India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2011 02:21

^^^ A simple "yes" would have sufficed when asked if Eurofighter is willing to part with source codes....however the "will not be an issue" sentence leaves me wondering. Not that Dassault will be any different....see third post from top (page 34).

Source codes is akin to choli ke peeche kya hai, chunari ke neeche kya hai...one has to be really comfortable before that is revealed. And neither Dassault or EADS will ever reach that level of comfortability with India. All bonhomie aside.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2011 03:22

As a partner, can't ask for source code.. cause, you are trusted partner... exactly, the word partnership is too abstract and does not meet requirements.

excellent point their Rakesh.

India: We want source code
EU: Give you partnership.

source code is not subset of partnership. Now, they can be specific.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 20 Jul 2011 05:24

Rakesh wrote:Source codes is akin to choli ke peeche kya hai, chunari ke neeche kya hai...one has to be really comfortable before that is revealed. And neither Dassault or EADS will ever reach that level of comfortability with India. All bonhomie aside.

India also knows that they MIGHT /will not get source code, product vendors rarely provide source code, unless you fund the entire development cost. Desh is aiming for other goodies but asking for the sky, good strategy I would think.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 20 Jul 2011 05:26

Do we have source code for Sukhoi? I think not, then how cAn we expect code from MMRCA vendors who have already developed the bird on their own dime. We are also posturing!!! Good job!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2011 06:04

^^^^^

Because the contract for the MKI was written differently than for the MMRCA.

Because, today, the expectations are different.

Neither France nor EADS should be sweating. The expectations are clear.

The MMRCA winner should NOT be spending sleepless nights wondering if they had signed the best deal - that they could have got a few more billions out of this deal.

A cooooool 15 years have past and India is that much more mature.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2011 06:41

jumping the gun, when we have no clue what was in the RFI onlee, let alone RFP, and the 643 selection params that removed unkill men and his horses.

btw, are we paying extra for the source code? then it is all up to the seller to agree. and this is what Rak bhai says, none yet bothered to nod on source code. otoh, they can plain and simple reject the deal and walk away.

we can start working on amca seriously.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2011 06:49

We have a lot of debate on here about the "source code" for various things - for example there is a reference to "source code for the Sukhoi" on this page.

Could someone please tell me what source code is being discussed?

Flight control laws? Avionics? Weapons systems? Smart/guided munitions? FADEC?

For example, what would India gain by modifying the source code of the flight control laws in the absence of full data on what has been tested in Russia in the past and an ability to conduct tests here as we are doing for SDRELCA? The maximum we can get out of "source code" is knowledge that there are no hidden Trojans.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2011 07:01

IMU, I think source code requirement is largely specific to weapons integration and stores, and mostly to do with us able to port weapons/munitions that IAF would like to deliver to the enemy. If it means just API documents, so be it as long as the source code can be tweaked to work with new stores and weapons. It could also mean if AESA radar actually guides the missile, then we would require the source code or integration code as well.

I may be wrong.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 20 Jul 2011 07:14

Guys I attacked Source code demand on a rhetorical fashion, there is not much use for much of the source code which goes into an aeroplane. it is not that we can magically create a Sukhoi MKI or Rafale if we download its sourcecode. As Saik said, it MIGHT help is some specific cases like weapons bus to integrate newer weapons or weapons from other countries. Strong language in the contracts either explicitly prohibit this integration (warranty void type languages) or put S/W seals (like Pake solahs) or charge an arm and leg to do this integration. Very rarely, they look the other side like the French did when we integrated multiple ordnance to M2Ks during Kargil

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 20 Jul 2011 07:19

shiv wrote:The maximum we can get out of "source code" is knowledge that there are no hidden Trojans.

Excellent point Shiv Saar, this can be handled by aggressive contractual negotiations and verbiage. Even if we have Source Code for core funtionality, it might be calling libraries of code which would be precompiled and even on chips/cards. Desh has no way of checking it. Even if we have Source code we should know what to look for and where?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2011 07:20

shiv wrote:Could someone please tell me what source code is being discussed?

Flight control laws? Avionics? Weapons systems? Smart/guided munitions? FADEC?

For example, what would India gain by modifying the source code of the flight control laws in the absence of full data on what has been tested in Russia in the past and an ability to conduct tests here as we are doing for SDRELCA? The maximum we can get out of "source code" is knowledge that there are no hidden Trojans.

Usually weapon systems.

For guys who need a quick study on source codes, please visit this link and start reading from the fifth post from top --> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2011 08:29

The hidden trojans are normally from maasan products. Normally, we haven't heard that from other nations. Now, having ruled out the torjan teens, the probability is now reduced to near zero. BTW, we have no documents to sign like in CISMOA and end user agreement for the way we would put MMRCA to use.

Normally trojans are denial of service .. for example on a la Gerinomo ops, pakis plead unkill and surrenders additional top 72 fresh ayeshas to unkill, and he responds with a remote signal to disable certain functions for a set period of time. Now, this is exactly what we don't that they give us in legal writing that such holding is not part of the deal, and we have every right to get the source code to disable or remove such features, and utilize the system to optimal use.

Now, we would really p!ssed if these two Euros will do that to us. The source code will help us monitor such things as well.

I guess encryption is a waste of bandwidth for controls unless it is for logic that is stored, especially for mission specific software.. that any one fear of stealing by chippandas. integration of system with AWACs is one another area of our interest.. where IAF may have its own 100s of mission plans, that we can fine tune these crafts., depending on how much source they expose to us.

Not sure, how much features packed are these a/cs built with source code surface area exposure [designed for integration points].

It could that our vetrivel team needs a new project after MKI. so, they can get ready for enhanced man-machine interface. multi sensor fusion is another interesting area for us to learn.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jul 2011 09:49

shiv wrote:We have a lot of debate on here about the "source code" for various things - for example there is a reference to "source code for the Sukhoi" on this page.

Could someone please tell me what source code is being discussed?

Flight control laws? Avionics? Weapons systems? Smart/guided munitions? FADEC?

For example, what would India gain by modifying the source code of the flight control laws in the absence of full data on what has been tested in Russia in the past and an ability to conduct tests here as we are doing for SDRELCA? The maximum we can get out of "source code" is knowledge that there are no hidden Trojans.

Shiv sir, I have to disagree with you here

.. no it's not tit-for-tat, if you know what I mean (just kidding

).

You are right that we already have a good control logic. The primary way this works is you know the ideal, you get a feedback from the your sensors, you check how far are you from the ideal and decide what should you do to get back to the ideal. After you have done it, you again get a feedback and this loop runs infinitely. These are called feedback control systems. When you read about the 80 Hz in the SDRE control logic, it is the frequency at which this loop is being run (sensor is read, output generated). This will be the same even on the EF or the Rafale. What would be different is the logic applied to get the output, and in some cases the output itself. For example, we know that yaw-roll are interconnected, we can achieve the same goal through different means. Other examples that instantly come to mind are how do you produce a more fluid flying experience, or how do you tackle sudden gusts of wind, how to handle high alpha and a combination of the above. In some cases, we would be doing better and in other cases they would be doing better. We can always assimilate good practices. So saying that we have nothing to learn would be wrong. At BR, we are only scratching the surfaces, the control laws are much more about the nuances.

One place where we are sure to gain is the seekers inside the missiles as Rakesh sir mentions. With Rafale, one would love to see how they do the sensor fusion. With the radar, again the detection and tracking logic (again not sure if this will be part of the ToT) ... FADEC would be GTRE domain.

Radar backends, missile seekers, sensor fusion, FADEC are holy grails of a fighter ... I am REALLY skeptical (actually a non-believer) that we would be handed these logics, the algorithms behind this. We can see those in the source code and not in the libraries or executables as has been the case with the MKI.

silod · Post by **silod** » 20 Jul 2011 10:01

To: All Forum Gurus

As we have now settles over two choices (Rafale and EU Typhoon), I am going to ask two questions. They may sound silly but according to me, carry a lot of weight.

1. We have been haearing this news for long that IAF is short of pilots. If at present, IAF is facing this situation, what happens when we have additional possible 126 new Aircrafts on the tarmac? Who is going to fly them? Is IAF thinking on attarcting more number of youths so that this present (managable) and future (gloomy) void could be filled?
2. What about the new Air force bases (AFBs)? Where are we going to station these aircrafts? We have not heard any news of the construction of any new AFB. Is it possible that IAF is thinking to replace all old MIG-21 airframes with the new aircrafts? If that is the case, then I think we do not need any new AFB.....

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 20 Jul 2011 11:03

You need source codes for the radar and associated sub-systems (so that you can modify it to add more modes, capabilities, etc. or integrate new weapons) and for weapons sub-systems (again for integrating new weapons) and avionics (mission computers to add more capability, etc). IMO we don't need it for FCS, FADEC and other sub-systems where we can't contribute much since we don't have the original design data.

If anybody parts with the source code it will be for a very dear price and you might get monkey model source codes. They are the crown jewels.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 20 Jul 2011 13:08

Here is what i think why source codes are such a big thing. Source codes are not for designing an aircraft but using it in customized manner, reconfiguring sensor data, adding or substracting new hardware, third party weapons, stiching and fusing inormation from different sensor sources into a detailed pictures over it's life time without going back to OEM and paying through the nose everytime. It also allows flexibility to go to third party for upgrades and midlife upgrades (no more daylight robbery, $4Billion for 51 mirages, on MRCA upgrade/support). So source codes breaks monoply of OEM in many ways and openes up a lotsa ways that you can modify aircraft independently....

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 20 Jul 2011 14:21

Rakesh wrote:France and India Look to deepen defence ties
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 281864.cms

"While France is a relatively easier partner, any expectations that it will transfer non-proliferation nuclear technology is misplaced. They will never expose themselves to international criticism," Mr Sibal said.

According to Mr Mohanty, if the Rafale does get selected by Indian government and the IAF, it will be the biggest test of French abilities with regard to the transfer of critical technologies.

From the same article:

Separately, the Nicolas Sarkozy's government has also cleared full technology transfer of the Rafale to India, and has also agreed to transfer software source codes, which will allow India to re-programme radars and other sensitive equipment.

Hope this is true and not some reporter doing his favourite task...misreporting!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 20 Jul 2011 17:11

sohels wrote:Hillary may push for fighter aircraft deal with India - IBN Live

F-35 Offer; The US must treat India as an equal partner on the world stage and not merely a lucrative market for weapon systems and outdated technologies

Air Marshal (Retd) B.K. Pandey
(posting full)

THE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR DEALS concluded at the Paris Air Show in June this year involving hundreds of airliners sent spirits soaring amongst the leading global aerospace majors. However, there was a flurry of excitement in some quarters when Michael Rein, Director Communications, Lockheed Martin's F35 programme disclosed to the media that his company was prepared to offer the F-35 joint strike fighter for the $11 billion (Rs 50,000 crore) 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender for the Indian Air Force (IAF) subject to clearance by the US government.

The offer of F-35 to India is nothing new as in response to a tender by the Indian Ministry of Defence in November last year for up to 40 aircraft, Lockheed Martin was contemplating offer of the F-35C, the carrier based version. While nothing further has been heard of the offer to the Indian Navy; the implications and connotations of the offer of the F-35 for the MMRCA tender warrants scrutiny.

The initial reaction which was not unexpected is that perhaps the offer comes a bit too late as the MMRCA deal is close to finalisation and entry of another aircraft into the race at this stage would not be practicable. A move by the government in favour of entry of the F-35 into the MMRCA tendering process at this stage would not stand scrutiny in any court of law. Also, given the deluge of financial scams, the Indian Government could well be confronted with yet another accusation of financial irregularity and subversion of the tendering process either to serve vested interests or under pressure by the US Government. The ensuing controversy that would inevitably acquire strong political overtones could even jeopardise the MMRCA contract itself.

Objectively speaking, the F-35 is a fifth generation aircraft under development whereas the contenders in the MMRCA race were all of vintage earlier than fifth generation. Besides as per the request for proposal (RFP), the contending aircraft "must be in operational service", a condition the F-35 does not fulfil. Also, the F-35 being considerably more expensive as compared with the two European combat aircraft shortlisted, the capital outlay would consequently be much higher than the currently estimated $11 billion seriously impinging on affordability.

Besides, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has already entered into partnership with Sukhoi of Russia for the development of the two seat version of the T50 for the IAF, designated as Indo-Russian fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA). The T50 is already in an advanced stage of its developmental test flight programme in Russia. Sizeable funds have already been invested by the Indian Government and more committed. If at all, the F-35 could compete with the FGFA which would be manufactured by HAL and is expected to be inducted into the IAF before the end of the current decade.

While prima facie the Lockheed proposal appears untenable, the offer needs to be seen in the context of the fact that the US Senate Armed Services Committee has sought a report from the US Department of Defense on the "desirability and feasibility" of the proposed sale of the F-35 to India. So far, the approach of the US Government towards strengthening strategic partnership with India has not been focussed, imaginative nor consistently coherent. This was evident in the US participation in the MMRCA tender fielding old technology.

However, the support of the US government for the sale to India of the F-35 by Lockheed reflects a clear shift in the perception of the growing stature of India on the global scene. It is also symbolic of attempt by the US to reinvigorate the security relationship with India which is an indispensable part of the strategic partnership between the two nations. Towards this end, the American Congress now views long-term collaboration for the development of major weapon systems as an effective way to stabilise the relationship that is frequently buffeted by deeply entrenched legacy of the past on both sides.

While the proactive approach by the US government will undoubtedly serve her national interests, the offer of the F-35 will also open new windows of opportunity for the Indian aerospace industry that has so far been heavily dependent on Russian technology. Even after six decades of association with the Russia, the Indian aerospace industry has not progressed beyond licensed manufacture and self-reliance remains a far cry. Collaboration with the US aerospace industry through the F-35 proposal may provide the breakthrough that the Indian aerospace industry badly needs to leapfrog to a new level of technology.

In the final analysis, for meaningful collaboration in the field of defence cooperation, the US must treat India as an equal partner on the world stage and not merely a lucrative market for weapon systems and outdated technologies.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2011 18:47

I think, we (especially aam junta) should not be obsessed with 5th or nth generation names of these a/cs. IAF should go after their requirements, and fulfill the needs rather, be it next gen or an advanced gen.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 18:56

SaiK wrote:I think, we (especially aam junta) should not be obsessed with 5th or nth generation names of these a/cs. IAF should go after their requirements, and fulfill the needs rather, be it next gen or an advanced gen.

Simple Addl M2K requirement leads to purchase of 5th gen F-35.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2011 20:42

^^that would be LCA-Mk3, imo

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2011 21:34

indranilroy wrote:
shiv wrote:We have a lot of debate on here about the "source code" for various things - for example there is a reference to "source code for the Sukhoi" on this page.

Could someone please tell me what source code is being discussed?

Flight control laws? Avionics? Weapons systems? Smart/guided munitions? FADEC?

For example, what would India gain by modifying the source code of the flight control laws in the absence of full data on what has been tested in Russia in the past and an ability to conduct tests here as we are doing for SDRELCA? The maximum we can get out of "source code" is knowledge that there are no hidden Trojans.
Shiv sir, I have to disagree with you here .. no it's not tit-for-tat, if you know what I mean (just kidding ).

................................................

Radar backends, missile seekers, sensor fusion, FADEC are holy grails of a fighter ... I am REALLY skeptical (actually a non-believer) that we would be handed these logics, the algorithms behind this. We can see those in the source code and not in the libraries or executables as has been the case with the MKI.

1. Fine tuning, if needed, for the Indian environment,
2. Optimizing for specific use, if need be,
3. Integrating other systems, if required, and,
4. May be India will not have to go back to France to sling two Bhramos under the Rafale

I feel that source code is extremely important from the PoV of a specific air craft. But, as I have stated in the past, it means very little for the future. Provides a direction perhaps, but not a solution.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2011 22:01

silod wrote:1. We have been haearing this news for long that IAF is short of pilots. If at present, IAF is facing this situation, what happens when we have additional possible 126 new Aircrafts on the tarmac? Who is going to fly them? Is IAF thinking on attarcting more number of youths so that this present (managable) and future (gloomy) void could be filled?

Just because we purchase 126 MMRCA, that does not mean we will have 126 qualified pilots to fly them right away. 126 aircraft will take their time to arrive and by the time the 126th aircraft is delivered, a couple of things will happen --> a) Doctrines & Syllabus on usage will have been formed, which will trickle down to the other MMRCA squadrons as they are raised and b) A qualified pool of pilots to fly the aircraft will be available.

These pilots will be from existing squadrons plus new graduates from the Air Force Academy. This was confirmed in the Line of Duty episode, when a senior officer of No 20 Squadron (operating the Su-30MKI) stated that pilots are being inducted into the squadron direct from the academy. I guess they can afford to do that with the Su-30MKI, due to it being a twin seater. The senior pilot/instructor in the back can hold their hand (metaphorically) till they master the aircraft. If we get all twin seater MMRCAs - a concept the IAF has grown to love - then it is possible that the same procedure could be repeated again.

Another point to note, is that each squadron rotates the number of aircraft in their inventory (to balance out flight hours and stress on the airframes). With a pilot shortage in the IAF, there will likely be a lesser number of pilots per squadron than the total number of aircraft within the squadron. Additional recruitment is always a plus and the IAF is always actively looking and advertising for youngsters to join. Recent novel methods of advertising were the TV programs --> Misson Udaan and Line of Duty.

silod wrote:2. What about the new Air force bases (AFBs)? Where are we going to station these aircrafts? We have not heard any news of the construction of any new AFB. Is it possible that IAF is thinking to replace all old MIG-21 airframes with the new aircrafts? If that is the case, then I think we do not need any new AFB.....

The MMRCA will be stationed at bases across India, where the air force feels it is needed the most. One of the key points of the MMRCA trials was to ensure that the aircraft in competition can operate from anywhere in India --> from Leh in the north to Yelahanka in the South to Kalaikunda in the east and to Jamnagar in the west.

Kalaikunda was home to the recently concluded Ex Indradhanush which had RAF Typhoons operating alongside IAF Su-30MKIs and Mirage 2000s.

Hope this helps...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2011 22:49

And Typhoon will likely win the competition....the snag is likely the offsets. I knew it. They just cannot compete against a four nation consortium. The French Defence Minister - Gerard Longuet - states that they might have hit a snag in the MMRCA competition, but he is putting up a brave face towards the end of the article.

UAE most likely buyer for French Rafale jet
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... 5V20110720

India has shortlisted the Rafale along with Eurofighter's Typhoon for a 126-jet deal and talks are ongoing, although Longuet appeared to suggest they may have hit a snag.

"Some countries have budget problems, as in Brazil's case. They may also have political problems, as in India's case. That leaves the Emirates and talks are advanced," Longuet told reporters in Paris.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to the political problems he is referring to?

manum · Post by **manum** » 20 Jul 2011 22:53

it can not be a political problem wrt India...as L1 bidder will win...guess typhoon has offered what Rafale cannot match...

political problem he might be referring to must be their own, as they are in face off with European consortium, which'll do anything to get more typhoon customers...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2011 22:57

I don't see how they can justify lowering the cost of the Typhoon against the Rafale. That is like asking Rolls Royce to lower the cost of their "uber" Phantom to meet the price point of the Merc S65 AMG. Not going to happen!

L1 issues aside (rules are meant to broken...even in bureaucratic India), the four nation consortium has likely offered India the moon or given the appearance to India, that they are offering the moon.

Viv_S: When are you opening the champagne?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 23:00

it says :

Regarding the Indian talks, Longuet said he was confident the government preferred the Rafale and that the final decision would be technical rather than political.

"Things seem to look good," he said, adding that in India's case too Libya had also had a positive effect.

p.s. may I suggest merging this thread with the existing one ?

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 20 Jul 2011 23:02

Political problems? Maybe India has asked them to limit all their defense deals with the Pakis. In any case, this seems like a very strong statement from the Minister. Sounds like the MMRCA deal is done and communicated.

Hopefully they don't reject the Rafale on any technical counts. Last thing anyone wants is a single-vendor situation.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 23:05

guys, please read the complete report, esp the part I bolded above. it seems the report is lost in translation because the french DM is saying he expects India to choose rafale.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jul 2011 23:18

NRao wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
Shiv sir, I have to disagree with you here .. no it's not tit-for-tat, if you know what I mean (just kidding ).

................................................

Radar backends, missile seekers, sensor fusion, FADEC are holy grails of a fighter ... I am REALLY skeptical (actually a non-believer) that we would be handed these logics, the algorithms behind this. We can see those in the source code and not in the libraries or executables as has been the case with the MKI.
1. Fine tuning, if needed, for the Indian environment,
2. Optimizing for specific use, if need be,
3. Integrating other systems, if required, and,
4. May be India will not have to go back to France to sling two Bhramos under the Rafale

I feel that source code is extremely important from the PoV of a specific air craft. But, as I have stated in the past, it means very little for the future. Provides a direction perhaps, but not a solution.

Agreed.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 21 Jul 2011 01:20

I am still flustered over India not being able to create codes for FADEC, radars
And other sensitive parts but is able knock missiles out of the air.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2011 01:28

how did you arrive at that conclusion ?
source code is sought for customizing the platform, for example to add a new type of munition. it is not about creating codes for FADEC etc.

just because you can create an unix based OS does not mean you automatically know the source code of a microsoft OS. and you still need to know the MS source code to customize it to suit your needs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jul 2011 01:43

Gurinder P wrote:I am still flustered over India not being able to create codes for FADEC, radars
And other sensitive parts but is able knock missiles out of the air.

What radar/engine India has built it HAS to have the software for those machines. Now, if the engine has no FADEC feature set/s then it cannot have associated code too. The hardware and software has to go hand-in-hand. I do not think the issues are software related.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 21 Jul 2011 02:33

Eurofighter Typhoon on Libya operations
DefPro

“I’ve now completed 30 sorties in support of United Nations [Security Council Resolution] 1973, with an average sortie length of 5 hours, so I feel qualified to say that the Typhoon has come of age. In just over 3 months we’ve flown almost 1300 hours, the same as a Typhoon circumnavigating the Earth 24 times.

Although, this isn’t to take the focus from Typhoon’s operational history: it is on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year on Quick Reaction Alert in the UK and the Falklands.

However, Typhoon’s rapid deployment to Gioia del Colle air base in Italy, 72 hours from the initial UN mandate and subsequent first mission on Operation ODYSSEY DAWN 12 hours later, are testament to the deployability and relevance of this new generation aircraft.

More impressive has been the re-rolling of Typhoon and its pilots from an air-to-air aircraft to an air-to-ground fighter-bomber.

“From a pilot’s perspective, the aircraft is spectacular. Despite spending on average 7 hours in the cockpit per mission you could not find a more comfortable aircraft to fly. The cockpit is large by fast-jet standards and the information from the radar, DASS and LINK-16 is displayed easily and accessibly. This allows you to function at 100% capability throughout the sortie, not plagued by fatigue or a lack of situational awareness. Due to the aircraft’s huge excess power it enables the flight from Gioia to Libya, some 650 miles, to take just over an hour, cruising at 40 000 feet, 0.9 mach, even with a war load of 4 Enhanced Paveway II 1000 lb bombs, a Litening III Targeting POD, AMRAAM and ASRAAM missiles.

“Overall, I’ve been fortunate to oversee the maturation of the RAF’s first multi-role combat aircraft since World War II. More than that, as a Service we’ve been fortunate to have at our disposal an aircraft that fulfils the RAF’s mantra of being agile, adaptable and capable; as an American airman said to me, ‘that’s a lot of bang for the buck’. This is reinforced by the fact that the average hours flown per aircraft during this operation have increased from 24 to nearly 90 per month, which demonstrates the platform’s stunning serviceability.

Together with the Tornado GR-4, Typhoon has enabled the UK to meet its commitment to the UN-mandated Libyan no-fly zone whilst still providing Air Defence of the UK and its dependencies.”

Below can be found some Operation Ellamy data shown at the briefing, related to the combined fleet of RAF Tornado and Typhoon

• Sorties flown: 1.114
• % Completed sorties on NATO total: 21%
• Hours flown: Average time: 2.14
• % all NATO strikes: 15%
• Typhoon ATO: 97%
• Tornado ATO: 97%
• Typhoon strikes: 91
• Tornado strikes: 455
• Overall success rate: 97%

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 21 Jul 2011 08:13

UAE no longer demanding more powerful engines for Rafale jet – French Defence minister

India has shortlisted the Rafale along with Eurofighter’s Typhoon for a 126-jet deal and talks are ongoing, although Longuet appeared to suggest they may have hit a snag.

“Some countries have budget problems, as in Brazil’s case. They may also have political problems, as in India’s case. That leaves the Emirates and talks are advanced,” Longuet told reporters in Paris.

Is the MMRCA deal tilting towards Euro-fighter ??

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Jul 2011 08:29

Yes.. we knew it since the upgrade contract went to the french.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 21 Jul 2011 10:35

Rahul M wrote:how did you arrive at that conclusion ?
source code is sought for customizing the platform, for example to add a new type of munition. it is not about creating codes for FADEC etc.

just because you can create an unix based OS does not mean you automatically know the source code of a microsoft OS. and you still need to know the MS source code to customize it to suit your needs.

Rahul I know that, I do programming at school and "MS Timer" and File i/o's are good examples of source codes, being ones that I cannot touch and have to rely on the prof telling me that Microsoft ensures that they will work properly, but this is programming from school.

What I am calling for is why india didn't develop desi source codes that can be uploaded to the aircraft computers in case of foreign stonewalls.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 21 Jul 2011 10:46

What are the chances that we will get UAE's 2000-9 Mirages. From the above statement, UAE is not insisting on power engines for Rafale, that means they are ready to swap Mirages for Rafale and apart from India who will be interested in those Mirages.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jul 2011 10:47

Gurinder P wrote: What I am calling for is why india didn't develop desi source codes that can be uploaded to the aircraft computers in case of foreign stonewalls.

Gurinder ... this is baseless!!! When you don't know how the hardware behaves, what will you code for?! For example how can I write the source code for the FCS of Rafale ?!! or the weapons ?!! or the radar!!!

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 21 Jul 2011 11:08

karan_mc wrote:“Some countries have budget problems, as in Brazil’s case. They may also have political problems, as in India’s case. That leaves the Emirates and talks are advanced,” Longuet told reporters in Paris.
Is the MMRCA deal tilting towards Euro-fighter ??

There is no info in the Public domain which suggests that MMRCA is going the EF way...
Sai, the very fact that the Mirage upgrade has been cleared now after hanging fire for years could signal a tilt towards Rafale. But then all these are theories, conjectures, wishes, wet dreams of fans. Not even MOD or IAF would know for sure at this moment till the Offsets and weapons packages are discussed.