Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 25 Feb 2014 03:15

Sooner or later, Pakistan will wheedle F-35s out of the US for free, like they did with the F-16.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Feb 2014 03:23

www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf‎

Eurofighter Typhoon : Technical Guide

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 25 Feb 2014 03:27

Thanks Nrao,

That's indeed where lie the debate. Sensor fusion has several definitions and approaches and as a consequence many can claim this capability (refer to LM slides). Typhoon Gmbh indeed claims this capability for quite some time know (well before swiss evaluation), but if you have a closer look at system architecture and how sensor fusion is processed it is not in the same league as the F22, rafale, now F35 and probably the Gripen NG. Other clue can be spotted in pilots experiences (rafale pilots for instance), but one could argue it is not an independent source. So came the swiss evaluation to cross check their say which assessed present aircrafts capabilities but also how they would look like in 2015...And this tend to validate the assessment that there are different quality and approaches of sensor fusion.

The point is, since the Swiss evaluation, there is simply no clues that the Typhoon would no incorporate a new system architecture. It is still the same old claims (your links) that proved not that efficient as advertised in the light of the swiss evaluation.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2014 03:34

This is what Typhoon states it has:

The Avionics System has been designed to ensure that the
pilot is presented with all the information needed in the
cockpit, at all stages of flight. The solution – a highly dis-
tributed computing capability linked by high-speed conven-
tional (MIL-STD-1553, MIL-STD-1760) and fibre-optic data-
buses (STANAG 3910) which will further evolve to make
maximum use of the rapid developments in computing
power.

SENSOR FUSION
The heart of the system is the Sensor Fusion that process-
es information received by the main aircraft sensors. This
information is correlated and presented clearly to the pilot
to allow safe and efficient single pilot operation in the swing-
role environment. The high level of integration and sharing
of information between the sub-systems gives the pilot an
autonomous ability to assess rapidly the overall tactical sit-
uation and respond efficiently to threats.

Kindly prove how it is inferior to that on the Rafale.

That the Typhoon was not mature at the time of the Swiss eval is also known. So what exactly is the point of insisting that eval results extend to ad infinitum?

Claiming that Typhoon team is not hyping it, so its not as good as the Rafales is not a convincing argument.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Feb 2014 03:44

{I assume you mean "Federated" = "Tracked", or somewhat similar. Is that right?}

From what I have read, the Swiss gave the EF low marks, but did not mention that they did not have SF. But, for teh time being I will give you the benefit of doubt.

On a totally diff note:

Sept, 2012 :: US Navy to add sensor fusion to Super Hornet fleet

The US Navy has embarked on an incremental programme to add sensor fusion capabilities to its fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the first of which began operational testing earlier this year.

"MSI [Multi-Sensor Integration] Phase I will be released to the fleet with Software Configuration Set H8E in the 2013 timeframe and incorporates sensors for the air-to-ground mission," the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) says. "The H8E System Configuration Set software block upgrade for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler began operational test in July 2012."

The MSI Phase I activity begins the process of fusing information generated by the Super Hornet's air-to-surface-oriented sensors with data entered into the system from off-board sources such as data-links.

But Phase I is only the beginning, as the USN is planning to further enhance the F/A-18E/F's sensor fusion capabilities with the next increment of MSI.

"MSI Phase II improves upon the design from Phase I and incorporates air-to-air [A/A] in to the overall systems architecture," NAVAIR says. "Software algorithm development continues to correlate multiple ground and surface tracks from on-ship to off-ship sensor sources and to begin integration with the common tactical picture." It will also expand track and correlation from emitting targets and tracks, to "improve lethality against stationary or moving targets," according to USN budget documents.

Phase II is set to be incorporated into fleet Super Hornet squadrons with the release of the H10E software set. "MSI Phase II is currently flying in developmental test aircraft and will be fielded in fiscal year 2014," NAVAIR says.

The next phase will add counter-electronic attack (CEA) and an enhanced air-to-air tactical picture, according to the USN. "MSI Phase III utilizes previous MSI upgrades and combines them in H12 System Configuration Set with display improvements to enhance A/A and CEA sensor integration," the document reads.

The USN envisions firmware upgrades for the displays which would allow the aircraft's processors to be fully utilised. Those would be coupled with improved display symbology and crew vehicle interface. MSI Phase III capability would be common to the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G. Boeing has previously suggested that its large area display could be considered for incorporation into the navy's Super Hornet fleet as part of those improvements.

In addition to MSI, the USN is working to add single-ship geolocation and specific emitter identification capabilities to the Super Hornet to better enable the F/A-18E/F to attack enemy air defence systems, according to budget justification documents. The service plans to "continue software algorithm development to enhance target identification and location" through 2013.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Feb 2014 04:01

Arthuro,

Here is one for you to play with:

Google release Smartphone with 3D sensors

Google has released a hand full of these so that software vendors can write apps for them.

The gadgets sensors permit it make over 250,000 3D measurements every movement and update its condition in true-time.

That is in a smart phone today.

An aircraft of the EF magnitude better do better than that.

Google puts a Kinect motion sensor in your smartphone to understand the physical world

New prototype hardware takes a quarter of a million 3D measurements a second, will be given to developers to play with

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/a ... sensor.jpg

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Feb 2014 08:49

Sensor Fusion is a relative term. Basics of it is all of the sensors (i.e. Radar, EW, IRST and HMD along with data from other aircrafts, such as AEW, ground and aircrafts in formation) available to a aircraft is made available to a pilot in such a manner as to allow him/her to make the best decision without data overload. Now all of the 4th-Gen should have this feature; hence standardization on sensor types, cockpit ergonomics and avionics such as MFDs with similar features that a pilot can access.

As far as on questions raised on how well this sensor fusion is implemented on various 4th/5th Gen aircrafts, that is relative to interpretation on publically available information. How well one markets influences perceptions.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 25 Feb 2014 13:57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWwhZKRy5CA
The EF obviously has plenty of sensor fusion, it is certainly not better of worse than the Rafale and it will finally come down to individual pilot preferences, nice simulator videos to show the kind of sensor fusion that is available on EF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkiJcEP2oTQ

By modern standards even the F-16 Block 60 IN proposed had plenty of Sensor Fusion, hence with IRST and better radar UAE didn't want to pay extra to get the Rafale which had few added advantages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqz4TGPJkS4

Actually all MRCA's aside SH International with its proposed Large Panel Display, EPE Engines, IRST, proven cutting edge AESA, new MAWS, new Laser warning system, CFTs and Stealth Pods is by far the best we could for a reasonable price, I don't think Boeing or Unkil will have a problem meeting the original RFP TOT requirement and even at an inflated rate of 75 million a piece, we would get it 125 for just over 10 Billion or 200 for 15 Billion. Boeing is already working on them and its sensor fusion will match that of the F-35. SH is the USN's proven workhorse with reasonable operating costs and unparalleled reliability. With the line closing in the US, there is no reason why the line cannot be tranferred to India, we may not get full-tot but with we aren't getting it with Rafale either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFFbhKlywK0

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2014 21:52

Block 60 doesnt have sensor fusion and SH is in the process of receiving it.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 28 Feb 2014 03:52

Oh ooo.. Here we go again..... 'DELAY' alert

Come clean on ties with Agusta: India to Dassault

South Block sources said the ministry wanted to seek prior clarification from Dassault during the negotiation stage as it did not want to face legal or operational hurdles for spare parts after the 126-aircraft deal had been signed.

“Dassault has been asked whether Agusta-Westland-Finmeccanica was original equipment manufacturer for the Rafale MMRCA as there were reports on the same. We have pointed out to Dassault that India was involved in litigation with the Anglo-Italian company over charges of bribery in the 12 VVIP helicopter purchase scandal,” said a senior defence ministry official.

When contacted, an Indian representative of Dassault said on condition of anonymity that Rafale was 100% French and the helicopter company was not part of original equipment supplier for the MMRCA.

“We want Dassault to clarify in writing that the helicopter company has nothing to do with MMRCA as there could be spare parts problems in future as under the rules defence ministry cannot deal with a company mired in bribery allegations in a contract,” said a senior official. The MMRCA deal is still a work in progress and will be signed by the next government.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 28 Feb 2014 10:57

It's time to accept that we do not have the money and just build more LCA's. This BS needs to stop.

The french need to go home and try milking someone else. May be they can sell to China?

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 28 Feb 2014 14:40

^^

They can't sell to China, there is a ban on sale of such items to China. If India doesn't buy the Rafale no one will. Best to go for the SH International or Mig-35, these have the best value for money. With SH International we may not get full-tot but we get a very good all rounder with all the roles a fighter can possibly play and that remains cutting edge for the foresseable future with the current upgrades being fielded. Love the large panel display in the works for the SH, F414 EPE should improve its aerial performance. Mig-35 will be cheaper with more TOT and can be MKIed with Issy Radars. Both aircraft provide potential savings in billions in pure acquistion cost, engine commonality with LCA/ Mig-29.

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 Feb 2014 14:48

Heh - that can't happen: both Mig and SH didn't qualify on technical grounds. So, if they are selected, it will be regarded as "diluting the requirements" and you can guess what will happen.

You can't convince half the posters on this forum for this idea (for instance, i want the MMRCA to be cancelled completely), so you can guess how the politicians will react.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Feb 2014 15:31

With all the flak coming in for the saint,MOD and Govt. over the SRatna tragedy,undefunding for the armed forces,delays in decisionmaking,it might be seized upon as an opportunity by vested interests to force some delayed defence decisions just before the elections,letting the next regime to pay the piper.

Will · Post by **Will** » 28 Feb 2014 17:49

deleted

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 03 Mar 2014 09:56

French firm will send 18 Rafale fighter jets, India will build the rest

New Delhi: India will acquire 18 of the 126 Rafale fighter jets it is buying from France in "fly away" condition, and the rest will be manufactured by the government's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited or HAL.

French aerospace major Dassault Aviation and HAL have sealed a work share agreement almost two years after negotiations began - HAL will build 70 per cent of the aircraft, sources said.

The final contract, though, is still far from being signed. For one, India's Ministry of Defence has no money in the current financial year that ends this month, for initial payment. Also, general elections are due by May and the final contract will only be signed by the next government, if it chooses to go ahead on the same terms and conditions.

Dassault Aviation had won the contract to supply 126 Medium, multi-role combat aircraft or MMRCA in 2012. The massive contract is pegged anywhere between 12 to 15 billion dollars.

Dassault has had reservations over HAL's capacity to absorb complex technology and wanted to rope in other private sector companies for manufacturing the jets in India. The Defence Ministry, however, told the French company that HAL would remain the lead player.

Sources said the deal is complex and requires both sides to be in sync on commercial factors, logistics and HAL's ability to assemble the Rafale.

For instance, the radar on the Rafale jet is to be manufactured by Bharat-Electronics Ltd (BEL) in Bangalore. The Radome (the protruding snub nose on the aircraft) would, however, be manufactured by HAL at its Hyderabad facility. Dassault wanted clarity on how the two units would coordinate their activities.

Now, HAL has apparently agreed to set up a new facility close to the one that BEL has in Bangalore.

Dassault's officials are simultaneously negotiating with different divisions of HAL based in cities like Lucknow, Nashik, Bangalore and Hyderabad.

The French and Indian governments are also working on an agreement for a sovereign guarantee that Dassault will supply, service and maintain the Rafales over the next 40 years.

This is an important provision in the Indian defence procurement procedure, designed to ensure that manufacturers don't renege on their commitment.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Mar 2014 10:13

Scary stuff , HAL already has it's hands full with LCA (look at it's production capacity ) , LCH and obviously spares for existing fleet . We are not even talking about PAKFA or AMCA yet . IMHO HAL has become more of a bottleneck than anything else . Idea behind MMRCA deal was to replenish IAF's fleet ASAP with HAL's existing build capacity I don't see more than 10-15 Rafales rolling out by 2016 and who knows if this will drain resources from as usual desi projects like the LCA.

Another point is going by the Scorpene template it is clear that there is no cost advantage building these platforms here as we simply do not have the means or know how , we basically have to literally ask each and everything and turn screws like dumb monkeys.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Mar 2014 12:29

Looks no different to me than MKI deal .....HAL will built it but at its own sweet time and with its own sweet ability to absorb TOT.

I wonder if HAL has the ability to stretch out like a rubber ....its practically building every thing these days ....... but that means more jobs for HAL and good for its share holders

srin · Post by **srin** » 03 Mar 2014 13:11

Austinji, that is a good point.

In Sukhoi (and Hawk), we ordered a few aircraft off-the-shelf, while the rest would be assembled here and the amount of technology absorption would deepen over time. So, the result would be that the first squadron will be available really quickly. But the deep-TOT will take time and will be more expensive because the entire supply chain has to be established. And most often, it fails to materialize to the expected levels. And in case, something goes wrong in the deal (always a factor in our procurement), then we won't have anything.

OTOH, for Scorpenes, the contract was to build all of them right here. Which means that the shipyard has now capabilities to build subs that it didn't have before. Even if there is falling out with DCNS over corruption etc, we would be in a situation where we can salvage the subs. OTOH, this is really time-consuming (as we have seen with Scorpene) and the OEM can use this as an excuse to jack up costs.

So, which is a better model - the Sukhoi model or the Scorpene model ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Mar 2014 13:39

Scorpene model is built here in the sense it is built and assembled here , but the core system that goes insides comes from DCN all the Combat Systems , Weapons , sensors/sonars are of French origin.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 03 Mar 2014 14:13

hahah 70%, there goes all the claim of full-tot

pure Dassault BS since the beginning. Now let's hope the next Govt. buys the same BS else there goes the deal, hmm wonder how much more we'll have to pay for the this crap. I think price escalation included, should be about 140 million per bird.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Mar 2014 14:37

They will build 70 % of the aircraft , it does not mean they wont get 100 % TOT.

There are two different things ......it not possible to build Rafale or MKI in India with 100 % manufacturing capability .....it will end up being extremely costly and you cannot replicate 100 % Rafale production in India.

TOT simply means you have better ability to maintain the aircraft in India and do a complete MLU .....building spares etc.

Even building 70 % will take another 10 years for HAL conservatively speaking and that too for just 126 type.

IF the numbers rise to say 200-250-300 then economics of scale may permit local components to rise to 80-90 %

Most likely it will follow Complete Import Aircraft , CKD Kit , Partial Local built partly CKD , TOT Built from Imported/Indian materials , .Compeletely Build from Indian materials .....thats a nice more than decade long process.

nash · Post by **nash** » 03 Mar 2014 14:49

As per the article they mention radar building, hopefully DRDO/HAL/BEL can get enough know how about back-end processing component and T/R modules, if it is aesa.

But in the rest 30% has engine related build then IMO it will be the major loss for us.

JMT

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Mar 2014 16:27

We built AL-31FP under TOT ,We would definately be lic building Snecma M-88 engines

I am not sure if that 30 % means by cost or by component .....each has it own significance.

So if z component is expensive to build in India and importing is cheaper then they might opt for the latter. More of cost-benefit analysis part ....which is directly related to how many Rafale we plan to manufacure in the end.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Mar 2014 19:06

The vested interests are desperate to finalise the deal,get "the camel's nose inside the tent" before the debacle at the hustings,so that it will be easier to manipulate events with the new dispensation later on.
The SRatna tragedy has come as a life-saver for the Congress/dynasty,Deaf. Min and MOD.By inking such a decision,they hope it will reflect well upon their decision making capability ,while in private he vested interest will rejoice at a deed well done.

The new dispensation should review all defence decisions made within the last year by the Congress regime,as these appear to have been made selectively,some in indecent haste,and not the critical items that the armed forces required.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Mar 2014 05:31

Philip wrote:The vested interests are desperate to finalise the deal,get "the camel's nose inside the tent" before the debacle at the hustings,so that it will be easier to manipulate events with the new dispensation later on.
The SRatna tragedy has come as a life-saver for the Congress/dynasty,Deaf. Min and MOD.By inking such a decision,they hope it will reflect well upon their decision making capability ,while in private he vested interest will rejoice at a deed well done.

The new dispensation should review all defence decisions made within the last year by the Congress regime,as these appear to have been made selectively,some in indecent haste,and not the critical items that the armed forces required.

The deal can't be inked now. The model code of conduct is in effect. Even if it wasn't, or the govt. decides to ignore it, we don't have the money anyway. The deal is dead as a dodo effectively. We are unlikely to ever see any Rafales in IAF colors.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Mar 2014 08:52

Well that depends upon which dispensation comes to power.If the portents remain true,then we are likely to see a major shift in the country's policies especially with regard to security.China has just upped its defence spending by over 12%.One hopes that the new dispensation cuts many of the outrageous freebies which perpetuate the dole mentality in the rural areas of the country and get able-bodied men and women working instead of sitting idly by, wanting handouts.part of the billions saved could go towards increasing the defence budget.Then perhaps a limited number of Rafales may become affordable.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 06 Mar 2014 10:22

Philip wrote:The vested interests are desperate to finalise the deal,get "the camel's nose inside the tent" before the debacle at the hustings,so that it will be easier to manipulate events with the new dispensation later on.
The SRatna tragedy has come as a life-saver for the Congress/dynasty,Deaf. Min and MOD.By inking such a decision,they hope it will reflect well upon their decision making capability ,while in private he vested interest will rejoice at a deed well done.

The new dispensation should review all defence decisions made within the last year by the Congress regime,as these appear to have been made selectively,some in indecent haste,and not the critical items that the armed forces required.

Trying to fish in the troubled water again, are we?
If not, what exactly is your rational in trying to put a 1-year time-limit on the review-need of the deals and decisions of saint and his current dispensation?

But yes, I agree, the new dispensation should review ALL such defence decisions - but they need to start with,
1. the billion-dollar FGFA royalty fee-payment deal (desperately being tried to be passed-on as joint "R&D" - what R&D, except for learning more screwdriver-giri what exactly is this deal for)
2. all T-90 deals (wrt the need of these "fair-weather-day-fighters" and multiple times not honouring the ToT contract by the OEM)
3. and ofcourse the Vikramaditya/Groshkov payouts over-and-beyond what was orginally contracted for

I'm sure the new dispensation will have the cojones and stick some appropriate blames and recover some of the $s from some of these entities (and hopefully not resort to the easy route of black-listing all-and-sundry that saint resorts to at the drop-of-a-hat

)
We will see!!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 06 Mar 2014 17:18

Many incorrect price figures have been seen in press (including French press), but recently, the actual fly away official cost was released on the French Senate site4. These prices include VAT. For export, the fly away cost is 57.5M euros ($83M CAD) for the C variant and 61.9 Meuros for the B variant (twin-seater).

The Cost of Flight Per Hour (CFPH) was $19,000 CAD during war operations in Mali and should be lower during peace time5.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/ ... er-part-1/ (Canadian perspective - summary of Rafales pluses)

Aren't we paying higher than this figure?

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 06 Mar 2014 18:09

We are paying much higher, that is a bogus flyaway cost indicated. Our current deal is being negotiated at 120-140 million a piece, if & when its signed later in the year after elections, the cost will have risen to 140 per bird.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Mar 2014 18:24

rape of indian taxpayer treasury when like the F-solahs focus should be on funding domestic fighter radar, IRST, spectraski, FDL and smart weapons to give new , sharp and relatively price stable teeth to everything in the fleet.

instead we get a shiny new raptorski that will work only with french weapons. anything else will cost extra.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Mar 2014 18:55

Actually MoD never said whatever price we are paying for raffy , every thing is speculation for now

But on the contrary if we get SPECTRA & navy get naval rafale for its use then the whole deal could be worth it

126 IAF+ 40-50+ IN would bring the total to 170+ making the whole ToT & local manufacturing good for us

Few people may argue the F35 for navy or LCA could be option but , Rafale is a tested fighter in use & operationally verified.

+ most of the tech it uses is feared by even 5th gen fighters.

(just my view)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Mar 2014 19:18

every thing is speculation for now

There is a quote from the CEO of Dassault that the total is more than $20 billion. IF that is true, then there is a bench mark for all. Irrespective of what the MoD has not said so far.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 06 Mar 2014 19:44

tushar_m wrote:Actually MoD never said whatever price we are paying for raffy , every thing is speculation for now

But on the contrary if we get SPECTRA & navy get naval rafale for its use then the whole deal could be worth it

126 IAF+ 40-50+ IN would bring the total to 170+ making the whole ToT & local manufacturing good for us

Few people may argue the F35 for navy or LCA could be option but , Rafale is a tested fighter in use & operationally verified.

+ most of the tech it uses is feared by even 5th gen fighters.

(just my view)

With 20 Billion quoted for 126 fighters, must be nuts to buy another 50 for IN, keep in mind for the same amount as 170 Rafales, we could easily 200 F-18 SH International or Mig35s + 100 Rafales, we are talking atleast a 100 aircraft difference in strength.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 06 Mar 2014 19:51

srin wrote:Heh - that can't happen: both Mig and SH didn't qualify on technical grounds. So, if they are selected, it will be regarded as "diluting the requirements" and you can guess what will happen.

You can't convince half the posters on this forum for this idea (for instance, i want the MMRCA to be cancelled completely), so you can guess how the politicians will react.

As said before, IAF's tech requirments can be burned to light a firepit to roast some goats since now they are bunch of useless documents. A Mig-35 with a Israeli radar, Virgilius EW suite and OLS can easily be just as good as the Rafale, sure not the same amount of range but good enough to handle anything China or Pak have to throw at us. Heck even the F-35 would be cheaper for 20 billion, we can easily get 200 F-35 with local assembly and enough TOT to make airframe, some avionics, perhaps engine , heck we can even be the local assembly point for all Asian/ Middle East F-35s in the future, which will automatically be over 300 fighters. I think with a large order like 200 we can squeeze uncle to have an initial minimum 60% TOT clause of the MRCA RFP.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Mar 2014 20:16

See we can get F35 , SH or some other fighter we have the money (provided UPA goes down), the main problem with us is time...

The testing of new radar on mig 35 , ols ,new EW etc etc will take a lot of time..

although i totally support buying Mig 35 to bring up the strength of IAf. We do have maintanence facility + manufaturing 120 RD33 so no acceptance problem with IAF for the machine .

I do not support buying Unkils Machines . (snooping, withdrawing support, bans ,leading to spare problems etc etc)

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Mar 2014 20:27

Again we can buy SH or any other plane , but remember they failed the tech trials .

we can have a Ferrari but if it can't work on Indian roads then it will only remain a showpiece .

F35 remains disputed to be a good fighters with L band radars becoming popular & available even F22 could be detected (Swordfish ,greenpine )

At least F22 can run back to its base , F35 will remain a siting duck if detected (not very agile . not very fast)

experts can provide a good view on L-band vs stealth

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 06 Mar 2014 21:09

Septimus P. wrote:
srin wrote:Heh - that can't happen: both Mig and SH didn't qualify on technical grounds. So, if they are selected, it will be regarded as "diluting the requirements" and you can guess what will happen.

You can't convince half the posters on this forum for this idea (for instance, i want the MMRCA to be cancelled completely), so you can guess how the politicians will react.

As said before, IAF's tech requirments can be burned to light a firepit to roast some goats since now they are bunch of useless documents. A Mig-35 with a Israeli radar, Virgilius EW suite and OLS can easily be just as good as the Rafale, sure not the same amount of range but good enough to handle anything China or Pak have to throw at us. Heck even the F-35 would be cheaper for 20 billion, we can easily get 200 F-35 with local assembly and enough TOT to make airframe, some avionics, perhaps engine , heck we can even be the local assembly point for all Asian/ Middle East F-35s in the future, which will automatically be over 300 fighters. I think with a large order like 200 we can squeeze uncle to have an initial minimum 60% TOT clause of the MRCA RFP.

This is exactly where we get things wrong - what is wrong with the Zhuk-AE (or even Zhuk-ME sets of the Ks) that we need to replace it with something from Israel? OLS-K and OLS-UEM combo on the 35s is one of the best A-A and A-G IRST that one can get their hands on.

So why is there any need of replacing these sensors?

In our context, MiG-35 (or even SH) is one of the best cost-effective aircraft available in the medium weight class, no doubt.

And if we need to really replace something then it will be ECM/ESM suites, maybe a desi MC, and even maybe some RCs (to allow integration of some western missiles - though personally, I don't see any earth-shattering need of doing so), the flight-control avionics maybe etc etc. After all, if the change-itch is so much to resist, why aren't we asking Snecma to implement the precise same CW and other TWS modes required for RVV-AE/R-73 type AAMs on RBE-2s?

Plus except for some more screwdriver-giri what is this offset we are getting from this deal, I ask? Can any enlightened soul pls educate me/us on this - my high-level current view is:
1) On structures, if we can build so composite-rich structure like LCA, what earth shattering tech are we going to get?
2) M88-2 uses 1st Gen SCB (AM1 and AM2) - we know how to cast a DS blade and are in the verge of some-gen SCB. So again what do we gain in the turbofan front?
3) Radar will be fully imported - but even there our desi X-band AESA should be online within an year or two for LCA. So again what there?
4) Yes avionics will a gen apart, no doubt

So is the point 4 big enough differentiator for such a huge unit price differential/markup (ok, we don't know the price yet - but we can guess enough). Or is it, that since everybody has said that these platforms (EF and Rafale) will be pricey, we should just roll-over and agree to whatever price that gets quoted by the OEMs.

But no MiG-35 (or for that matter SH) will not even be considered (and excuse will be, it failed yaar - say, in lifting 6T of External Stores in Siachen - it could only lift 5.5T - or the turn-around time between sorties were too long, it exceeded 25.5m than what EF or Rafale took ityadi ityadi).

Because of the lack of strategic thinking all around - actually it's called "playing-it-safe" - as nobody will do the cost-vs-effectiveness in our context and take a "strategic" decision.

MoD had basically thrown the ball on the other side of the fence (to IAF) to judge the bestest medium-weight class fighter available there-in
AND
IAF caught it, and did a very thorough and professional evaluation and down-selected the two made available for selection. Cost and life-cycle-cost etc is not something they were authorised to speak about (and no, they don't have any capability to judge that anyway). And the ball has been thrown on other side of the fence again
AND
MoD has caught it and doing a very thorough price evaluation of these selected two and further down-selection of one Rafale - and immediately got into another very thorough contract and offset negotiation exercise.

But who is going to do a cost vs capability vs our-requirement matching and do the final evaluation on which platform is best for us, given the money that we're willing to pay - hain jee?

Nobody is the answer.
Normally a defence minister or atleast an empowered-panel led by DM are supposed to be taking such calls - but then that leaves out a chance of corruption-allegations and various such muck throwing (by various RNIs, AAP and other assorted such jholawallah clowns), and oppose-for-the-sake-of-opposing the Opposition. A bit too much for snow-white-mundu-lover saint, I'd say.

So as long as there are folks available to be blamed (ie. IAF, if platform effectiveness is found to be wanting in later years and MOD folks if price or contract or offset non-adherence etc) - hey the only thing left to be done in such cases, is to appear worried for a few weeks, appoint a couple of chai-biskoot committees, blacklist the OEM and be done with it.

Mundu remains snow-white, no ammunition for the opposition (or a political CAG), even the foreign office folks are happy of having a demonstrable-action of rewarding a "friend" for standing-by with us during N-bum tests - all happy, except may be the poor souls whose tax-payment is the source of the funds to underwrite a foreign-country's defence R&D related largesse.

And betw, "leadership" you say, what exactly is that, anyway?

Plus nothing much will change, with any regime-change or no-change etc that some of us are so fondly hoping for - let's wait and watch!!

Sorry for the long rant - time to go hide in the Saga thread ...

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 07 Mar 2014 09:02

Out of topic but on the current line of discussion

F135 Fan ‘Blows’ During F-35 Engine Trial
http://newz.defenceradar.com/f135-fan-b ... ine-trial/

Pratt & Whitney is investigating the cause of an F135 fan failure that developed in the first stage of the Joint Strike Fighter engine’s three-stage unit during ground tests in Florida in December.

The fan crack occurred on Dec. 23 during accelerated mission tests (AMT) on ground engine FX648 at Pratt’s West Palm Beach facility, as the engine reached 77% of its required life, says F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. Discussing the problem at Aviation Week’s Defense Technologies and Requirements Conference in Arlington, Va., Bogdan says Pratt may have “underestimated the stress at low-cycle fatigue” of the fan, which he says “blew” during the test.
“Our investigation is ongoing, but we have determined this incident does not pose a flight safety risk and will have no near-term impact to the operational fleet,” says a statement from Pratt. The engine maker says it will continue to monitor operational cycles for each engine in service, and is confident there is no safety issue because of the low-cycle fatigue conditions of the failure.

The specific engine involved was the highest-time F135 in the test fleet, with 2,200 hr. of running time, or approximately nine years of service as a test engine. In terms of hours, Pratt says FX648 had more than four times the hours of any engine used in F-35 flight testing, and more than 10 times the hours of any operational F135 engine.

The failure, which occurred in the front stage of the F135’s three-stage fan with the engine operating in conventional mode, did “pretty good damage” to the cold section of the engine but did not effect the hot section or the lift fan, Bogdan says. The unit, which is common to all variants of the F-35 engine and located aft of variable-geometry inlet guide vanes, combines the roles of a conventional fan with that of a low-pressure compressor. The stages are made up of integrally bladed rotors (IBR), the first of which is constructed from hollow titanium. The second and third stages are made from solid titanium.

Pratt declines to comment specifically on whether potential flutter or other factors are being considered in the investigation, but adds “we are looking at a variety of factors, including stresses on the region and the rigors of the AMT test.”
Bogdan says manufacturing and cost challenges associated with the hollow IBR already had prompted Pratt to start a redesign of the fan, which was under way when the failure occurred. Fixes based on lessons learned from the failure in December will be incorporated into the redesign, which involves producing the first-stage IBRs from solid titanium. The redesign is expected to add about 6 lb. to the total weight of the engine, but should ease manufacturing significantly. The change effectively represents the second redesign for the IBR, which was changed to a hollow unit as part of a weight-reduction effort.

Pratt confirms the planned modification is already under way, saying: “Prior to this incident, Pratt & Whitney initiated a redesign of the IBR to further reduce costs. We will be able to incorporate these changes with minimal impact to the operation of the F-35 fleet. We are confident the solid IBR design will resolve the issue.”

Although the F135 has encountered several development issues since engine tests began in late 2003, there have been few reported incidents concerning the fan. A problem causing damage to the first and second stages during durability tests of an F135 in September 2009 was later traced to aerodynamic disturbances caused by a worn bushing in the inlet.
News of the fan failure emerges a bit more than one year after the temporary grounding of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter had been lifted, following the discovery of a crack in a third-stage low-pressure turbine (LPT) blade on U.S. Air Force test aircraft at Edwards AFB, Calif.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Mar 2014 11:15

shukla wrote:
Many incorrect price figures have been seen in press (including French press), but recently, the actual fly away official cost was released on the French Senate site4. These prices include VAT. For export, the fly away cost is 57.5M euros ($83M CAD) for the C variant and 61.9 Meuros for the B variant (twin-seater).

The Cost of Flight Per Hour (CFPH) was $19,000 CAD during war operations in Mali and should be lower during peace time5.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/ ... er-part-1/ (Canadian perspective - summary of Rafales pluses)

Aren't we paying higher than this figure?

NRao wrote:
every thing is speculation for now
There is a quote from the CEO of Dassault that the total is more than $20 billion. IF that is true, then there is a bench mark for all. Irrespective of what the MoD has not said so far.

Fly-away-cost is just the minimum one would pay to acquire an aircraft. There are a lot more other costs involved:

License Manufacture -> license plus infrastructure setup
TOT -> not cheap (per item basis with varying price associated)
Lifecycle Support -> at least 20 years (or 4,000 hours) support agreement for spare parts and other in-service warranties
Weapons package -> not cheap (AAMs and PGMs)
Operational costs -> setup of support infrastructure, training of pilots and technicians
Upgrades -> minor/major - integration of new weapons and other components, mid-life upgrades is not cheap

When you start adding these other pieces to the Rafale deal, the fly-away-cost EUR 60 million could easily double.