India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

akula · Post by **akula** » 01 May 2011 15:24

If the French has indeed hinted at avoiding Mirage-2000 upgrade with some assurances so not to negate Mirage's role in IAF's structure, then Katrina in all probability would ride home with the bounty.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 May 2011 15:26

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Rafale too has a datalink - the Link 16 (but the IAF will integrate its ODL) and its RCS is actually lower than that of the MKI which negates the effect of its lower powered radar somewhat. Even if the Bars detects the Rafale first (which is what should happen), its only now that there is an advantage in actually attacking the enemy, thanks to the RVV-AE outranging the MICA. Once the Meteor comes about, that advantage goes to the Eurocanards which can effectively outrange the MKI, thats a key decider. With the Su-30 MKI getting its AESA the sight advantage will remain, but until the Russians come up with a Meteor equivalent, ie a true LRAAM able to handle fighters as versus the telephone pole R-172 (useful against large aircraft or unwarned fighters, unlikely in an era of AWACS) or the mythical RVV-AE Ramjet (which never got developed or funded).

Simple . Integrate the Meteor into the SU-30 along with the AESA and it's LPI modes. So no problem. It can look first and shoot first!

I really don't like the small radar on the Rafale, apart from that, I am fine with everything else. The Emiratis reportedly noted that they wanted higher radar power on their Rafales (to match the APG-80 on Super Vipers) and more powerful engines. I wish we too push for the same if we buy the Rafale. The APG-80 per Aviation Week is credited with a 70-80 nm range against a 1 Sq Mtr target, so thats quite capable.

The Rafale is a neat small package that packs quite a punch , something the heavier EF comes nowhere close to holding a candle in A2G. The Rafale'ish size and weight in an all stealthy airframe is what the AMCA should be , with the Rafale kind of strike and probably a slightly better A2A capability. Will the Rafale give the kind of technologies that are needed to get to AMCA ? Apart from the engines (which we anyway have a contract with Snecma), probably not much. Sure we could use the AESA T/R modules from the ST Micro/whichever fab makes them for the French. Is it worth the big $10 ? I don't think so. An upg program for the SU-30 (which is due anyway) , along with increased numbers might do the trick I think.

rohankumaon · Post by **rohankumaon** » 01 May 2011 15:27

@Karan - Thanks a lot...that was a very informative....Just one more doubt...Can an upgraded AESA offset small radar aperture size or this is the disadvantage Rafale has to live with?

Regarding your thoughts on pin pricks on HR issues, I second that but I guess we have to live with that till we develop our own AMCA...

Again, it would be good idea to focus our thoughts on now the latest Typhoon tranche versus latest Rafale...and also explore the possibilities of future armaments and their implications on us..

Thanks once again for your comments!

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 01 May 2011 15:42

One thing that should be noted is to reach the technical level of the rafale, the typhoon consortium has to invest a pretty big amount of money to clear the AESA and AtG weapon integration. That money is mostly coming from the industry which means that sooner or latter the Eurofighter consortium will want to see its money back !

Rafale upgrades are already ready and state funded so there is less pressure to bill the further developments to the indians.

At the end of the day the rafale can remain in its current F3+ state and remain significantly cheaper to buy or choose to further develop it and make it even more competitive in a pure technical point of view. The rafale situation is more comfortable because it just leaves option...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2011 15:48

rohankumaon wrote:@Karan - Thanks a lot...that was a very informative....Just one more doubt...Can an upgraded AESA offset small radar aperture size or this is the disadvantage Rafale has to live with?

Upgraded GaN AESAs will pack more power than todays GaAs AESAs - GaN chips can handle higher power & are more efficient in cetain conditions than the earlier GaAs ones. But the issue remains, to feed higher power to the point where you need significant gains in performance (above and beyond the point where you use existing power more effectively), you may need higher power transferred from your engines & electrical systems, so it all has to be done together. Simply plug and play may not work.

But note, we are talking "best of the best" stuff here. The Captor-E, benchmark is very high, the Strike Eagle and Flanker apertures even more so! But to the basic question, larger the aperture, the more the gain, the better the performance, either you can keep increasing power (which is not often phsyically possible, arcing occurs/materials melt) or you raise the aperture size and improve your quality of signal reception. Which is where (for example) the Bars scores, much more area than (say) a Mirage 2000 antenna plus much more average power. The receive path is very close to an AESA increasing its gain performance when compared to conventional PESAs. Hence the powerful performance. The penalty was paid in weight, but the large Flanker airframe was able to compensate since many earlier gen heavier components were replaced by newer ones.

Anyways, the present RBE-2 AESA should be able to comfortably exceed the IAF range specs (as revealed by Phazatron designers in their Zhuk-FGA-35 briefings) in public, of 130 km against a fighter target. Thats in the class of the PAF's latest F-16s or the Chinese J-10's, and the older (original) Russian Flankers with N001 radars.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2011 15:51

arthuro wrote:One thing that should be noted is to reach the technical level of the rafale, the typhoon consortium has to invest a pretty big amount of money to clear the AESA and AtG weapon integration. That money is mostly coming from the industry which means that sooner or latter the Eurofighter consortium will want to see its money back !

Rafale upgrades are already ready and state funded so there is less pressure to bill the further developments to the indians.

At the end of the day the rafale can remain in its current F3+ state and remain significantly cheaper to buy or choose to further develop it and make it even more competitive in a pure technical point of view. The rafale situation is more comfortable because it just leaves option...

Arthuro,

What all upgrades (A2G etc) or capabilities does the Rafale have, which the EF does not and vice versa?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 May 2011 15:51

didn't the RBE have some LPI features as well ?

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 01 May 2011 15:53

One question with regards to Rafale.

We do hear the common complaint that the nose of the plane is too small to hold a decent radar. What about the development (or pressure on Dassult to develop) a radar like the one on the T-50, Leading edge sensors..... this should help over come the small nose issue..

BTW does Katrina have a small nose too

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2011 16:10

vina wrote:Simple . Integrate the Meteor into the SU-30 along with the AESA and it's LPI modes. So no problem. It can look first and shoot first!

On the face of it, that seems to be the best choice - but I doubt its anywhere near that simple. Note that when we tapped Israeli assistance for the radar on the ShAR, we went with the Derby, which per CAG notes does not meet IN original range requirements. Co-incidence, I think not. Simply put, adapting third party missiles to radars which have not been designed to keep their interface protocols etc in mind from day one is going to be a pain, and very expensive. For instance, the MiG-29 radar reportedly acted as the guidance for the SARH seeker on the Alamo's (which rules out adapting the Alamos, easily at any rate, to other aircraft radars) while Micas (which are of course ARH) actually have separate aircraft missile datalinks for the missile. My point is integrating third party air to air equipment is a significant hassle, especially when it is radar guided. I'd love for it to happen though. Meteor with Bars and Meteor with MKI-AESA (yummy!!!!)

The Rafale is a neat small package that packs quite a punch , something the heavier EF comes nowhere close to holding a candle in A2G. The Rafale'ish size and weight in an all stealthy airframe is what the AMCA should be , with the Rafale kind of strike and probably a slightly better A2A capability. Will the Rafale give the kind of technologies that are needed to get to AMCA ? Apart from the engines (which we anyway have a contract with Snecma), probably not much. Sure we could use the AESA T/R modules from the ST Micro/whichever fab makes them for the French. Is it worth the big $10 ? I don't think so. An upg program for the SU-30 (which is due anyway) , along with increased numbers might do the trick I think.

Take a look at the article I posted. Its not just the technology flowing to Indian industry (which we'll take a lot of time to absorb anyhow, our best bet remains the LCA and MCA which are our technology generators) but the combat capabilities offered by these aircraft.

I have been posting a lot about the Rafale so heres a bit about the EF and how its claimed to be superior:
A radar that reaches out/matches the APG-79, advanced kinematics (can exceed M1 in dry thrust & did so at Singapore where the Rafale could not), best in class IRST (Pirate which can track dozens of targets, and does passive ranging), easy to pick up MMI (this part is debatable as the Rafale has equal or better sensor fusion). Basically the EF guys are lagging in software upgrades and weapons integration and the like, but have superior airframe raw airframe performance while the Rafale has a more ready package today.

The Rafale guys point out the differences are marginal at best, since in Rafale to EF matchups, the former has had its share of wins. I lean towards A2A bias, so my preference is naturally for the EF, so I am trying my best to be neutral/objective towards the Rafale.

Coming to AMCA and the like - I sincerely doubt that whether the MMRCA (of any kind) will get us there, at best it will give us world class assembly techniques and automation, assisting series manufacture (not a minor deal). Our own hard work & toil will have to do the trick for design and capabilities though, with the lessons learnt from the LCA, existing knowledge already (airframe structures, avionics inc. FBW etc), we'll get by with a bit of cooperation (engines, radar). As long as the funding is proper and uninterrupted.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2011 16:12

Rahul M wrote:didn't the RBE have some LPI features as well ?

Supposedly, but it was never made clear what these features were - ie dedicated modes as on the AN/APG-77 or just generic attributes of a PESA, low sidelobes, fast beam steering etc.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 01 May 2011 16:15

I disagree with you Karan M, I think the rafale is a superior platform to the Typhoon. When you beat the typhoon 9-1 in WVR dogfights and when you can carry more than your weight in terms of payload you are definitely above. BVR confrontations turned in favor of the rafale as well (7-1). So I don't think you can conclude on an edge in the AtA arena.

Also the pirate is incapable of doing ranging unlike rafale OSF due to an additional TV/laser channel to the IR one.

AJames · Post by **AJames** » 01 May 2011 16:26

negi wrote:
shiv wrote: That would kill the area ruling (see - I am such an expert - I know the words "area ruling - so there!)that has been used. the sunken cheeks I am sure is to produce an aerodynamically efficient body.
Boss I am technically challenged myself ; to clarify I am of the view that of all the fighter AC I have seen (person/pics) Rafale has shortest nose cone section specially in front of the canopy; I was wondering if it could be elongated and hence effective diameter available to the Radar antenna could be increased. Mirage and Harrier family did that back in 80s , not sure as to how big an engg. challenge is it to do the same with Rafale.

But they are subsonic. Wave drag becomes important at transonic and supersonic speed and would prevent sudden transitions in cross sectional area.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2011 16:32

arthuro wrote:I disagree with you Karan M, I think the rafale is a superior platform to the Typhoon. When you beat the typhoon 9-1 in WVR dogfights and when you can carry more than your weight in terms of payload you are definitely above. BVR confrontations turned in favor of the rafale as well (7-1). So I don't think you can conclude on an edge in the AtA arena.

I know where you are coming from but such exercises have their own issues because we need to see which aircraft types were involved. Remember the Greek Vipers actually bested the early Rafales - because the former were fully matured Block 50/52 and the latter were still working out their hardware & software issues. So until & unless we know the block EF's that were taking part, we really cant conclude. However, it is fact that the Typhoon has a much bigger radar aperture & according to Flug Revue can track (it can detect at larget ranges) fighter sized targets at 185 km plus. Actual ranges may be even higher

Now, I know you'll loath this bit as reported by the quite partisan Jon Lake (he supports the EF quite passionately) and some parts are clearly biased especially the part about MMI (we all know the Rafale has world class sensor fusion) but this part I do think is accurate. A Test Pilot notes:

another (who had actually flown Rafale) explained that “the Rafale is underpowered by comparison with Typhoon, and needs reheat where we would use dry. We can get through the Mach and supercruise in dry power at typical operating altitudes, and you simply can’t do that in Rafale.”

IMHO - it all boils down to this, the Typhoon has a more powerful radar, more power at tap and a more powerful IRST. But it lacks TV modes, has less payload & range (in A2G) and fewer integrated weapons (this is just an issue of time). The Spectra is also superior in that it has a mode which allows for on the fly detection and targeting with six AASMs but on the other hand, it lacks a Towed Decoy (which the French dont believe in but the others do). The Rafale does not have a HMS but will get one, the EF just demo'ed its one.

Both have sensor fusion, world class cockpits, avionics, handling, IFR, datalinks etc. and will get Meteor.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2011 16:35

arthuro wrote:Also the pirate is incapable of doing ranging unlike rafale OSF due to an additional TV/laser channel to the IR one.

Pirate does kinematic ranging. Refer an article by Bill Sweetman in DTI, wherein he mentions the same.

AJames · Post by **AJames** » 01 May 2011 16:50

SidSom wrote:One question with regards to Rafale.

We do hear the common complaint that the nose of the plane is too small to hold a decent radar. What about the development (or pressure on Dassult to develop) a radar like the one on the T-50, Leading edge sensors..... this should help over come the small nose issue..

BTW does Katrina have a small nose too

I think it would be a better option to independently develop or co-develop a common radar (or radar upgrade) for both LCA and Rafael - working directly with avionics manufacturers rather than through Dassault. The radar diameters are about the same, so this will save cost and and increase commonality. Besides, a lot of money is going to be spent on the FGFA avionics and sensors, so it would make sense to use of that technology on the Indian Rafael, and keep rights to resale of that technology. Spending a lot of money is fine when you developing your own technology, but why pay Dassault lots of money to develop what they can later sell on more cheaply to Pakistan or China?

AJames · Post by **AJames** » 01 May 2011 16:59

Karan M wrote:
another (who had actually flown Rafale) explained that “the Rafale is underpowered by comparison with Typhoon, and needs reheat where we would use dry. We can get through the Mach and supercruise in dry power at typical operating altitudes, and you simply can’t do that in Rafale.”

The planned 90kN version of the M88 engines will remedy that no? Presumably the Kaveri variant being developed for the AMCA could also.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 01 May 2011 17:26

Karan M, can you post your email address? I want to send you some interesting information on the design philosophy of the Rafale. Or, you can email me at avarachan period 97 at the Google mail service. Thanks. By the way, it's good to see you posting again.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 01 May 2011 17:42

I honestly feel that rafale is going to win this. French haven't had a single export order and they have a solid upgrade path along with a good reputation due to m-2000's. They would be stupid to not to sweeten the deal somehow.

*The eurofighter is slowly growing on me though. If they can smack CFTs and other goodies on it and give us a better deal wrt to ToT, political benefits, and lower the cost it might trump the rafale. However, engine commonality would seem to be an issue especially with snecma-kaveri in the works.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 01 May 2011 17:51

Karan M wrote:
I lean towards A2A bias, so my preference is naturally for the EF, so I am trying my best to be neutral/objective towards the Rafale.

.

greatly appreciate your informative posts.. from the content of your posts, I have a totally different line of thought leading to a different conclusion..

IAF already has a great A2A platform in Su30MKI - which is very much great in air defence role OR a recce role flying wih SAR pods at medium/high altitude OR as a fighter escort for strike missions covering the strike package from a higher altitdue scanning for bogeys in a lookdown mode.. EF is also good in A2A -- duplication of platforms for the same role.. (Both are designed as primarly A2A platforms with secondary A2G capability)

What IAF needs badly is a variety of strike munitions, and a compatible strike platform able to deliver these munitions effectively.. that is where Rafale's Covert low-level penetration becomes very important.. perfectly fits with the bill (IAF's strike needs) & can either fly with a Spectra equipped Rafale OR a Bars/AESA equipped Su30MKI as the strike escort from a higher altitude..

To complement IAF's existing (A2A) resources and satisfy the strike requirements I see Rafale as a better fit..

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 May 2011 18:00

The $10bn jet fighter deal: IAF went by the rule book

Keen Indian military aviation watchers Air Commodore Jasjit Singh and Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak too concurred with the ministry official, but pointed out that the down select was not a rejection of the other planes but an indication of what suited the IAF’s future operational plans best and at the right cost. ‘The IAF has only stated that the two European combat planes met most of the 643 parameters for selection of the MMRCA and are the most profitable. It has not rejected the other aircraft,’ said KaK, a former IAF pilot.

‘The IAF recommends on the basis of its assessment and evaluation of what it needs and the government takes a call on it. The broader strategic considerations will come in much later at the political leadership level,’ Kak told IANS. ‘The firms always knew that non-compliance will eliminate them from the contest,’ said Jasjit Singh, a decorated IAF officer and director of the IAF think tank Centre for Air Power Studies. An IAF officer in the know of the evaluation process said none of the six aircraft had fulfilled all 643 parameters, but the European (Germany, Spain, Britain and Italy) consortium’s Eurofighter Typhoon and French Rafale had done well on more parameters than others

‘The government will not accept any limitation (due to CISMOA) on the technology transfer. The US did take the DRDO off the entity list that restricted transfer of dual use technology by American firms. But that meant nothing because DRDO needs nothing from the Americans at present,’ Jasjit Singh said.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 May 2011 18:11

Tech Offers Shape India's Jet Picks
DefenseNews

Several analysts said that while the U.S. had allowed its jet makers to offer unprecedented access to technology, European contenders probably pledged more. "The most likely explanation is that the Europeans wanted and needed it more. They were willing to bend over backwards in terms of technology transfer, in terms of industrial work share and in terms of other regulatory issues, and they really needed this," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va. "For the U.S. contractors, it would have been gravy, but for the Europeans, it's survival through the end of the decade."

the official also conceded there were certain technologies that the U.S. simply would not share. "We have a defense licensing system which is consistent with the law of the land, and there are certain technologies we're simply not going to hand over. That's just a fact of life," he said.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 01 May 2011 18:30

Hi Rakall,
I agree with you. India's A2A platforms are already excellent (the MKI); the A2G platforms, though, are getting old (e.g., the Mig-27's and the Jag's). A cutting-edge A2G platform like the Rafale would fit the IAF well.

Also, cost is a serious issue. The Typhoon costs about $120 million +; the Rafale costs about $85 million +. Moreover, Cassidian needs to do a lot of work to make the Typhoon into a mature A2G platform. How are they going to dramatically cut costs AND invest the necessary money to mature the Typhoon? I don't see how it's possible. Keep in mind that all of the EADS countries (except Germany) are under tremendous financial strain.

India needs to save every rupee it can to invest in the development of the AMCA, AURA, etc.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 May 2011 18:31

IAF leans towards Multirole with A2G as key capability.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 May 2011 18:37

And LOL, with merit as a consideration, the most expensive aircrafts won. Any surprises here?

manum · Post by **manum** » 01 May 2011 18:37

on the lighter side...now some gonna accuse, why we made Typhoon go through trouble, when Rafale was already clear winner and wanted by forces...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 May 2011 18:43

like how we made the other 4 losers go through the same "trouble".?

manum · Post by **manum** » 01 May 2011 18:50

Not my opinion, but for the record it'll happen, and some'll feel pity for the looser though saying, obviously I agree, IAF got the best, but still, its unfair...
All I am seeing is its 80:20 ratio for Rafale right now as per opinions...picture is clearer after elimination and analysed unlimited time on the forum...and the same thing is coming up....Keep it simple silly...That is what Rafale is...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 May 2011 18:51

unfair!? what ! our tax payer money and IAF is for some global alms or what?

manum · Post by **manum** » 01 May 2011 18:53

SaiK wrote:unfair!? what ! our tax payer money and IAF is for some global alms or what?

Dont take my case on it...I've already apologized for being aggressive towards such "being unfair" statements, If you go back a few pages back...

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 01 May 2011 18:54

Problem is, if India has explosions of self-esteem again, and the EF Typhoon is out, then the Brits and the Germans will really really throw a hissy fit.

I still don't think that one can rule out the EF T this easily. EADS knows all of this and more. They will have several aces up their sleeves.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 01 May 2011 18:57

manum wrote:on the lighter side...now some gonna accuse, why we made Typhoon go through trouble, when Rafale was already clear winner and wanted by forces...

Give credit where it is due. It is a credit to the process and the professionalism of IAF that the downselected aircraft (and the eventual winner will) appear conspicuously better than other contenders. In football, the penalty still needs to be put away by the striker rather than claim that the goalkeeper dived the wrong way.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 May 2011 18:58

indeed.. the real price war begins actually.. EADS is already under home grown pressure to bring the costs down.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 01 May 2011 19:01

SaiK wrote:like how we made the other 4 losers go through the same "trouble".?

What trouble ? the trouble of giving a journalist from each one of the 100+ print media & e-media and the odd MP a backseat ride?

Should we expect IAF to order based on some powerpoint presentation?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 May 2011 19:05

.. ouch..that would hurt many media folks Rak bhai!

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 01 May 2011 19:08

shukla wrote:The $10bn jet fighter deal: IAF went by the rule book

Keen Indian military aviation watchers Air Commodore Jasjit Singh and Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak too concurred with the ministry official, but pointed out that the down select was not a rejection of the other planes but an indication of what suited the IAF’s future operational plans best and at the right cost. ‘The IAF has only stated that the two European combat planes met most of the 643 parameters for selection of the MMRCA and are the most profitable. It has not rejected the other aircraft,’ said KaK, a former IAF pilot.

‘The IAF recommends on the basis of its assessment and evaluation of what it needs and the government takes a call on it. The broader strategic considerations will come in much later at the political leadership level,’ Kak told IANS. ‘The firms always knew that non-compliance will eliminate them from the contest,’ said Jasjit Singh, a decorated IAF officer and director of the IAF think tank Centre for Air Power Studies. An IAF officer in the know of the evaluation process said none of the six aircraft had fulfilled all 643 parameters, but the European (Germany, Spain, Britain and Italy) consortium’s Eurofighter Typhoon and French Rafale had done well on more parameters than others

‘The government will not accept any limitation (due to CISMOA) on the technology transfer. The US did take the DRDO off the entity list that restricted transfer of dual use technology by American firms. But that meant nothing because DRDO needs nothing from the Americans at present,’ Jasjit Singh said.

Bull shit !!!

What stupid rulebook? What the heck "cant accept any limitation (due to CISMOA) on ToT? What crap?

Cant you just see that the great strategic partnership between the two biggest deocracies of the world which are natural partners is more important than all these stupid rulebooks & limitations?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 01 May 2011 19:16

I'd be very concerned if India went with Rafale. At the moment we might get a better deal with M2K upgrade or with the offsets and Areva n-reactors, but do remember how hard-ball the French can be with their negotiations at a later date. We've seen that with the M2K upg. Most of their avionics and approved weapons are proprietary. And I still wouldn;t be sure if they go ahead and sell the tech to Chinese for the right price. Hell, they recently sold their flagship green car tech to the Chinese creating a massive scandal.

EF is multi-lateral and already uses weaponry from Europe and US. In 10-15yrs there won't be licensing issues as we could negotiate with any of the countries for upgrades. Each one will be equally keen to win follow-on business, and that is assuming we are not a full partner already.

manum · Post by **manum** » 01 May 2011 19:18

JTull wrote:
manum wrote:on the lighter side...now some gonna accuse, why we made Typhoon go through trouble, when Rafale was already clear winner and wanted by forces...
Give credit where it is due. It is a credit to the process and the professionalism of IAF that the downselected aircraft (and the eventual winner will) appear conspicuously better than other contenders. In football, the penalty still needs to be put away by the striker rather than claim that the goalkeeper dived the wrong way.

Thanks for being politely instructional on me...I am learning to be the same

Problem is, if India has explosions of self-esteem again, and the EF Typhoon is out, then the Brits and the Germans will really really throw a hissy fit.
I still don't think that one can rule out the EF T this easily. EADS knows all of this and more. They will have several aces up their sleeves

These are same thoughts which were not letting us simply rule other famous four out...and completely back four European hunch, It was a collective hunch, If you remember...
Rafale is winner if the reasons back it ...Typhoon cant change things which it needs to change in years...Rafale is better prepared, may be for this day only...This cup will go to favourite...

Hell, they recently sold their flagship green car tech to the Chinese creating a massive scandal.

You haven't still seen China operating Mirage clones? have you?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 May 2011 19:21

manum wrote:You haven't still seen China operating Mirage clones? have you?

French are pushing for lifting embargo against China. Also if you remember, there were reports that PLAAF pilots did not want J-10, they wanted Rafales instead.

manum · Post by **manum** » 01 May 2011 19:28

chackojoseph wrote:
manum wrote:You haven't still seen China operating Mirage clones? have you?
French are pushing for lifting embargo against China. Also if you remember, there were reports that PLAAF pilots did not want J-10, they wanted Rafales instead.

They should want rafale's instead, if they love curves and are men....

I think we must not consider the things out of our hands, Embargo on China might remain so, if we buy Rafale, as French are satisfied with sufficient sales of Rafale variants for 40 long years...
It can happen that we choose Rafale and other European consortium finds best avenue to save Typhoon is china...We might also see Mig 35 with China...

May be C-130J as well, as Obama was talking about selling it to them...

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 01 May 2011 19:36

Two C-130s already operate in China on civilian duties.