimitz and Ford class super carriers on our carrier it might be severely handicapped in terms of MTOW and hence capabilities; N-LCA is our best bet if not that we might see a follow on order for a batch of Mig-29K .

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Oct 2013 07:35

exactly, instead of Rafael, I would invest about $3b on Kavari-2-105kN wet, get existing k on mig29s, and a few billion on MCA-a twin engined LCA. cancel rafael, and in the meanwhile get the Mk-2 delivered faster. establish better robotic factory setup for mk-2s.

there is no impending requirement for Rafale.. mmrca has lagged 15 years.. and so, the need is only that much impending. cancel the whole damn thing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Oct 2013 07:44

negi wrote:^ ASH in all probability is made ground up for operations from Nimitz and Ford class super carriers on our carrier it might be severely handicapped in terms of MTOW and hence capabilities; N-LCA is our best bet if not that we might see a follow on order for a batch of Mig-29K .

This is the MMRCA thread, right?

Where did IN come into the picture?

Besides by the time India makes a decision IN will incorporate EMALS. So no worries. : )

(But, no it is not made ground up. They have used other techs to make the RCS relative low (check out the F-35 for more info) - and it is a distinct possibility that this tech (for the ASH) will not reach India - unless India signs up.)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2013 08:03

Look,the CoAS has said that the MMRCA is VITAL for the IAF,the process started over 5 years ago.There is no "plan B" for the service.The M-2000s,MIG-29s which amount to just over 100 are being upgraded which will serve us for another 2 decades at the most,120 MIG-21s already upgraded into Bisons ,100+ MIG-27s which have to be pensioned off from 2020 onwards,are all that we have.The Jaguars too are to be upgraded but give limited strike capability insufficient for the ops today,where aircraft have to carry heavy stand-off missiles and deal with AESA BVR environments.At the most,they can support the land forces in their operations and strike operations corresponding to their limited range and ordnance. That leaves just the 272 planned Flankers to deal with the overwhelming threat from the Sino-Pak JV.

If you read the article,the "omni-role" Rafale can deliver a N-weapon as well as taking care of any airborne threats with MICA,Meteor,etc.The advantage of also having the LR Sukhois ,is that equipped with a 400KM R-172 AAM,they can knock out any enemy AWACS without the Rafale having to deal with this extra task. It is also a far more capable and stealthy airborne delivery system than the M-2000.It is the synergy of the assets that brings with it the extra clout and advantage.The F-15SE and "Advanced" F-18SH are the final avatars of legacy designs. They have been specifically developed for US allies as an interim affordable alternative,because of the delays in JSF induction,running several years late.Even allies like SoKo have ditched the F-15SE and have plumped for the F-35.Oz has ordered a few extra F-18SHs to bide time.

As said before,there is a minimum of 6-7 years before the FGFA is inducted.Its numbers will be around 140+ by the end of the next decade,8 years to build 16/yr.Even acquiring the Rafale from 2016/17 onnwards,there is still a shortfall of around 120+ aircraft.Either increased LCA production is taken up on a war footing,or we may need "extras" of aircraft already in service like the Sukhois.The single-seat SU-35 is one option,it also being a lead-in aircraft for the FGFA,if cheaper MIG-29/35s aren't desired. The only argument against SU-35s is that the entire lot/large number of MKIs are supposedly to be upgraded to "Super Sukhoi" std. The debate reg, single or twin-seat aircraft continues.If the FGFA is going to be a single-seat affair for us as reported,then it makes sense to acquire the SU-35 which will carry FGFA systems already developed.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Oct 2013 08:28

Instead of squabbling over who is the most trust worthy to safekeep our balls, we must start relying on our selves. Just imagine 25 billion dollars can buy us 600 LCA Mk1/Mk2/Mk3. Naah... Let's instead pay a tribute of 100 billion dollars to foreign powers so that they let us remain "a major power in south asia".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Oct 2013 08:40

Oh, I think (as Austin said) the Rafale is coming.

I think a lot of our grand kids will work 6 days a week so that French kids of their age can work for 4 days.

That is all it is. 39 squadrons, 42 squadrons, ....................... whatever. does not really matter.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Oct 2013 08:53

^^ The IAF says so , Rafale is coming

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Oct 2013 09:12

There are no guarantees in life. OT but I hope who ever comes to power next doesn't fall for the "Desh bachao, lakho caroro ka mall import karo".

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Oct 2013 11:51

Eklavya ji and Viv S ji,

I am informally warning you. This is MMRCA thread, not a "who is more patriotic?" thread, not a "who knows Hindi better" thread, or "who is a bigger murkh?" thread.

Any further discussions and hence thread derailment will lead to formal warnings.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Oct 2013 14:39

^^^

With the supposed procurement difficulties with the Rafael. Could it open the back door for the US birds through the FMS, route.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2013 08:19

Sorry,Tejas MK-2 deliveries will NOT start from 2017.The first 40 MK-1s have yet to be delivered.The ADA/HAL hope to develop the first MK-2 prototype by 2017,which from analysts say is another tall tale because there is so much of redesigning and testing all over again for what will be in large part a new variant,not an incremental development.Therein lies the problem.The late arrival of the LCA.From 2017,a couple of hundred MIG-21s will start being pensioned off and what do we have to replace them? Nothing! Just 40 MK-1s being built at the at of 8 /yr ,welcome though they may be,will not fit in with the IAF's modernisation/replacement schedule.One is sure that in the few months left before the elections,both sides will make all-out attempts to "seal the deal",perhaps even the delivery asap of an existing Rafale sqd. from France,to be replaced with new-built ones later on.The same was done when we acquired the Jags. decades ago.

The upgraded Jags and whatever LCAs are built ,plus surviving MIG-21 Bisons and UG 27s,can only be seen as a bonus for the IAF,making up a small number of aircraft at the bottom of the order of battle.They will all be inferior to the upgraded M-2000s and MIG-29UGs,which with the MMRCA and Sukhois and Super Sukhoi upgrades,will be the cutting edge of the IAF's strike and air dominance assets until the FGFA is inducted in strength.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 23 Oct 2013 05:04

pragnya wrote:..give me a simple answer. lets take gripen C which is an apple apple comparison to LCA. LCA weighs less than gripen C and carries more fuel and has same engine from the GE. how is it possible gripen C will have 500miles combat radius 'as you claim' whereas LCA - you determine from wiki/Janes as 190miles??

Gripen C is not exactly apple:apple. If this is internal fuel, I'm pretty certain the bolded part is wrong. LCA Mk1 is 3 feet shorter than Gripen C so if it uses the same engine and same basic innards, it must have less room for internal fuel and therefore shorter range. In fact a small difference in internal fuel load can have a pretty big effect on range as a significant amount is burned up during takeoff/climb and what is left determines range.

This is one disadvantage of smaller-lighter-cheaper and is in fact a major reason for the bigger LCA Mk2 which will make it comparable to the Gripen.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Oct 2013 05:26

Pratyush wrote:^^^

With the supposed procurement difficulties with the Rafael. Could it open the back door for the US birds through the FMS, route.

That is what I was speculating about in the India-US strategic thread. The highly speculative and completely without basis thought was a FMS lease for SHs combined with a Boeing managed logistics/supply chain depot/facility in India that would service the USN as a way to obtain offset benefits.

But not only is that speculative but it also involves cooperating with unkil so no way.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Oct 2013 07:31

Victor wrote:
pragnya wrote:..give me a simple answer. lets take gripen C which is an apple apple comparison to LCA. LCA weighs less than gripen C and carries more fuel and has same engine from the GE. how is it possible gripen C will have 500miles combat radius 'as you claim' whereas LCA - you determine from wiki/Janes as 190miles??
Gripen C is not exactly apple:apple. If this is internal fuel, I'm pretty certain the bolded part is wrong. LCA Mk1 is 3 feet shorter than Gripen C so if it uses the same engine and same basic innards, it must have less room for internal fuel and therefore shorter range. In fact a small difference in internal fuel load can have a pretty big effect on range as a significant amount is burned up during takeoff/climb and what is left determines range.

This is one disadvantage of smaller-lighter-cheaper and is in fact a major reason for the bigger LCA Mk2 which will make it comparable to the Gripen.

LCA carries 2486kg fuel while Gripen C carries 2400kg fuel. use google.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Oct 2013 08:30

negi wrote:F-15 is long in tooth in it's existing form and knowing the pace at which we order and time taken to deliver them the fighter would have needed a MLU .
By the way what is this SH not being on offer talk about ? Wasn't SH one of the MMRCA contenders ? It failed in our trials.

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology ... in-general

The structure of the aircraft is stronger compared to other F-15 models (A to D), it can safely operate at takeoff weights as great as 81,000 pounds, can withstand 9G load when turning and is cleared for 16,000 hours, double the lifetime of earlier F-15's.

Imagine the extra amount of flying hours pilots can have versus russian a/cs which even upto now I don't think have more than 6000 hours life in airframes.

Though I don't know how much life those old engines would have and what fuel efficiency.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 23 Oct 2013 08:59

pragnya wrote:. use google.

You think range printed in google is BS and want to go by common sense, logic & physics. I agree and try to give a logical, physical explanation but you ask me to go back to google?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Oct 2013 09:30

Victor wrote:
pragnya wrote:. use google.
You think range printed in google is BS and want to go by common sense, logic & physics. I agree and try to give a logical, physical explanation but you ask me to go back to google?

'common sense, logic & physics' was a response wrt GW who rubbished vivek ahuja's analysis just because it was not published!!

i asked you to use google because there is both good and bad there and one has to pick the right one by putting an effort. in another thread Karan M disected sengupta's BS wrt EW and cleared the picture just yesterday!!

since you question me, how abt this -

max internal fuel - 2.27mt

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?o ... Itemid=159

that is 2270kg much less than 2400 kg as mentioned by SAAB in their brochures as below -

note Gripen C!!!

i had debated this when Cain Marko was around. where is he btw??

EDIT : sorry there was mistake in my additional post i wanted to make to substantiate my observation. something wrong happened because of which i had rewrite my post.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 23 Oct 2013 09:35

Viv S wrote:$150 million per aircraft and its needs the Su-30MKI to fly top cover.

I fail to see the point here. Whoever claimed that the it "needs" the MKI to fly top cover? And is there something inherently wrong with having a fighter the IAF calls an "air dominance fighter" flying top cover?

Unless the French are exporting the ASMP-A, the so called nuclear capability is meaningless. Using an expensive aircraft and an irreplaceable pilot for a toss bombing nuclear strike instead of a far more suitable missile option, is just plain folly.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07/ ... quall.html

The Rafale is the only aircraft in the sweepstakes that comes with an explicitly stated nuclear delivery capability.

The earliest the Rafale will enter service is 2017. Both the Tejas Mk2 and F-35A deliveries can being within at most two years of that date, probably earlier.

The way things are going with the F-35, I wouldn't be so confident. Half the gee-whiz things it was supposed to do barely work. And the way costs are escalating, I wouldn't be too sure of whether it would be affordable by then either.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 23 Oct 2013 09:40

Victor wrote:LCA Mk1 is 3 feet shorter than Gripen C so if it uses the same engine and same basic innards, it must have less room for internal fuel and therefore shorter range.

As I understand it, the LCA is a three-dimensional aircraft. It also has a "fuselage diameter" "wing span", and "airfoil thickness". All of which can affect its internal fuel carrying capacity. To the best of my knowledge, of course.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2013 09:50

tejas has a bigger wing and fatter barrel type fuselage. that might compensate somewhat.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Oct 2013 12:02

Mihir wrote:I fail to see the point here. Whoever claimed that the it "needs" the MKI to fly top cover? And is there something inherently wrong with having a fighter the IAF calls an "air dominance fighter" flying top cover?

It was claimed that the Rafale is a splendid option since it provide first rate air defence while covered by the Su-30MKI. Hardly a recommendation; you pair up a Tejas with the Sukhoi and you get the long range and low RCS combination. Heck, even the Sea Harrier becomes a highly potent air defence fighter with the Su-30MKI flying top cover.

(Unless of course they run into Chinese Su-35s, to say nothing of J-20/31 class fighters.)

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07/ ... quall.html

The Rafale is the only aircraft in the sweepstakes that comes with an explicitly stated nuclear delivery capability.

And what does that imply? It means the Rafale can fly over a target and drop a dumb bomb, albeit one with a complex fuse interface. Question is, do you want an aircraft do to that when its much safer to use a missile?

Because here's how the French do it; a Mirage 2000N or Rafale pilot keys in the authorization code, brings his aircraft to within 400 km of the target, launches a Mach 3 missile at the target and returns to base.

And even if, for some reason, a visual confirmation of the target was required, the aircraft of choice would be the faster, nimbler, stealthier PAK FA, which will be in service not long after the Rafale.

The way things are going with the F-35, I wouldn't be so confident. Half the gee-whiz things it was supposed to do barely work. And the way costs are escalating, I wouldn't be too sure of whether it would be affordable by then either.

You don't seem to have kept up with the news - I suggest you take a look at NRao's posts on the JSF thread. Most of the 'gee-whiz' things are working (the alternative HMD has been cancelled for example). More importantly, costs have fallen across the board. Even in its current LRIP stage, its cheaper than the Rafale. And where the F-35 has retained committed customers and gained new ones, the French state has cut its Rafale orders to a meagre 26 over the next six years.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Oct 2013 17:13

Dhananjay it is not about just the number of hours left in the airframe it is more about the entire platform and how long
the manufacturer is willing to support it specially in the light of changes or tweaking we do to the OEM's products. Operational costs of
a ~ Mach 2.5 AC are significantly higher besides it is very much like our MKI in size as well as logistical footprint (operating costs of a F-15 are significantly higher
than say a F-18 SH).

On the F-35 guys look it is a multi billion dollar project from a 800lb gorilla in the industry a lot of nice things will be said and written about it and yes it is a nice platform but question is what kind of logistical support will it need ? What kind of operating costs will a airforce like ours will have to incur ? I mean small stuff like how much will it cost to buy it's MLG wheels+tires (we buy those for the MKI) ? Finally how difficult will it be for us to mate our weapons with the F-35 (it has internal weapons bays ).Also we have to account for our weapons suite we have primarily Ru , French and Israeli weapons and with Astra in the pipeline we are better off buying a platform which can use these, F-35 comes with it's own set of exotic armoury we will have to buy them just for the F-35.

I would rather have a small order for the PAKFA and build our stealth AC here so what if we make it in next 10-15 years I think MKI+Rafale+Pakfa combo with MLUs will be relevant and effective for coming 2 decades.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Oct 2013 19:36

^^ Thanks for the detailed post Negi ji. Got a bit carried away by airframe life, didn't look at it holistically.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Oct 2013 19:48

^ Waisa kuch nahin hai I have my biases but I am open to reconsider.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 23 Oct 2013 19:55

Viv S wrote: It was claimed that the Rafale is a splendid option since it provide first rate air defence while covered by the Su-30MKI. Hardly a recommendation; you pair up a Tejas with the Sukhoi and you get the long range and low RCS combination. Heck, even the Sea Harrier becomes a highly potent air defence fighter with the Su-30MKI flying top cover.

It doesn't need the MKI for top cover, but would perfectly commplement the "upgraded" MKI, if both could be linked with it's passive capabilities!
IAF already has tactics to use the MKIs in active role to provide long range radar guidance for smaller fighters in passive role. Exactly here, the Rafale provides the most advantages with it's low detectability, but more importantly the passive sensors and passive BVR attack capability with MICA IR.

Active / Passiv tactics were explained here too:

http://rafalenews.blogspot.de/2011/04/l ... usion.html

Combine it with AWACS and the passive detection and weapon capabilities gets even more effective and that's why the low RCS of Tejas alone is not enough to offer the same capability in this tactic.
Btw, the time to induct Rafale is just up to us! Dassault is offering up to 2 squads in fast production for years, to counter the shrinking squad numbers. We just ignored it, since the competition was still on, but even now, we seems to insist on only 18 fighters by Dassault directly. However, the main thing would be to finally fix the deal.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Oct 2013 19:58

negi wrote:On the F-35 guys look it is a multi billion dollar project from a 800lb gorilla in the industry a lot of nice things will be said and written about it

Actually what its had, is a wealth of criticism, including on this forum. Only recently has it turned the corner, becoming an attractive prospect at least vis-a-vis the Eurocanards.

and yes it is a nice platform but question is what kind of logistical support will it need ? What kind of operating costs will a airforce like ours will have to incur ? I mean small stuff like how much will it cost to buy it's MLG wheels+tires (we buy those for the MKI) ?

Support costs will presumably be comparable to the Rafale (since its more complex but built in far greater volume) and less than the PAKFA. About what you'd expect. It has however been designed to feature exceptionally easy maintenance on ground (not unlike the Gripen).

Finally how difficult will it be for us to mate our weapons with the F-35 (it has internal weapons bays ).Also we have to account for our weapons suite we have primarily Ru , French and Israeli weapons and with Astra in the pipeline we are better off buying a platform which can use these, F-35 comes with it's own set of exotic armoury we will have to buy them just for the F-35.

What Russian, French or Israeli weapons would you want to integrate on the F-35? Especially considering that one of the advantages of opting for a western MMRCA was that the munitions complement could have been negotiated separately.

The most cost-effective munitions are invariably American, owing to their massive production volume. Compare the Meteor order book (<1000 units) to the AMRAAM (500+ annually). As for Russians munitions, we certainly haven't integrated any onto a non-Russian aircraft except for the R-73. They've produced no equivalent to the SDB, JSOW or SFW. And as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the standard Litening III isn't configured to deliver Russian LGBs.

With regard to Indian munitions, I'm sure they be integrated with LM support. The F-35 is expected to field a variety of non-US weaponry including the Meteor, Brimstone, Paveway IV, Spice, Python-V, Iris-T, NSM, SOM etc.

I would rather have a small order for the PAKFA and build our stealth AC here so what if we make it in next 10-15 years I think MKI+Rafale+Pakfa combo with MLUs will be relevant and effective for coming 2 decades.

Well the FGFA is still under negotiations and appears to be just a license produced PAK FA with partial ToT. That's unlikely to change because we have limited leverage with the Russians, being 'committed' as we are to a single fifth generation program.

But even assuming the PAK FA is a cinch, it still make sense to pair it with the F-35 (instead of the Rafale) which is inherently better suited for the strike role; EOTS, DAS, SDB, JAGM, AARGM. The Russians far from integrating a cutting edge laser designation system into the PAKFA's airframe, are license building the decidedly mid-rung Damocles from France (incidently France has scrapped the Damocles XF program in favour of a next-generation pod).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2013 20:06

On the F-35 guys look it is a multi billion dollar project from a 800lb gorilla in the industry a lot of nice things will be said and written about it and yes it is a nice platform but question is what kind of logistical support will it need ? What kind of operating costs will a airforce like ours will have to incur ? I mean small stuff like how much will it cost to buy it's MLG wheels+tires (we buy those for the MKI) ? Finally how difficult will it be for us to mate our weapons with the F-35 (it has internal weapons bays ).Also we have to account for our weapons suite we have primarily Ru , French and Israeli weapons and with Astra in the pipeline we are better off buying a platform which can use these, F-35 comes with it's own set of exotic armoury we will have to buy them just for the F-35.

There is nothing that will even come close to that plane from a logistics, etc point of view. Forget the Russians (who are years behind), even the French do not have anything close.

As far as non-F-35 armory, which day are you talking about?

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 23 Oct 2013 20:21

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:I fail to see the point here. Whoever claimed that the it "needs" the MKI to fly top cover? And is there something inherently wrong with having a fighter the IAF calls an "air dominance fighter" flying top cover?
It was claimed that the Rafale is a splendid option since it provide first rate air defence while covered by the Su-30MKI. Hardly a recommendation; you pair up a Tejas with the Sukhoi and you get the long range and low RCS combination. Heck, even the Sea Harrier becomes a highly potent air defence fighter with the Su-30MKI flying top cover.

(Unless of course they run into Chinese Su-35s, to say nothing of J-20/31 class fighters.)

The point is that the MKI could use its long-range AAMs to take out enemy AEW&C while the Rafales carry out strikes and defend themselves against prowling enemy fighters. Utilizing both platforms in a manner that plays to their strengths makes eminent sense.

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:http://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07/ ... quall.html

The Rafale is the only aircraft in the sweepstakes that comes with an explicitly stated nuclear delivery capability.
And what does that imply? It means the Rafale can fly over a target and drop a dumb bomb, albeit one with a complex fuse interface. Question is, do you want an aircraft do to that when its much safer to use a missile?

Because here's how the French do it; a Mirage 2000N or Rafale pilot keys in the authorization code, brings his aircraft to within 400 km of the target, launches a Mach 3 missile at the target and returns to base.

Sir, any aircraft in the IAF can by jury-rigged to carry a dumb nuclear bomb and deliver it using toss-bombing techniques. If the French have explicitly mentioned that the IAF's Rafale fleet could be nuclear capable, you can safely assume that they would be willing to export a solution designed to do so. Whether that is the ASMP-A or a SCALP modified for nuclear strike or something else, we don't know yet.

Viv S wrote:
The way things are going with the F-35, I wouldn't be so confident. Half the gee-whiz things it was supposed to do barely work. And the way costs are escalating, I wouldn't be too sure of whether it would be affordable by then either.
You don't seem to have kept up with the news - I suggest you take a look at NRao's posts on the JSF thread. Most of the 'gee-whiz' things are working (the alternative HMD has been cancelled for example). More importantly, costs have fallen across the board. Even in its current LRIP stage, its cheaper than the Rafale. And where the F-35 has retained committed customers and gained new ones, the French state has cut its Rafale orders to a meagre 26 over the next six years.

Hmm, let's see, shall we?

...The aircraft is at least seven years behind schedule and plagued by a risky development strategy, shoddy management, laissez-faire oversight, countless design flaws, and skyrocketing costs. The Pentagon will now be spending 70 percent more money for 409 fewer fighters—and that’s just to buy the hardware, not to fly and maintain it, which is even more expensive...

...the squadrons at Eglin are prohibited from flying at night, prohibited from flying at supersonic speed, prohibited from flying in bad weather (including within 25 miles of lightning), prohibited from dropping live ordnance, and prohibited from firing their guns...

...Pentagon officials ... cannot say when Lockheed will deliver the 8.6 million lines of code required to fly a fully functional F-35, not to mention the additional 10 million lines for the computers required to maintain the plane...

...the F-35s that the Marines say they can take into combat in 2015 are not only ill equipped for combat but will likely require airborne protection by the very planes the F-35 is supposed to replace…

...“The jet was supposed to be fully functional by now and that’s why they put people down in Eglin in 2010–2011—they were expecting a fully functional jet in 2012,” he said. “But the only military mission these planes can execute is a kamikaze one. They can’t drop a single live bomb on a target, can’t do any fighter engagements. There are limitations on Instrument Flight Rules—what’s required to take an airplane into bad weather and to fly at night. Every pilot out there in civil aviation, his pilot’s license says he can take off and land in perfect weather. Then they have to graduate to instrument conditions. What the program is saying is that the J.S.F., your latest and greatest fighter, is restricted from flying in instrument meteorological conditions—something a $60,000 Cessna can do.”...

...The original plan was that about 70 percent of all the parts on the airplanes would be common; the actual figure today is about 25 percent...

...Nailing down the true cost of the Joint Strike Fighter is a maddening exercise as various stakeholders use different math—along with byzantine acronyms—to arrive at figures that serve their interests. According to the Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.), which is relatively independent, the price tag for each F-35 was supposed to be $81 million when the program began in October 2001. Since that time, the price per plane has basically doubled, to $161 million. Full-rate production of the F-35, which was supposed to start in 2012, will not start until 2019. The Joint Program Office, which oversees the project, disagrees with the G.A.O.’s assessment, arguing that it does not break out the F-35 by variant and does not take into account what they contend is a learning curve that will drive prices down over time. They say a more realistic figure is $120 million a copy, which will go down with each production batch. Critics, like Winslow Wheeler, from the Project on Government Oversight and a longtime G.A.O. official, argue the opposite: “The true cost of the airplane—when you cast aside all the bullshit—is $219 million or more a copy, and that number is likely to go up.”

...the distributed aperture system, which is supposed to compensate for structural impediments to visibility, itself has blind spots, which, according to Charlie and others, preclude its use during airborne refueling…

...prolonged use of the plane’s afterburners causes the F-35’s stealthy outer layer—as well as the skin underneath—to peel and bubble near the tail. As a result, the F-35 is prohibited from supersonic flight…

...He [Lt. Gen Bogdan, the Program Executive Officer] felt that the way the program had been set up with Lockheed at the outset made absolutely no sense. His first target was the concept of Total System Performance Responsibility: “We gave Lockheed very broad things that said the airplane has to be maintainable, the airplane has to be able to operate from airfields, the airplane has to be stealthy, the airplane has to drop weapons—without the level of detail that was necessary. We have found over the 12 years of the program that the contractor has a very different vision of how he interprets the contractual document. We go, ‘Oh no, it needs to do X, Y, and Z, not just Z.’ And they go, ‘Well, you didn’t tell me that. You just told me in general it needed to do something like Z.’”...

I've written before about why the F-35 would be a bad idea for the IAF, especially if it were to be procured in place of the MMRCA. At the time, it merely looked like the design was ill-suited to the IAF's needs, and the problems plaguing it made it less attractive still. But I'll say it now: it's a turkey. The program was an eff-up from the very beginning. The development strategy was very risky, there was very little accountability, the one-size fits all approach that was supposed to build a single platform for every conceivable task from air dominance to CAS resulted in a jack-of-all-trades that lacks the capability to carry out any mission properly, and costs have skyrocketed to the point where it makes the whole effort look ridiculous. It will be a miracle if it enters front-line service before 2020 with the US armed forces. One can cherry pick and post all sorts of fanboyish articles about paper specs, financial calisthenics intended to put lipstick on a pig, and optimistic projections and predictions about the bright future that is just around the corner (past performance notwithstanding), but the reality is quite different.

The Rafale is available and combat capable today, and largely lives up to its specs. The biggest hurdle is signing the contract as soon as possible so that it enters IAF service at the earliest. That is a good problem to have. The F-35, on the other hand, is nowhere near ready. The MoD could sign the contract today and sit twiddling its thumbs for the next decade while this gee-whiz technological miracle learns to fly and shoot and fight. The IAF would do well to stay well away from the disaster that is the F-35.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 23 Oct 2013 20:26

pragnya wrote: max internal fuel - 2.27mt

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?o ... Itemid=159

that is 2270kg much less than 2400 kg as mentioned by SAAB in their brochures as below -

Saab officially says "more than" 2000Kg, but it depends on how they calculate the payload.

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documen ... nsions.pdf

More than 2000Kg might be possible only with the 5000Kg payload, that the early C/D specs showed (+6800Kg empty => roughly 14000MTOW). But with 2400Kg internal fuel and 5300Kg payload, the Gripen would exceed it's MTOW and Saab did the same with Gripen NG specs too and changed the per hour cost very often as well, so that has to be taken with caution.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Oct 2013 20:33

Sancho wrote:It doesn't need the MKI for top cover, but would perfectly commplement the "upgraded" MKI, if both could be linked with it's passive capabilities!
IAF already has tactics to use the MKIs in active role to provide long range radar guidance for smaller fighters in passive role. Exactly here, the Rafale provides the most advantages with it's low detectability, but more importantly the passive sensors and passive BVR attack capability with MICA IR.

Combine it with AWACS and the passive detection and weapon capabilities gets even more effective and that's why the low RCS of Tejas alone is not enough to offer the same capability in this tactic.

The Su-30MKI complements every fighter aircraft out there, not just the Rafale. One of the advantages of being a gargantuan mini-AWACS. You could combine the MKI's long range radar with the Tejas (which has a low RCS of its own) and achieve a near comparable result.

With regard to passive detection, IRSTs have a very limited range (particularly in the frontal hemisphere) and need LRFs for tracking (which makes the idea of 'passive' detection redundant). ESM has its utility but is limited by the fact that its useful only against an emitting adversary and is blind to any and all silent aircraft in the skies. Nonetheless I'm sure they're useful abilities, but only at a reasonable cost.

Btw, the time to induct Rafale is just up to us! Dassault is offering up to 2 squads in fast production for years, to counter the shrinking squad numbers. We just ignored it, since the competition was still on, but even now, we seems to insist on only 18 fighters by Dassault directly. However, the main thing would be to finally fix the deal.

At the same time, the French domestic orders for the Rafale are fast dwindling away (just 26 in 6 years!) and from most indications India will be the lone export customer for the Rafale (Gripen and SH leading the now-stalled Brazilian program, and EF leading in UAE and Bahrain). Uninspiring for aircraft being delivered in 2017, by which time the F-35 would have got its IOC, the PAKFA as well as the J-20 and J-31 would be nearing production.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Oct 2013 20:53

Mihir wrote:The point is that the MKI could use its long-range AAMs to take out enemy AEW&C while the Rafales carry out strikes and defend themselves against prowling enemy fighters. Utilizing both platforms in a manner that plays to their strengths makes eminent sense.

Doesn't sound like the Rafale doing a lot of air defence in that scenario (this in context of the original post). It sounds more like the Rafale's particularly weakness i.e. its relatively under-powered radar is being '(top)covered' by the Sukhoi, and passed off as synergy.

Sir, any aircraft in the IAF can by jury-rigged to carry a dumb nuclear bomb and deliver it using toss-bombing techniques. If the French have explicitly mentioned that the IAF's Rafale fleet could be nuclear capable, you can safely assume that they would be willing to export a solution designed to do so. Whether that is the ASMP-A or a SCALP modified for nuclear strike or something else, we don't know yet.

There is no evidence whatsoever of the ASMP-A being on sale, or French assistance with nuclearizing the SCALP (that's if the SCALP is even ordered).

Viv S wrote:Hmm, let's see, shall we?

Cost estimates from Vanity Fair? Really?

I've posted links to the actual LRIP costs on the last page.

- that lacks the capability to carry out any mission properly
- costs have skyrocketed to the point where it makes the whole effort look ridiculous.
- It will be a miracle if it enters front-line service before 2020 with the US armed forces.

Strong vociferous claims. But they need to be justified with more than rhetoric. Specifics please.