Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 20 Oct 2013 10:55

GeorgeWelch - I take your point on the EF....but the EF also has attendent problems associated with this platform. The primary issue would relate to the consortium approach and upgrades after 15 years or so. The secondary issue would be that this is a platform that the PAF would have had a very close look due to the Saudi connection. As for the rest, I was never under the impression that anybody closely connected with Indian defense would seriously give the US a leg up when it came to key assets like fighter aircraft. In that the selection makes sense. Of course as with everything connected to the Indian government - we do tend to make a hash of negotiations......

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 20 Oct 2013 11:55

^^^
The UAE is also likely to get Rafale, so the PAF is likely to get a "close look" at that too.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 20 Oct 2013 13:36

arijitsengupta wrote:In that it is both a fighter and a bomber and and is not the best in either role but as a swing role fighter from inception it would be significantly superior to the F 15 in the ground attack role.

In what way? The F-15 can carry more ordnance, stay on station longer and carries absolutely everything in the NATO arsenal.

arijitsengupta wrote:Even if we use inefficient manufacturing techniques, the total life cycle costs will be lower simply over a period of time as production would have been optimised over a longer period. While the French jet may be using newer manf tech, it will still take a significant more number of orders to actually optmise costs.

You're comparing the F-15 to the Rafale, I have no idea how those construction costs compare. I was comparing the F-15 to everything below it (SH, Mig-35 and Gripen-NG). It is definitely more expensive to build than those 3.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 20 Oct 2013 13:41

arijitsengupta wrote:GeorgeWelch - I take your point on the EF....but the EF also has attendent problems associated with this platform. The primary issue would relate to the consortium approach and upgrades after 15 years or so.

You're missing the point. It's not that you should go EF, it's that whatever the IAF is asking for is causing a significant price jump compared to what other countries are getting.

In the MRCA, both the EF and Rafale offers were extremely close, yet for some reason SK is able to get an offer for half the number of fighter and with local production for 40% less.

It's worth asking 1) Why are the Indian bids so much higher? and 2) Are you getting appropriate value for spending that much extra?

This is a potential $10 billion difference, which could be quite hard to justify.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 20 Oct 2013 16:16

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Oct 2013 17:43

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 20 Oct 2013 18:06

abhik wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: No, I included the Gripen NG, whose combat radius is quoted as 810 mi.

But even the Gripen has a combat radius of 500 mi.
Under what conditions does the Gripen achieve this range? It in fact carries less internal fuel while having the same engine as the LCA. They both have similar ferry range with EFTs (3000/3200 km) according to wiki. As far as the Rafale is concerned it carries 4.7t fuel internally 2X 50/75 kn (dry/wet) engines compared to the LCA Mk1 with a 54/85 kn engine carries ~2.5t of fuel. So they carry roughly the same amount of fuel internally as a proportional to their engine thrust. The Rafale's supposed 1000+ mile combat range comes after adding a buttload of EFT+CFTs. That the LCA is a gimped range fighter is a load of bull.

abhik +1.

this has been debated in the past. comparison needs to be apple to apple which GW, i am afraid, is not doing. as a 'thumb rule' 1/4 of range is considered as 'rough' combat radius which comes to about 750km for the LCA.

however our own Vivek Ahuja had dealt with this in 2009. i reproduce his article for everyone's benefit.

Comparison of the LCA versus its contemporaries (Part-1)

12.4.09

Entry Date: April 12, 2009

Day: Sunday

Topic: Comparison of the LCA versus its contemporaries (Part-1)

With the LCA on the threshold of entering service with the Indian Air Force, it is time to take a critical review of the LCA and its performance versus its contemporaries in service. The LCA is expected (and has been for quite some time) to replace the Mig-21 series aircraft in IAF service in both the role and numbers. The IAF fleets of Su-30MKIs, Mirage-2000s and Mig-29s have taken over the air dominance and superiority role. The fleet of upgraded Jaguars and Mig-27s are in place for the deep and tactical strike operations respectively. Mig-21s (in the Bison as well as the other remaining variants) are employed in the EW role as well as the point defense interceptor roles. It is therefore interesting to see what capability the LCA brings to the table.

The comparison of any aircraft with its contemporary is not simple. There are literally hundreds of issues to consider. For example, a comparison of electronics alone would render one aircraft obsolete with respect to another in the Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) environment even if it brings aerodynamic superiority with its design for fights Within-Visual-Range (WVR). Range and endurance values are function of altitude, speed and role (and hence the external storage carried). Each weapon type carried causes a different drag effect on the aircraft based on its design. A thin long air-to-air missile with a high Length-to-Diameter (L/D) ratio will have different drag values than a small bomb with a small L/D ratio. Flight profiles affect the range and endurance as well. And the list goes on.

As such, this analysis is split up into several parts and several sections in each part. Each part will consider one crucial aspect of the aircraft design (such as flight performance, electronics, maneuverability etc) versus a number of different contemporaries with each section comparing the LCA versus one contemporary. The analysis is conducted entirely by the author unless otherwise stated with a reference. Since the issue of the LCA and its effectiveness vis-à-vis other IAF aircraft it is expected to replace still a controversial issue in India, the analysis will restrict itself to the presentation of the raw analysis data with cursory generalization of the results and the author hopes that the reader will come to his or her own conclusions. Any questions may be directed towards the author should the need arise.

(Writing under progress...)

that should settle it i guess.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Oct 2013 18:16

Why would we want the F-15 when we have the MKIs which were superior to it in exercises,not to mention getting stung by our Bisons too! In terms of modernity,the EF and Rafale were the most modern of the lot.There is a gap of almost a decade before sufficient numbers of 5th-gen FGFAs are inducted.This gap cannot be met by upgraded aircraft in service and operating more twin-seat MKis costlier.One option not considered thus far is the single-seat SU-35,an interim fighter leading to the FGFA which will sport some of the tech of the FGFA that has been developed.One wonders whether the IAF has examined this option.There is a debate about twin and single seaters in IMR.We seem to have been set upon twin-seaters,but have reluctantly agreed upon,or realised that a single-seat FGFA would suffice.Whether the Rafale arrives or not,2 sqds. of SU-34s are sorely needed to deal with long distance targets in the PRC.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 20 Oct 2013 19:35

Philip wrote:Why would we want the F-15 when we have the MKIs which were superior to it in exercises,not to mention getting stung by our Bisons too! In terms of modernity,the EF and Rafale were the most modern of the lot.There is a gap of almost a decade before sufficient numbers of 5th-gen FGFAs are inducted.This gap cannot be met by upgraded aircraft in service and operating more twin-seat MKis costlier.One option not considered thus far is the single-seat SU-35,an interim fighter leading to the FGFA which will sport some of the tech of the FGFA that has been developed.One wonders whether the IAF has examined this option.There is a debate about twin and single seaters in IMR.We seem to have been set upon twin-seaters,but have reluctantly agreed upon,or realised that a single-seat FGFA would suffice.Whether the Rafale arrives or not,2 sqds. of SU-34s are sorely needed to deal with long distance targets in the PRC.

f-15se's have a stealth profile plus a combat radius of 720 nautical miles with no external tanks. Plus, it's a a two seater with twin engines.

India won't choose it, but you should know the f-15se is clearly superior.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Oct 2013 20:21

Superior in what terms. For Indian conditions how? Officially F-16s are better for pakis clearly.

SU-35 is much 'better' considering FGFA/PAK-FA program ongoing as well as it would offer commonality in spares. If like Mig-21 if there is an issue of spares after several decades it is better to deal with Russians directly. In case of aerospace firms in USA hoard spares in spite of such issues, there cannot be any control on private USA firms is an observation.

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

WRT to MKI for MMRCA, I think the answer to any Russian option for the Indian MMRCA is that - per reports - the IAF did not want any Russian entry, since they did not want all eggs in one basket. The story goes on to state that the Indians in fact encouraged the Russians not to take part in this competition.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Oct 2013 20:24

SU-35 is much 'better' considering FGFA/PAK-FA program ongoing as well as it would offer commonality in spares

Do you have a ref for that by any chance? Or is it an assumption? Thx.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Oct 2013 20:29

One option not considered thus far is the single-seat SU-35,an interim fighter leading to the FGFA which will sport some of the tech of the FGFA that has been developed.

this from Philip's message above. Implicitly it means support by common or similar hardware/tech.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Oct 2013 20:31

eklavya wrote: From 1954 (US Pakistan mutual defence treaty) to 2013, the US has remained a completely consistent "friend". Glad to see that the money India spends on US hardware is invested so wisely by our consistent American friends (such great fit and stability)

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... w#p1529101

Thanks.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Oct 2013 20:40

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 20 Oct 2013 20:51

abhik wrote:So they carry roughly the same amount of fuel internally as a proportional to their engine thrust.

Sorry, you can't derive fuel burn like that.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 20 Oct 2013 20:54

pragnya wrote:however our own Vivek Ahuja had dealt with this in 2009. i reproduce his article for everyone's benefit.

As far as I can tell, there is no source for the ranges except his own 'analysis', which he doesn't even publish.

Color me convinced.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 20 Oct 2013 21:08

vishvak wrote:Superior in what terms. For Indian conditions how? Officially F-16s are better for pakis clearly.

SU-35 is much 'better' considering FGFA/PAK-FA program ongoing as well as it would offer commonality in spares. If like Mig-21 if there is an issue of spares after several decades it is better to deal with Russians directly. In case of aerospace firms in USA hoard spares in spite of such issues, there cannot be any control on private USA firms is an observation.

well sure, then you've got an on/off switches for f-15se's at central command in Tampa Bay.

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

GeorgeWelch wrote:
pragnya wrote:however our own Vivek Ahuja had dealt with this in 2009. i reproduce his article for everyone's benefit.
As far as I can tell, there is no source for the ranges except his own 'analysis', which he doesn't even publish.

Color me convinced.

so any analysis bereft of common sense, logic and goes against very physics is ok for you just because it is 'published'??

ok, give me a simple answer. lets take gripen C which is an apple apple comparison to LCA.

now LCA weighs less than gripen C and carries more fuel and has same engine from the GE. how is it possible gripen C will have 500miles combat radius 'as you claim' whereas LCA - you determine from wiki/Janes as 190miles??

pl enlighten me.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 20 Oct 2013 21:34

The Gripen/Rafale etc. don't have some special range extending djin technology that the LCA lacks which enables them to go 2.5 to 5 times further with same or proportional amount of fuel.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 20 Oct 2013 21:40

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Oct 2013 21:45

NP.

But, what has all this to do with the MMRCA?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 20 Oct 2013 22:10

lets just say that if the US wanted to sell a serious fighter jet to Indian, they would not have offered the Super Hornet.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Oct 2013 22:17

abhik wrote:The Gripen/Rafale etc. don't have some special range extending djin technology that the LCA lacks which enables them to go 2.5 to 5 times further with same or proportional amount of fuel.

There is lack of data. As it is Indian tech isn't on par with others and so basis to approximate well is not exactly on par. That is all. This is all OT and it is more important to have accurate combat radii of MMRCA contenders but perhaps that must be closely guarded secret.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Oct 2013 22:25

eklavya wrote:lets just say that if the US wanted to sell a serious fighter jet to Indian, they would not have offered the Super Hornet.

It was Boeing that offered the F-18 and not the "US". Boeing could well have offered the F-15, but did not for whatever reasons.

However, what is your thinking based on current situ(ation).

BTW, Boeing just demoed the ASH to the USN. Good chance that the USN will go in for the ASH and perhaps even upgrade her older E/F too.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Oct 2013 22:49

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

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Oct 2013 23:23

negi wrote:Wasn't SH one of the MMRCA contenders ? It failed in our trials.

Boeing offered the Super Hornet International with more powerful engine, better avionics, stealth tanks & weapons pod which were not ready in time for the MRCA testing.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Oct 2013 23:29

Philip wrote:F-35s "off the shelf"? No way Jose! The aircraft is 7 years behind schedule for the US and its allies,who have first pecking order.The Israelis will probably be the first non-US nation to actually operate them.A few LRIP aircraft are being delivered to allies for them to familiarise them selves with this exceptionally complex aircraft that will require an extensive maintenance regime,series production to stabilise itself by 2020.Add to this years of babu negotiations about TOT,costs,etc.A positive nightmare.

Eh? Fighter production doesn't happen in this fast food first-come-first-serve manner. That's more than evident from the Israeli F-35 order which will be delivered in a earlier time-frame than UK will its F-35Bs. That'll happen because they want it in this time-frame while the Brits will prefer to delay it meshing with the QE commissioning in 2020, and not because the Israelis outmaneuvered the British in Congress. The scaling up of F-35 production relies on the scale of pending orders, not the other way.

But for the record most F-35 customers are deferring/scaling back their acquisitions, for financial reasons. Bottomline is if India wants it, there's no issue of the aircraft being unavailable beyond the normal lead time required for production.

As for supposedly complex negotiations, its the MMRCA with its 'upto 200' quota and 'full' ToT that requires those drawn out talks. The F-35 on the other hand, if acquired will be bought through FMS with only the standard offset requirement to be negotiated (which will probably be some form of work-share in the program).

There is no way in which the LCA and Rafale can be compared.

Indeed. The latter costs three times the former. Its not being compared. The actual question is, can a Tejas Mk1+2 acquisition (in much greater numbers of course) provide the IAF with the same net capability (operating networked with Sukhois, PAKFA/FGFAs, Phalcons etc) as the Rafale brings to the table.

There is an 8 page feature on the Rafale in VAYU that describes its complexity and capabilities in full.It has been stated that just 2 sqds. of Rafales in the air defence role ,with top cover by the MKIs equipped with a 400KM AAM (Indo-Russian JV for the R-172) to destroy enemy AWACS,can cover our whole airspace and can carry out N-strike ops and defend itself as well.

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

This N-capability appears to be the key factor in choosing it.VAYU hints that there may have been some assistance from the French earlier in converting our M-2000s for the N-role.The Rafale is expected to have conformal fuel tanks,hardwired for N-delivery,

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

carry our desi LACM,plus a range of Russian weaponry carried by the MKIs,like the KH-31 ,negotiations on for the same.There are a host of features explained,AREOS recce pod,super-cruising ability,navigation systems,holographic HUD,DVI (direct voice input) system with a 300 vocab. dictionary,low RCS which US carrier aircraft Tomcats and Hornets found v.difficult to pick up in exercises,Link 16 capable,advanced engines and eng-components,SPECTRA self-protection and EW (active cancellation devices hinted),Damocles or even Litening-3 navigation/targeting pods.

No one's disputing that its a good aircraft. But most of the competitors deliver the same range of capabilities, and usually at lower prices.

Neither the JSF nor the Light Combat Aircraft are available "off the shelf".

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

There is too much at stake with the LCA,but how fast HAL can get its production act together after the FOC is another matter.

That being true, assembling/building of the Rafale at HAL can hardly be taken lightly.

It is clear that the IAF will buy whatever is available to keep numbers happy,but the aircraft earmarked for the serious business will be the MKIs,MMRCAs ,plus upgraded M-2000s and MIG-29s

Every aircraft except for the Tejas and Jag. Hmm.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 20 Oct 2013 23:44

NRao wrote:
eklavya wrote:lets just say that if the US wanted to sell a serious fighter jet to Indian, they would not have offered the Super Hornet.
It was Boeing that offered the F-18 and not the "US". Boeing could well have offered the F-15, but did not for whatever reasons.

However, what is your thinking based on current situ(ation).

BTW, Boeing just demoed the ASH to the USN. Good chance that the USN will go in for the ASH and perhaps even upgrade her older E/F too.

What the USN and Boeing are up to with each other is 0% relevant to the MMRCA.

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

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

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Oct 2013 23:46

don't forget on the l2 pricing if katrina falls, then deepika gets a chance.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Oct 2013 23:50

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 20 Oct 2013 23:51

SaiK, the French are not renowned for their systematic gross stupidity. Having got this far with a truly independent selection process, do you really think they will let the negotiations fail? Both sides have to negotiate hard, but ultimately India calls the shots.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Oct 2013 00:00

on the contrary, i would like to project that french have such capability to show that stupidity. apologies for this, but this is JMT.

it is called french pride.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 21 Oct 2013 00:01

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 21 Oct 2013 00:02

SaiK wrote:on the contrary, i would like to project that french have such capability to show that stupidity. apologies for this, but this is JMT.

it is called french pride.

SaiK, in my experience, the French put their commercial interests first, second and last. Time will tell.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Oct 2013 00:10

do we have price/performance/capability/availability chart for Rafale/EF/SH ?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Oct 2013 00:10

SaiK wrote: it is called french pride.

It is called "survival". Taking responsibility for HAL's performance without any checks and balances is like writing a blank check. Nobody will do it, not just the French.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Oct 2013 00:10

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Oct 2013 00:14

then throw away this ToT costs, and get it all imported. what is the cost difference we are talking? Product cost + ToT cost - is there a % of the total billions that went from 8-10b to now 15-20b.

the requirements, as i understand calls for integration of india made components as well? wrong? with the cost, i pay, i need to get my ToT right?

if french fails on ToT, no matter HAL or Indian private industry capability, it does not matter. having got an agreement signed, it is their responsibility to deliver to agreements.

if french fails, simply the second gets a chance. no matter how bad is HAL mgmt, I have no other choice as to support it from strategic and indigenous production perspective.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 21 Oct 2013 00:27