India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 3

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jan 2012 15:19

wah wah !

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Jan 2012 15:55

Hehehe..... Nice!

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 19 Jan 2012 16:11

waha waaah awasome badar Ji

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Jan 2012 16:13

D-day 24th Jan??

Most immediately, the Typhoon and Rafale are the ‘last men standing’ in India, where an announcement of the winner of the IAF’s medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) requirement is tentatively expected on January 24.

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/bahrai ... ne-up.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jan 2012 16:21

icing on the cake would have been if the winning contender could fly in 3 jets quickly, paint in tricolour and fly a screaming arrowhead formation pass along the straight line of Rajpath lo-lo-lo before going vertical right after passing the Presidents stand.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 19 Jan 2012 16:47

Tough chance as the negotiations would have to be underway and the point being IAF pilots have to fly them in the parade.. but Jingos can dream.. if they can get them for next year that would be an achievement.

member_22516 · Post by **member_22516** » 19 Jan 2012 17:14

shukla wrote:D-day 24th Jan??

rafalenews.blogspot wrote:Seen on a rafale's blog :
(http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/)
Now the rumors of the week :
Rumor N°1 : The Rafale package would be L1. What to think about this rumor ? Well, last week, it was supposed to be the Eurofighter, so it's a draw.
Rumor N°2 : Eurofighter partners, BAE and EADS would "dispute" each other in order to be the prime bidder of the consortium in India. Formally, it is EADS which is in charge of the Indian market. The question is why would BAE try to interfer with EADS leadership so late in the process ?
Rumor N°3 : Dassault would have just hired a famous Indian Public Relation firm. If true, this move rises the same question ... why so late in the process ?
All the answers in 10 days !

So D'day 24th Jan is likely to be the Rumor n°4.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jan 2012 22:00

wah badar ji! aap ne eh dhaaga lighten kiya.
now you can liten it up!
--

I just don't mind any of these rumors, as none of them says it is canceled.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 19 Jan 2012 22:49

Glad to have pleased you Rahul, koti, Vinay and SaiK.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Jan 2012 23:47

Apparently the F-35 now cannot meet its transonic acceleration goals (which means it is worse that existing USAF fighters like the F-15 and F-16 and USN's F/A-18 in clean config)..and now, they're even questioning why the transonic acceleration goals needs to be that high for a loaded/unloaded F-35 (apparently it doesn't change in either condition) when even the F-16 has a lower one when fully loaded. And to think the Japanese carried out an "operations research" type analysis that found the F-35's performance superior to that of the Typhoon..maybe that was the only way to arrive at that conclusion.

Navy Times - JSF may miss acceleration goal

The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said.

“Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”

A recent report by the Defense Department’s top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy’s F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration.

The report doesn’t say whether the F-35A and F-35B have hit similar snags.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising.

“It’s a strike fighter,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not an interceptor; it’s not an F-22.”

Aboulafia said it was unclear whether additional engine power could boost acceleration in the difficult transonic regime. So far, doubts about the aircraft’s aerodynamic performance haven’t diminished Lockheed’s sales prospects, he said.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.

But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.

Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.

In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.

Thus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane’s acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed’s job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet’s acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.

U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.

“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”

But the F-35’s aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane.

Burbage added that while the F-35 is designed as a supersonic fighter, it’s not optimized for the extremely high supersonic speeds that the Raptor was designed to operate at.

“This is not a supercruising airplane like the F-22,” Burbage said.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 20 Jan 2012 00:02

Kartik, another year, another review, another program restructuring and another reduced performance targets - and viola! what do you know? The JSF will 'meet or exceed' every requested parameter.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jan 2012 00:09

Philip wrote:The JSF over the Typhoon? What a joke! The problem plagued aircraft is so delayed in development that it will be 2019,when it enters service with the USAF first! AWST 12/12/11 has a front page feature: "Big Goals,Big Problems,Big Questions",giving detailed news of the status of the aircraft.Some excerpts:

Well we've already been over the JSF discussion couple of times, but I suppose its time to dive into the fray again. I suspect the JSF appearance on the EF-Rafale thread has something to do with the lunar cycle.

Cost:
Will be "7%" over the target cost of $111.6m for F-35A,$109.4 for the F-35B,and $142.9m for the F-35C! This too is only estimated costs for the LRIP aircrat,limited series production.In fact,LRIP 1-3 has cost already $136m and fingers are being crossed in the hope that new problems are not encountered.

$120 million for a F-35A is not too bad. Its in the ballpark region of the EF and Rafale. Also the LRIP aircraft are traditionally more expensive owing to their lower build number and lower standardization.

Testing:
Marked improvement,"but too early to declare victory".Testing in the supersonic corridor",630 kts to M1.6,as max Mach design number is only M1.6 as the designerss hoped that stealth would siffice (remember my posts about stealth degradation with new IRST and ohter sensor developments)."One of the challenges is to get all the computers to talk to each other when they wake up".The problem peaked in Dec.Let us hope the computers "wake up " faster than Rip Van Winkle! Other problems include vibration,stress cracks requiring thicker sections,recurring failure of fan door actuators in the C variant,tailhook "skip" on the carriier version and most seriosu,"lift fan clutch plate overheating" to "unacceptable levels" in the STOVL version,which may require much expensive redesign
.
Training:
Still unable to train pilots! Chief tester says,"risk of a mishap would overcome the very modest benefits of beginning flight training this fall".
Winslow Wheeler,longtime Pentagon critic,suggests that "the entire programme-ncluding production and training be put on hold",until more testing is completed.

The IOC is scheduled for 2018. Still another 6 years to go. Plenty of time to get the issues sorted out. The C-17 program for example was shaping up to be a major disaster back in late nineties. Yet they persevered with it and eventually delivered a winner.

Also, IRST systems are useful while flying radar silent and for CAS missions (particularly tank busting), but they're still no substitute for a radar. Their range against even legacy aircraft is so far quite limited, let alone against aircraft designed for LO in the IR spectrum, and has no multimode capability omitting even the basic TWS mode.

Key F-35 Dev. issues:
Aux. inlet doors.Fluttermhinge wear.Solution-stiffer mechanism.
Bulkhead 496-early cracking.Solution-stuiffer material.
Roll posts-actuator overheating.Solution-insulation,redesign.
Lift fan driveshaft-length variations.Solution-flexible coupling.
Lift fan clutch-plate drag.overheating.olution-temp. sensors,extra cooling.

F-35B issues. The F-35A on the other hand ought to be relatively good health.

So this is the aircraft,where pilots cannot be trained upon as yet,for fear of accidents,coming in at a min. of $120m+ at current estimates,which will enter service for us only a decade from now,which will only fly at a max speed of M1.6,is supposed to be the better option than a cheaper Eurobird,both of whom have been battle tested in Libya?! IAF,any takers?

Well the IAF has the PAK-FA coming in so maybe not. The Indian Navy on the other will probably be giving the F-35C, a serious consideration. Overall I'm optimistic about it for two reasons.

One, its too big to fail now. Scheduled to replace the F-16, A-10, EA-6B, F-18, Harrier II, there's little alternative to ensuring the program succeeds.

Two, if it brings even half the potency of the F-22 to the battlefield, its money well spent. I still am boggled by the F-22's performance at Ex Northern Edge 2006 where it clocked a whopping 144-0 kill ratio in working as a mini-AWACS after expending its missiles, allowed the friendly Blue Forces to rack up an amazing 241-2 kill-loss stat. And this not against F-4s and F-5s, but against frontline F-15C/D, F-16C/D and F-18E/Fs.

In Alaska, the F-22 achieved an unprecedented 144:0 kill ratio in the first week of Northern Edge. "In the first week of the fight, the preponderance of engagements were beyond visual range. In the second week they got into the merge and took a couple of shots," says Lawson, pointing out that the pilots averaged less than 100h on the aircraft. The final tally was 80:1.
Northern Edge included an air-to-air mission involving a "blue" team of 24 F-15Cs, eight F-22s and two F-15Es against 40 F-16s and F/A-18s that were allowed to regenerate to produce a total "red" air force of 103 aircraft.
The USAF says the blue team was able to achieve an 83:1 kill ratio, losing one F-15. Over the two-week exercise, the F-22 accounted for 30% of the blue force and 49% of kills.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -f-22.html

Inside the War Games for U.S. Air Force Fighter Pilots

Brenton (call sign "Gripper") has flown the F-16 for 20 years and has close to 4000 hours, including 750 hours of combat. He is also a former Weapons School instructor pilot at Nellis, the same program in which the 174th today is testing its mettle against the Raptor. He doesn't like to lose, but against the F-22 he has little choice. "Fighter pilots are competitive by nature. When the F-22 first became operational, most F-16 and F-15 pilots relished the challenge of going up against it," he says. "I know I did. That is, until I actually did it and discovered how humbling an experience it really was."

The Art of Losing

No U.S. airplane—or any other in the world—can match the F-22 in a dogfight during combat training. To get experience in realistic battle conditions, Raptor pilots—always the Blue Team— are training with U.S. pilots who serve as adversaries, or "Red Teams." Last week, Raptor pilots finished training against Navy F-15s and F/A-18 Super Hornets in Japan. From February through April, Nellis hosts F-22s at the 2009 Red Flag wargames, a six-week, multinational training exercise held at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska and at Nellis.

F-22s dominate at Red Flag as well. Red Teams flying F-16s and F-15s take them on. Those who train to be the adversaries at Red Flag belong to the 64th and 65th Aggressor squadrons. These seasoned Red Team veterans find it frustrating to fight what they can't see. "Aggressor pilots are not typical Air Force line units. They tend to have much more experience," says Mike Estrada, a spokesman at the air base. "And I can tell you that our Aggressor pilots are getting very tired of always getting shot down by the F-22."

The reputation of the Raptor is evident in the pride that some take in downing one in simulated combat. A photo surfaced on an aviation website that recently caused a stir when the unnamed pilot of a surveillance aircraft said the silhouette of a warplane he painted on his fuselage was an F-22 that he helped locate and shoot down during an exercise. "Some Navy pilots like to brag if they even lock on to a Raptor," says one Air Force officer.

Learning Potential of a One-Sided Fight

"My F-16 is still a formidable weapons system in its own right. But it is not even in the same league as an F-22," Brenton says. "Technology keeps the F-22 a virtually undetectable and untouchable regime. It is fair to say that unless an F-22 driver makes a mistake, or has a critical system failure, I will always lose a fight against him. That is a good thing. As a nation, we want it this way. We also want him to be able to handle two, six or eight of us completely on his own."

Into the Fight

Simulated gun and missile shots are tracked by the controllers on the ground. When a target is killed, the deceased pilot receives a radio call telling him that he is dead. The pilot will often be sent to a location that simulates an enemy alert airfield, where he is "regenerated," simulating that the enemy has launched another aircraft. (The trainees go back to the base and land if they are killed.) When it comes to fighting Raptors, regeneration is an expected occurrence for WIC Red Teams. "We do everything we can to try and challenge them: We increase our total numbers, we regenerate, we electronically jam the environment. And we die," Brenton says. "We die wholesale. We are kill-removed repeatedly and then regenerated, and then we are killed again. The process would be demoralizing if we didn't maintain proper perspective. This is our job while we are here. What motivates us is the fact that we are training our brethren—and they are damn good at what they do."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 11433.html

The F-22's kinematics are exceptional but still not enough to justify its remarkably lopsided performance against aircraft like the F-15C and F-15E. Eventually its biggest advantage is one that is shared with the F-35.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2012 00:52

The lessons from the khans is that focus on aerodynamics and physics rather on stealth based shapes. If we can have 100% permeable kevlar composite skins, then handle the radar deflections entirely internal to the airframe. This should be the mantra for AMCA!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Jan 2012 01:01

Viv, what's the point of posting the F-22 rah-rah article here? The F-35 will never have similar stealth characteristics as the F-22 and nowhere near the kinematic performance. Additionally, the export version of the F-35 will be less capable than the US version. There is no point in taking the F-22's performance in DACT exercises and using that to extrapolate how good the JSF will be. Besides if we aren't going to take the EF vs Rafale exercise results seriously, perhaps taking the "results" of US exercises at face value should also be a no-no.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 20 Jan 2012 01:40

What is the counter to a stealth fighter ? The answer seems to be at the moment: another stealth fighter. Somehow I don't understand the logic behind that.
There is an analogy in naval warfare. The submarine. If your enemy fields a large force of submarines, do create a large submarine force yourself or will you go for destroyers ?

All that pant shitting because of black painted Chinese prototype, that doesn't fly all that much. And nobody can tell if will be a bomber or a fighter. Except for those who keep
it secret.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 20 Jan 2012 02:00

UK must build naval Typhoon

The UK should cancel the purchase of the F-35C and invest in developing a naval variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has said.

Lord Alexander Hesketh, UKIP's defence spokesman and former executive deputy chairman of Babcock International Group, said that adopting a naval Typhoon would allow the UK to restore carrier strike capability on its Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers before 2020 while saving money and protecting UK jobs.

UKIP estimates suggest it would cost £1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around £80m.

In a statement the party said that the development costs would be similar to the cost of converting the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to use the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to be used with the F-35C. A naval Typhoon would take off from a 'ski jump' deck.

BAE Systems first conducted a concept study for a naval Typhoon in 1992, and there is 'marinized' Typhoon simulator at Farnborough, UKIP said.

"Apart from the greatly increased UK content, there will be no outside restriction on the export of aircraft as the UK will have control of the intellectual property of both the aircraft systems and weapons," the statement read.

Lord Hesketh, who resigned from Babcock in 2010 after saying the QE-class carrier programme was making the country a "laughing stock", said: "The F-35C programme should be scrapped before more taxpayers' money is wasted.

"It was another ludicrous decision to come out of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

"Much of the work to make the Typhoon fit for taking off and landing on aircraft carriers has already been undertaken. There is also the added bonus that it would preserve and create British jobs, plus give our aircraft carriers an earlier strike capability than 2020."

The Ministry of Defence originally discounted the development of a naval Typhoon for the carriers on "cost-effectiveness" grounds.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jan 2012 02:06

nachiket wrote:Viv, what's the point of posting the F-22 rah-rah article here? The F-35 will never have similar stealth characteristics as the F-22 and nowhere near the kinematic performance.

Why wouldn't it have similar stealth characteristics? That is, possibly lower in absolute terms but far far in excess of competing fourth generation designs.

And yes it has nowhere near the kinematic performance of the F-22, but then kinematic performance only goes so far when you're aiming to rack up such scores.

Additionally, the export version of the F-35 will be less capable than the US version.

Maybe but not necessarily. One of the reasons why the F-22 was never exported was that the process of degrading it was deemed too expensive.

There is no point in taking the F-22's performance in DACT exercises and using that to extrapolate how good the JSF will be. Besides if we aren't going to take the EF vs Rafale exercise results seriously, perhaps taking the "results" of US exercises at face value should also be a no-no.

No by all means, take the EF-Rafale results seriously, as long as you keep in mind how well the RoE relate to real world conditions.

For example 9-1 gun kills is all well and good, only as long one ignores the fact that the RAF's EF weren't intended to be equipped with a gun (they tried replacement with ballast but concluded it was a futile exercise); it isn't accounted for during operations or training. The BVR exercises had an inexperienced EF crew, outranged by simulated R-27s, with a fighter than was still developing (it wasn't capable of passively employing the AMRAAM). The T3 EF with a Captor-E and Meteor/Aim-120D will be a very different bird of prey.

Compare that to Red Flag, which is arguably the most realistic exercise of its kind in the world, with not only the most comprehensive tracking environment and some of the finest fighter pilots in the world, but also unique EW and AEW&C threats.

Kovy · Post by **Kovy** » 20 Jan 2012 02:46

Viv S wrote: The BVR exercises had an inexperienced EF crew, outranged by simulated R-27s, with a fighter than was still developing (it wasn't capable of passively employing the AMRAAM). The T3 EF with a Captor-E and Meteor/Aim-120D will be a very different bird of prey.

The R27 is the basic A2A missile of any standard SU-27/30 which is the primary menace the typhoon has been designed to counter. If it can't defeat easily a R-27ER shooter in its current form, then it doesn't deserve all the hype surrounding its A2A superiority over the Rafale.

This story is a clear demonstration that the kinetic and radar range advantage of the typhoon are useless against a low RCS adversary, with superior situational awareness and networked active and passive sensors like the Rafale.

As for the fact that the typhoon was not capable of passively employing the amraam in 2009, it tells a lot about the program management. For god sake, since 1994 they have 4 development teams that only had to develop the A2A capabilities of the plane... and they didn't manage to implement such a basic BVR capability in 15 years !

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jan 2012 02:58

As excellent as the Rafale is, the Typhoon offers IMHO much better spinoffs to the LCA, AMCA and other programs. Ultimately at the end of the day, what the French are offering in technological offsets would not be comparable IMO to the four nation consortium. This will be one of the key factors if the GoI goes in for the Typhoon. That having being said, if the Typhoon does lose it could mean the GoI would rather deal with France vs the four nation consortium. Can't wait for the decision to come....this is really nail biting!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Jan 2012 03:03

Viv S wrote:
Why wouldn't it have similar stealth characteristics? That is, possibly lower in absolute terms but far far in excess of competing fourth generation designs.

The F-22's uber stealth is in part due to uber expensive and sensitive materials which made it so expensive in the first place. It is likely that the much cheaper(?) JSF will score much lower in all-aspect stealth.

Maybe but not necessarily. One of the reasons why the F-22 was never exported was that the process of degrading it was deemed too expensive.

So the fact that the US is looking to export the JSF means that the process of down-grading it is not as expensive.

No by all means, take the EF-Rafale results seriously, as long as you keep in mind how well the RoE relate to real world conditions.
...

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the Rafale is indeed better than the typhoon or vice versa. I couldn't care less as long as they both satisfy the IAF's requirements. All I'm saying is that DACT exercises don't always bring out the truth. We are not privy to the exact details of what happened anyway and have to rely on statements by some of the people involved. Remember the Red Flag controversy regarding the performance of the MKIs?

In any case, the simple fact that the JSF won't even get IOC for a few more years should rule it out of contention as an alternative to the EF/Rafale. Bear in mind that there are lot of prior orders by partner countries that the US has to fulfill before they can manufacture jets for us. I don't see any reason to talk about the JSF seriously on this thread.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2012 05:20

From the many posts above,the JSF suffers from the "Obesity" factor.Just look at it.As previous articles have said,it was never meant to exceed an F-16's combat capabilities,with the belief that stealth would be sufficient to deal with any adversary.As for its phenomenally touted acceleration,one would love to see stats in comparison with that of a lowly Harrier of '70s vintage,which with its "VIFFing" capability would teach the lift-fan JSF a few tricks.The much touted internal weapons bay advantage was shot down a long time ago, when even the F-22 which has a limited number of AAMs that it can carry internally, was found wanting in simulated scenarios (Rand) against PLAAF adversaries.Once its BVR missiles have been countered,its A-to-A combat all the way,and externally carried missiles defeat the stealth factor.

Whatever the outcome,the two Eurocanards are very close to each other in capability.Technically,which suits us better would be in the technical evaluation,both from capability and TOT/offsets wise.We are yet to know how close they are in overall price.Even at their expected very high costs,they are the "bird in hand",available right now,not the exceptional twice capable "bird in the bush" that the JSF is,that too which can only be feathered for the dish a decade hence!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jan 2012 06:36

A new life for the Rafale M F1

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... -m-f1.html

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 20 Jan 2012 11:26

Rakesh wrote:A new life for the Rafale M F1

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... -m-f1.html

Oye Rakesh Koshy! Where is my Akula Jalebi?

Don't tell us you have commissioned a competition to the MoD babu's to identify the best jalebi technically and will issue contract to the L1 bidder in the 12th five year plan.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jan 2012 12:44

Kovy wrote:
Viv S wrote: The BVR exercises had an inexperienced EF crew, outranged by simulated R-27s, with a fighter than was still developing (it wasn't capable of passively employing the AMRAAM). The T3 EF with a Captor-E and Meteor/Aim-120D will be a very different bird of prey.
The R27 is the basic A2A missile of any standard SU-27/30 which is the primary menace the typhoon has been designed to counter. If it can't defeat easily a R-27ER shooter in its current form, then it doesn't deserve all the hype surrounding its A2A superiority over the Rafale.

The R-27 has a very long range and a relatively low kill probability. You can simulate the former effectively in an exercise but not the latter without an actual launch.

This story is a clear demonstration that the kinetic and radar range advantage of the typhoon are useless against a low RCS adversary, with superior situational awareness and networked active and passive sensors like the Rafale.

Comparable RCS (esp in a loaded configuration), similar type of active and passive sensors, comparable MMI and therefore similar situational awareness.

The choice if anything is between the EF's considerably more powerful radar versus Rafale's two extra plumbed heavy hardpoints. Oh and better high altitude high speed performance versus better low speed high AoA maneuverability.

As for the fact that the typhoon was not capable of passively employing the amraam in 2009, it tells a lot about the program management. For god sake, since 1994 they have 4 development teams that only had to develop the A2A capabilities of the plane... and they didn't manage to implement such a basic BVR capability in 15 years !

Come now, that's simply rhetoric. One could say the same thing about the Rafale's so far absent HMS. Fact is its the aircraft's configuration and capability in the variant delivered to the IAF that matters not the process of getting there.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2012 12:50

does the rafale OSF has some parts deleted now to save cost? and OSF2 funding is not tied up?
is the EF Pirate fully functional in the luftwaffe?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jan 2012 13:47

nachiket wrote:The F-22's uber stealth is in part due to uber expensive and sensitive materials which made it so expensive in the first place. It is likely that the much cheaper(?) JSF will score much lower in all-aspect stealth.

Well the F-35's program cost is larger than the F-22's despite borrowing technologies extensively (though that can partly be explained by the multiple variants being developed). All the same the F-22's flyaway cost isn't that high (about $180 million) considering its relatively small build order. I'd venture in terms of materials employed the F-35 would be comparable to the F-22, possible with a greater emphasis on durability.

So the fact that the US is looking to export the JSF means that the process of down-grading it is not as expensive.

One could also assert that the F-35 is considered adequate in terms of what the US is willing to share - lower brute radar and kinematic performance compared to the F-22, but stealthy enough to give it a significant edge over conventional fighters.

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the Rafale is indeed better than the typhoon or vice versa. I couldn't care less as long as they both satisfy the IAF's requirements. All I'm saying is that DACT exercises don't always bring out the truth. We are not privy to the exact details of what happened anyway and have to rely on statements by some of the people involved. Remember the Red Flag controversy regarding the performance of the MKIs?

I did consider that yes. But still ... 144-0! If it could reproduce half that figure or even a third of that in real world conditions - that's truly extraordinary performance. Even assuming that was a one-off the F-22 managed to replicate that performance in subsequent exercises. Contrast that with the F-15 that was a generation ahead of everything else at induction, but clocked (admittedly respectable) kill ratios of between 5-1 and 7-1 in exercises against aircraft like F-4, F-5, EE Litening and Mirage III.

In any case, the simple fact that the JSF won't even get IOC for a few more years should rule it out of contention as an alternative to the EF/Rafale. Bear in mind that there are lot of prior orders by partner countries that the US has to fulfill before they can manufacture jets for us. I don't see any reason to talk about the JSF seriously on this thread.

I'd have to agree there. An AF needing an early deliveries of aircraft cannot realistically opt for the F-35. Nor can they expect a high degree of ToT. In the IAF's case in particular, with the induction of the PAK-FA scheduled at the end of the decade, the F-35 is clearly not a viable option.

That said, my reply was mainly to reinforce the point that its not a poor aircraft or a failed program despite popular opinion. The Arjun tank was late and overbudget. The Tejas was late, over budget and is being interpreted by many observers, as scheduled for induction in the interim with a reduced performance expectations. That doesn't change the fact the final product in both cases is a lethal weapon that offers world class quality and excellent value for money.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2012 18:26

Viv (contd).....and is built locally and should have better support,which will also in series upgrades increase indigenisation and will cost 1/3rd to 1/4th that of a JSF.

koti · Post by **koti** » 20 Jan 2012 19:47

Viv S wrote:That said, my reply was mainly to reinforce the point that its not a poor aircraft or a failed program despite popular opinion. The Arjun tank was late and overbudget. The Tejas was late, over budget and is being interpreted by many observers, as scheduled for induction in the interim with a reduced performance expectations. That doesn't change the fact the final product in both cases is a lethal weapon that offers world class quality and excellent value for money.

Ignoring my intuition, that is sound logic.

But, our situation does not suit this bird.
We need something that needs to fight against massive swarms of enemy aircraft, and from long range airfields, able to carry good payload and come in ASAP.
None of the above are in favor of JSF despite it being a generation ahead.

MKI does this good. So will Rafa and EF.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 20 Jan 2012 20:39

Badar, he found some technical loophole in having only gotten 1 Akula instead of 2 -- hence no Jalebis

kelesis · Post by **kelesis** » 20 Jan 2012 20:59

Dassault nEUROn has been officially presented yesterday to governments members of the project.

http://bourse.lefigaro.fr/indices-actio ... ente-46469

Five european companies are working under the authority of Dassault Aviation : Saab, Alenia Aermacchi, EADS-CASA, HAI and RUAG.

Flying tests in France, Sweden and Italy will start next summer.

To avoid the problems of multinational cooperation (A400M, EF, F-35) :
A single executive agency, the French DGA has awarded a main contract to the prime contractor and manages the project, and single prime contractor, Dassault Aviation company, is in charge of the main contract implementation.

In addition to being the design authority, Dassault Aviation is in charge of :

- general design and architecture of the system
- flight control system
- stealth components
- final assembly
- systems integration
- ground tests
- flight tests

nEUROn is a very important project : It is the first and only european stealth aircraft. The link with MMRCA is that it shows that Dassault has a true european leadership on the future military project (drones, UCAV, 5th generation aircraft) while EADS has been rejected by both UK and France.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 20 Jan 2012 21:03

Singha wrote:does the rafale OSF has some parts deleted now to save cost? and OSF2 funding is not tied up?
is the EF Pirate fully functional in the luftwaffe?

Current OSF comes without IR channel. Just TV at the moment.

Luftwaffe gets no Pirates. Austerity measure. You know, there is no money. Israel may want another Dolphin the German taxpayer has to subsidise, or the Italians and Greeks may ask for some money to support their lifestyle.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2012 22:38

So, both DASS and PIRATE are not completely done yet. Wonder if that is all only due to money or maturity of these products?

member_22516 · Post by **member_22516** » 20 Jan 2012 23:36

About Neuron, There are some web sites speaking of it, one if from Sweden with few pictures.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_m ... 389951.ece

The first flight should take place in late june, and after there will be 2 years of operationnal rcs testing and stealth missions demonstrations, including 1 bomb firing.
Dassault (and French MoD) is leader of it, which is interesting for our concern.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2012 23:37

more like money I think. the Thales Sirius IRST to spot inbound ASMs is mounted on roof of de zeven provincien Dutch DDG. the tech should be similar.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 21 Jan 2012 00:19

SaiK wrote:So, both DASS and PIRATE are not completely done yet. Wonder if that is all only due to money or maturity of these products?

PIRATE is ready for years. Italy, Spain and UK have them in operational service. The new IRST for Gripen NG is a further development of PIRATE. DASS is fully operational, too. But it is under constant improvement. Latest improvement I'm aware off are AESA RWR antennas.

Devil is in the detail here, too. While German Tiffies officially sport full spec DASS, they lack the LWR's. Italian and Spanish ones are fitted-for-but-not-with, only British Tiffies are full spec.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Jan 2012 00:50

we should get the version that is for tomorrow++40 years. we don't want to get into an upgrade mode in say 5 years from now. we can't spend for that.. upgraded cost must be included/factored in the proposals in relatively reasonable comparison. I guess this is the evaluation that CCS/MoD is planning or doing it current or done it. Without which, they would not be able to clear the MoF table.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Jan 2012 01:58

Having spectra is worth its weight in gold. We should participate in next version of SPECTRA and be joint partners for it and for AMCA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jan 2012 02:22

What? The good Adm.Koshy says "nyet" ,welshing on his mithai pledge? I thought he said "mithai" for every ton if it was an Akula-2! Perhaps he is taking gleeful advantage if it is found-when pics are available, that the sub is actually an improved Ak-2,also known as an Ak-3.Should we send out a "red flag" notice for him?

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 21 Jan 2012 02:39

back with some pictures of the neuron :

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 21 Jan 2012 02:42

Global Insider: France-India Relations

WPR, 18 Jan 2012

Earlier this month, India approved a $1.18 billion deal for the purchase of 500 Mica air-to-air missiles from the French defense firm MBDA. In an email interview, Jean-Luc Racine, a senior CNRS fellow at the Center for South Asia Studies at the School for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences and the vice president of the Asia Center in Paris, discussed France-India relations.

WPR: What have been the Sarkozy administration's main priorities in advancing France-India ties?

Jean-Luc Racine: Since then-President Jacques Chirac’s visit to India in 1998, France-India ties have improved consistently, and current President Nicolas Sarkozy has clearly toed the line. Paris looks at India as a truly emerging power deserving its due place in the world order. Three priorities have been defined: first, to reassert the value of this political partnership -- Sarkozy has visited India twice during his presidency; second, to improve bilateral trade and investments, with a notable high-tech cooperation content; and third, to enhance the strategic partnership, a field where defense ties and anti-terrorism are prominent.

WPR: Where has it been successful, and where has it failed?

Racine: On issues dear to India, the Sarkozy administration has not faltered. Paris resolutely supports India’s call to enlarge the permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council, and France has extended support as well to the civilian nuclear deal promoted by the Bush administration in order to offer India -- a nonsignatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- an exceptional status in the global nuclear trade regime. In fact, Paris was the first to sign a bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation in fall 2008. Having Indian troops parade in Paris on Bastille Day 2009 sent a strong signal about France’s willingness to enhance the bilateral relationship further.

On the economic front, despite a ministerial joint committee, the establishment of an Indo-French CEO Forum in 2009 and the presence of about 800 French companies in India, the $12 billion trade target for 2012 will probably not be met. India still views that aspect of the bilateral relationship as “below potential,” although 2010 sent a positive signal of recovery.

On the strategic front, links are old and strong. The two navies conduct joint exercises regularly. India will soon upgrade its Mirage 2000 fighters (a $2.2 billion deal signed in 2011) and will equip them with new French missiles (a $1.18 billion deal signed in 2012). A joint working group has been established on counterterrorism.

WPR: What are the likely areas of cooperation moving forward, and what are the main obstacles to closer ties?

Racine: Defense deals are still in the cards, as Paris waits for New Delhi’s delayed decision about a major $20 billion contract for 126 combat aircraft -- Dassault’s Rafale having already been shortlisted. Space cooperation will probably expand after the success of the Megha-Tropiques joint satellite project. In major infrastructure investments, India expects large French companies to be on board. Civilian nuclear cooperation is on track, but the debate raised in India after the Fukushima disaster might delay the implementation of the ambitious contract signed between France’s Areva and the Nuclear Power Corp. of India for building up-to-date nuclear plants. It remains to be seen if divergent views on support to farmers will have a negative impact, not just on the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round, but also on bilateral relations. On the soft-power side, France needs to attract more Indian scientists and students to its academic institutions.