Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Sancho » 26 Jan 2013 06:36

NRao wrote:Oh my, my.

The correct statement would/should be that all the other planes lost based on what was presented at THAT POINT IN TIME.


That's not correct and you can understand that pretty well by the fact that the EF was shortlisted, although it was the only fighter that wasn't able to field at least a tech demo AESA radar to the field trials in India, because the radar is simply not available yet, but was part of the EF offer!
The RFP of the competition asked for a fighter and it's capabilities to be available 3 years after the contract was signed, since that is the time when the first squad should be inducted into IAF (although I have big doubts that the EF consortium was able to provide that).
So it didn't matter what was available at that point of time, but was could be available according the timeframe of the RFP!
The Super Hornet as Arturo correctly said, was offered with a package of weapons and techs, that are available or funded so far by the USN. That offer was provided to MoD and IAF before the trials started and were accepted, the SH that were fielded in the trials were normal USN versions and none of the techs that were offered in 2011 as part of the "International growth road map", since these were options not funded by the USN, but were available for any current, or potential customer, if they are ready to fund them.
Boeing officials for example made it very clear during interviews with the Indian media, that the USN might buy the GE 414 EPE engine if somebody else pay to develop it , but more likely is, that they would have used a version with lower thrust, but longer life and reduced costs, since that is what they are up to!
However, Indian officials then rejected this offer to be part of Boeings MMRCA offer, since it was not provided in the initial stages of the competition, only when it was clear, that the SH failed on certain performance requirements of IAF.

So these upgrades wasn't important back then and wouldn't matter much either, since once they still are not developed and would need to be funded by India, secondly are to the most parts upgrades to bring the SH technically on the level the Rafale already is.
Be it modern cockpit displays, passive EW sensors, integrated IRST, having a good TWR, or increased range. The only real advantage that upgrade includes, is the weapon pod, although it also is just a RCS reduction measure and doesn't delete all external paylads, since the IR missiles will remain on the wingtips.
Moreover, since these are additional upgrades than we need to fund first, the same would be available from Rafale as well!
Higher thrust through upgraded engine, increased AESA modes, HMS (an option that we might even took now), CFTs. So you wouldn't compare the Silent Hornet to the Rafale version offered in MMRCA either.

Personally I do think, that Silent Hornet upgrade might have a chance against Rafale M, for IN, but that has navy specific reasons. But when you look at IAFs requirements, the deep and precision strike capability was always mentioned from IAF officials and even though the SH is rated as a bomb truck with a highly capable strike weapon package, the most capable stand off weapon offered by the US was JSOW, while the Europeans offered Storm Shadow / Scalp cruise missiles. Which is a cruicial difference wrt to strikes against important targets in Tibet. Not even SLAM-ER is on offer for us, be it with the US fighters, or P8Is.
Now do you think it was just a coincidence that exactly the 2 fighters that offered the 2 longest range stand off weapons were shortlisted? Or that exactly these fighters are offered in the UAE to replace Mirage 2000-9s, again with cruise missile strike capability, that the US doesn't offer for the F16 Block 60s?

All these are reasons, besides the whole ToT issue that were against the US fighters anyway and why they were rejected and would be again, as long as key Indian requirements wouldn't be met, be it in MMRCA, or in a future navy competition.

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Sancho » 26 Jan 2013 06:56

Septimus P. wrote:So why should we buy an aircraft that in its current state is twice as expensive to operate, gives us no strategic advantages


According to the reports from Brazil, the SH per hour cost is $10000 Dollar, Rafale $10 to 13000 Dollar, depending on version. The single engine Gripen E might come at half the costs, but the SH doesn't fore sure!
Not sure how you rate strategic advantages, especially with a fighter that isn't provided with radar source codes, that would be controlled/monitored under restrictions and laws of a foreign country, that offers limit range strike weapons, that offers no customisation with Indian, or foreign weaponary/techs, that IAF might see as important (like Brahmos) and last but not least, that doesn't approve the use in the nuclear strike role???
So in reality, the Rafale offered the most strategic advantages to IAF, of all offered fighters, except of the Mig 35 possibly. It's rather strange that you oversee all this and turned it around. :roll:

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 26 Jan 2013 08:52

Is it not true that the Mirage 2000 supplied to India was a stripped-down version? Some critical technologies were removed and then supplied to India?

Also, in the 1962 war, what help did we get from Soviet Union?

And for those who have been saying that the extended capabilities of SH were to be funded by the buyer, are we not funding the development of T-50?

We must admit the fact that we are far far behind on the technology curve and we have to pay money to fund the development of aircrafts that we need....or we can start developing them and hope that we get the same in the next 30 years!

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby GeorgeWelch » 26 Jan 2013 08:54

Sancho wrote:passive EW sensors


Yes, the SH has a RWR too.

Sancho wrote:Boeing officials for example made it very clear during interviews with the Indian media, that the USN might buy the GE 414 EPE engine if somebody else pay to develop it , but more likely is, that they would have used a version with lower thrust, but longer life and reduced costs, since that is what they are up to!


The USN is already paying to develop the EDE which has 15% greater thrust vs the 20% greater thrust of the EPE.

Sancho wrote: increased AESA modes


The APG-79 is a generation ahead of the RBE2 AA.

Sancho wrote:HMS (an option that we might even took now)


SH already has a HMS.

Sancho wrote:the most capable stand off weapon offered by the US was JSOW . . . Not even SLAM-ER is on offer for us, be it with the US fighters, or P8Is.


Boeing has a license to export the SLAM-ER to India, but India has not selected it yet.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 26 Jan 2013 09:22

venug wrote:^^^ Isn't it true that US confiscated everything? and sent Indian scientists home empty handed? if that is true, then what you mean by "very fact that our LCA was designed with US support" ?
US doesn't care about India, in 1962, they wanted to nuke China and the same US wanted to nuke us in 1971, so what changed? nothing, just that US is more interested in it's interests than rescuing us.


Had it been the Chinese, they would have kept photocopies before US confiscated everything. The very reason why we were hit by sanctions was because we were dependent on the US. Why are we still going with GE-414 engine when we have AL-31FP available?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby SaiK » 26 Jan 2013 09:38

disagree.. it was our choice. GTRE/MoD had a very good chance of going for EJ200 for fist full of $$ more... or even cheaper perhaps.. both MoD and EADS bungled the approach. see, business people and greedy capitalists never learn certain things.. normally they are penny wise and pound foolish even at bigger values.

The dependency created by us, not by US.

BTW, you totally off the target when you say AL31FP. you are talking maruti 800 vs. standard 2000 if you understand.. i mentioned these cars, because of their old age. (or a fruit example would be: Apple vs. PineApple]. totally different apple class.

you should know the LCA story bit more: We drafted on many of its features from seeing Mirage, and learning what USA (F16s) does. In fact, our control laws were test for F16s setup at Lockheed Martin, when the pok 1 happened.

It is we, who have an infatuation towards unkil quality. of course, there is a learning there.. btw, there were many learning that went from DRDO labs to LM too. Unfortunate, such stories never told because of politics, and DDM and stupid babooze, who are just scaredy cats and boot lickers.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby GeorgeWelch » 26 Jan 2013 09:59

AmitG wrote:Why are we still going with GE-414 engine when we have AL-31FP available?


Because it would no longer be the LCA

It is massively bigger and heavier, more in the F110 class.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8197
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Indranil » 26 Jan 2013 10:43

AmitG wrote:Why are we still going with GE-414 engine when we have AL-31FP available?

Please don't get me wrong. But there is no better place for such a question than on the Newbie thread.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 26 Jan 2013 18:48

When I said why not AL31FP and not GE414, I did not literally mean the engines per se but why not a defence collaboration with Russians than the Americans in development of LCA. We worked with Americans because of their depth of knowledge in designing an aeroplane. Also, why we continued with US engine after the sanctions, is again a reasoning towards the logic that I am pointing to.

Also please read this

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 197032.cms

The French are upset about not getting enough support from US for Mali operations. How would they support us incase a war happens with China, when they are not able to support themselves against a country such as Mali! I am sure Mali does not have S-300 or any other advanced weaponry.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 26 Jan 2013 18:49

GeorgeWelch wrote:
AmitG wrote:Why are we still going with GE-414 engine when we have AL-31FP available?


Because it would no longer be the LCA

It is massively bigger and heavier, more in the F110 class.


I know that...it was just to point to working with Russians instead of the Americans...and despite all of this, we got a MiG++ !

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Sancho » 26 Jan 2013 20:05

GeorgeWelch wrote:Yes, the SH has a RWR too.


Yes, but not advanced digitial RWRs like SPECTRA and the F18 Growler has, but I was talking about the MAWS and LWRs that the growth map offers as an additional upgrade, which is included into SPECTRA today too.

Sancho wrote:Boeing has a license to export the SLAM-ER to India, but India has not selected it yet.


Source? According the reports from Aero India, only LJDAM and AGM-84L were on offer to India, not the AGM-84K.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby vasu raya » 26 Jan 2013 22:15

if we want to do separate deals, I would like to do a couple for Tejas and not necessarily for the MMRCA :P ,

a) Gold tinted bubble canopy
b) Incorporating TERPROM

we already did a GE-414 engine deal

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby sharma.abhinav » 26 Jan 2013 23:10

I know that...it was just to point to working with Russians instead of the Americans...and despite all of this, we got a MiG++ !


It is not that we didn't approach Russians, we did but they wanted us to shelve LCA and instead offered us license manufacture (or was it co-development, cant remember) of a single engined Mig-29 derivative (Mig-33 I guess) which was later shelved and then found its way to JF-17 bandarr :P

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby NRao » 27 Jan 2013 01:04

Sancho wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Boeing has a license to export the SLAM-ER to India, but India has not selected it yet.


Source? According the reports from Aero India, only LJDAM and AGM-84L were on offer to India, not the AGM-84K.


http://beforeitsnews.com/military/2013/ ... 49002.html

Confirmed weapons at this time include the Mk-54 lightweight torpedo, which can be enhanced with the HAAWC kit for high-altitude, GPS-guided drops. India has submitted a formal DSCA request for these torpedos. For longer-range surface atacks, AGM-84 Harpoon Block II missiles are carried on external pylons. These sub-sonic cruise missiles can hit ships or land targets, thanks to a combination of GPS guidance, and improved radar resolution that can cut through near-shore clutter. Boeing reportedly has a license to export the longer-range AGM-84K SLAM-ER, which adds longer range and better land attack features, but India’s hasn’t formally requested them. Some pictures, like the one in this section, even show P-8Is carrying smart bombs.The P-8 is designed to be even more capable than its P-3 predecessor on overland surveillance missions, and adding weapons like GPS-guided bombs would give India a new capability for long-range, long-endurance surveillance and strike.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby GeorgeWelch » 27 Jan 2013 04:26

Sancho wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Yes, the SH has a RWR too.


Yes, but not advanced digitial RWRs like SPECTRA and the F18 Growler has


The AN/ALR-67(V)3 is not analog . . .

Sancho wrote:but I was talking about the MAWS and LWRs that the growth map offers as an additional upgrade, which is included into SPECTRA today too.


AAR-57 is available now on SH if you want.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3285
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kakkaji » 27 Jan 2013 05:48

AmitG wrote:When I said why not AL31FP and not GE414, I did not literally mean the engines per se but why not a defence collaboration with Russians than the Americans in development of LCA.


We got the Russians to develop AL-55 for the IJT. I don't if this was the cause of it, but the IJT program is now heavily delayed.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby eklavya » 27 Jan 2013 06:14

AmitG wrote:Is it not true that the Mirage 2000 supplied to India was a stripped-down version? Some critical technologies were removed and then supplied to India?


What did India ask for that was denied? If you are going to make allegations, back them up, or you will be taken for a time waster.

AmitG wrote:Also, in the 1962 war, what help did we get from Soviet Union?


What help did we seek from the Soviet Union in the 1962 war? And you have forgotten the role the Soviet Union played in the 1971 war, while the US was hell-bent on restraining India?

AmitG wrote:And for those who have been saying that the extended capabilities of SH were to be funded by the buyer, are we not funding the development of T-50?


The SH, the F-16IN, the Gripen NG, and the MiG-35 did not make the short-list because their performance (measured over 600 parameters by the customer, the IAF) was inferior to the Eurofighter and the Rafale. Rafale won over Eurofighter as it was cheaper. End of the matter.

AmitG wrote:We must admit the fact that we are far far behind on the technology curve and we have to pay money to fund the development of aircrafts that we need....or we can start developing them and hope that we get the same in the next 30 years!


What a gem of a statement. It provides deep insight into your utter incomprehension.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 09:42

eklavya wrote:
AmitG wrote:Is it not true that the Mirage 2000 supplied to India was a stripped-down version? Some critical technologies were removed and then supplied to India?


What did India ask for that was denied? If you are going to make allegations, back them up, or you will be taken for a time waster.

AmitG wrote:Also, in the 1962 war, what help did we get from Soviet Union?


What help did we seek from the Soviet Union in the 1962 war? And you have forgotten the role the Soviet Union played in the 1971 war, while the US was hell-bent on restraining India?

AmitG wrote:And for those who have been saying that the extended capabilities of SH were to be funded by the buyer, are we not funding the development of T-50?


The SH, the F-16IN, the Gripen NG, and the MiG-35 did not make the short-list because their performance (measured over 600 parameters by the customer, the IAF) was inferior to the Eurofighter and the Rafale. Rafale won over Eurofighter as it was cheaper. End of the matter.

AmitG wrote:We must admit the fact that we are far far behind on the technology curve and we have to pay money to fund the development of aircrafts that we need....or we can start developing them and hope that we get the same in the next 30 years!


What a gem of a statement. It provides deep insight into your utter incomprehension.



Eklavya, I am not going to stoop down to your levels and provide a response to your personal comments.

If you read the archives, Soviet Union was neutral in the 1962 war and by 1971, India had almost joined the Soviet block (even though we were part of NAM). American intervention in Indo-Pak 1971 war was seen by Soviet Union as an extension of the Cold War and hence the Soviet response.

What did you not understand from my statement on the technology curve? Is it my English you dont understand or you dont understand the concept?

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby member_20453 » 27 Jan 2013 13:39

Arthuro all I can say is you are a lazy asss, the least you can do if read some of the links and then you would understand any of the arguments any one makes. All I hear from you bit***** is lazy half assed comments that aren't even worth a read. You dumb mofo will never learn. :rotfl:

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby nrshah » 27 Jan 2013 14:00

Arthuro/Septimus P.
All i can say is just agree to disagree before you guys down to lower levels calling each other with objectives.

While both of you are die hard fans of your respective a/c (nothing wrong with that), the fact is that IAF has selected Rafale and are pursuing the same.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby eklavya » 27 Jan 2013 14:23

AmitG wrote:Eklavya, I am not going to stoop down to your levels and provide a response to your personal comments.


So, what technology did India ask for in the Mirage 2000 that was denied? You are a time waster; at least have the decency to admit it.

AmitG wrote:If you read the archives, Soviet Union was neutral in the 1962 war and by 1971, India had almost joined the Soviet block (even though we were part of NAM). American intervention in Indo-Pak 1971 war was seen by Soviet Union as an extension of the Cold War and hence the Soviet response.


So, what help did India ask the Soviet Union for in 1962 that was refused?

The Sino-Soviet split started in the late 1950s; not only did India's leadership not exploit the Sino-soviet split, India's leadership was still seeing pipedreams of brotherhood with the Chinese.

AmitG wrote:What did you not understand from my statement on the technology curve? Is it my English you dont understand or you dont understand the concept?


I understand that you are an ignorant charlatan; and a D grade one at that.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby eklavya » 27 Jan 2013 14:30

AmitG wrote:When I said why not AL31FP and not GE414, I did not literally mean the engines per se but why not a defence collaboration with Russians than the Americans in development of LCA.


Nonsense. You asked a question that revealed your complete ignorance, and now you are trying to do a D grade cover up. :lol:

nash
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby nash » 27 Jan 2013 14:48

AmitG wrote:
And for those who have been saying that the extended capabilities of SH were to be funded by the buyer, are we not funding the development of T-50?


AmitG wrote:When I said why not AL31FP and not GE414, I did not literally mean the engines per se but why not a defence collaboration with Russians than the Americans in development of LCA.




In one statement you said we should collaborate with US, just like we are doing with Russian T-50.And other statement you are saying that you meant to say that we should collaborate with russia not US.

Please clarify yourself and it would be lot better if you back your claims regarding 1962,M2K,etc with some facts

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 14:51

eklavya wrote:
AmitG wrote:Eklavya, I am not going to stoop down to your levels and provide a response to your personal comments.


So, what technology did India ask for in the Mirage 2000 that was denied? You are a time waster; at least have the decency to admit it.

AmitG wrote:If you read the archives, Soviet Union was neutral in the 1962 war and by 1971, India had almost joined the Soviet block (even though we were part of NAM). American intervention in Indo-Pak 1971 war was seen by Soviet Union as an extension of the Cold War and hence the Soviet response.


So, what help did India ask the Soviet Union for in 1962 that was refused?

The Sino-Soviet split started in the late 1950s; not only did India's leadership not exploit the Sino-soviet split, India's leadership was still seeing pipedreams of brotherhood with the Chinese.

AmitG wrote:What did you not understand from my statement on the technology curve? Is it my English you dont understand or you dont understand the concept?


I understand that you are an ignorant charlatan; and a D grade one at that.


Eklavya, I know the kind of person you are. I am not going to respond to you again as I said earlier. A wise man said once - "There is no point in throwing stones at a pig in a mud pond. While you are getting dirty, the pig is actually enjoying it".

I know that if I am going to respond to your personal insinuations, you are definitely going to enjoy it. So am not going to respond to you! Keep your ignorant comments to yourself. I can also use expletives that will suit you, but I choose not to as I dont want to get dirty myself. So adios!

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 14:54

nash wrote:
AmitG wrote:
And for those who have been saying that the extended capabilities of SH were to be funded by the buyer, are we not funding the development of T-50?


AmitG wrote:When I said why not AL31FP and not GE414, I did not literally mean the engines per se but why not a defence collaboration with Russians than the Americans in development of LCA.




In one statement you said we should collaborate with US, just like we are doing with Russian T-50.And other statement you are saying that you meant to say that we should collaborate with russia not US.

Please clarify yourself and it would be lot better if you back your claims regarding 1962,M2K,etc with some facts


I am not saying that we should not collaborate with US. All I am saying is that while we denounce US technology in this forum, we are continuing to work with them in critical areas. So while Rafale has won on more than 600 parameters, and I am quite glad that IAF has made the right decision, calling US technology "phat phat" is not how it should be taken.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby eklavya » 27 Jan 2013 15:57

AmitG wrote:Eklavya, I know the kind of person you are. I am not going to respond to you again as I said earlier.


You did respond, but without any facts about which technology was denied in the Mirage 2000. So you are a time wasting lying little toad.

AmitG wrote:A wise man said once - "There is no point in throwing stones at a pig in a mud pond. While you are getting dirty, the pig is actually enjoying it".

I know that if I am going to respond to your personal insinuations, you are definitely going to enjoy it.


But you did respond, just without any facts or logic. Must be painful to see your ignorance and lies exposed. Suggest you develop a thicker skin if your stock in trade is lies and nonsense.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Sagar G » 27 Jan 2013 16:42

Stop this name calling and abuses if you guys don't have anything to discuss.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 17:01

On the Mirage 2000 issue, here is the excerpt from Wikipedia

" In 1999 when the Kargil conflict broke out, the Mirage 2000 performed remarkably well during the whole conflict in the high Himalayas, even though the Mirages supplied to India had limited air interdiction capability and had to be heavily modified to drop laser-guided bombs as well as conventional unguided bombs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_2000

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 17:12

In my opinion, we were right in detonating a nuclear device, from India's point of view and Americans were right in sanctions from their point of view. Did they only sanction India and not Pakistan, I dont think so. It is very clear that Americans will always work towards American interests and will seek to gain from any opportunity to do so. And I am sure that the French, British, Germans, Sovients follow the same principles.

We have to see what benefits India and should work diplomatically, politically and militarily towards achieving gains for India.

I have always wondered. An America that was with us in 1962 war went against us in 1971 war. What made things so different from 1962 to 1971? Heck, I wasnt even born then!

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby eklavya » 27 Jan 2013 17:18

Where does it say technology was denied? During Kargil, France embargoed the Pakistan Navy Agostas (the only decent platform in the PN), and helped the IAF a great deal. The IAF absolutely loves its Mirage 2000s.

The Real Reasons for Rafale's Indian Victory
The Indian Air Force also is a satisfied user of long standing of French fighters, going back to the Dassault Ouragan in the 1950s. It was also particularly appreciative of the performance of its Mirages during the 1999 Kargil campaign against Pakistan, and of the support it then obtained from France. During that campaign, India obtained French clearance – and possibly more - to urgently adapt Israeli and Russian-supplied laser-guided bombs to the Mirages, which were thus able to successfully engage high-altitude targets that Indian MiG-23s and MiG-27s had been unable to reach.


Image

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 17:29

sharma.abhinav wrote:
I know that...it was just to point to working with Russians instead of the Americans...and despite all of this, we got a MiG++ !


It is not that we didn't approach Russians, we did but they wanted us to shelve LCA and instead offered us license manufacture (or was it co-development, cant remember) of a single engined Mig-29 derivative (Mig-33 I guess) which was later shelved and then found its way to JF-17 bandarr :P


I thought the JF-17 bandar was a Mig-21, with Chinese makeup.

However, I always wonder. We have had ToT for decades. Whether we bought MiG-21, 25, 27 or Mirage or Su-30MKI, we must have had ToT as part of the scope. Then why did it take so many years for us to develop an LCA that is still IOC and awaits FOC.

I was reading somewhere that we had the designs of the Celsius Bofors guns...all the blue prints. But they were gathering dust for all this long. And we waited for 155mm howitzers for so long!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2013 19:31

AmitG wrote:Is it not true that the Mirage 2000 supplied to India was a stripped-down version? Some critical technologies were removed and then supplied to India?


You make it sound as if the Mirage version sold to India lacked in a particular fashion, whereas for our needs it did not. The French at the time had a policy of keeping their best tech for themselves in specific areas, this was not just applicable to exports to India, but to all other nations. Other countries also had similar restrictions. For instance, did the US ever export F-15s with classified NTCR modes or the exact same software as its own Vipers etc had at the time? Not really. The Mirage 2000s India got had the RDM radar (as versus the RDI on the French Mirage 2000C) but today that's irrelevant, because as far back as the late 90's, with the Mirage 2000-5 variants, export aircraft started getting avionics fits as good as or even better than what French AF Mirages have. Even so, India's Mirage 2000s came with Super530 D missile capability and the RDM was suitably modified to employ them. This was France's best missile at the time. In other words, India got an ability not matched by either of its peer competitors, Pakistan or China both of which lacked BVR capability. Similarly, the Russians gave us the MiG-29 with the AA-10 Alamo and the R-60/HMCS capability (something which was unique in our theater of operations till China received its Su-27SKs).

Coming to current conditions, India's Mirage 2000 upgrade is certainly not constrained by any technology denial, and the Rafale on offer to India for the MMRCA was clearly on par & better than what the US could offer in terms of a modern platform.
With Russia, we got the Su-30 MKI which was & is far superior to all the aircraft in the Russian AF fleet, bar the upgraded MiG-31s, and only now is the Russian AF able to order similar Su-30 SMs and the comparable Su-35, which may exceed the Su-30 in a few areas. Point is with certain nations, we have built strategic relations which are superior to what we have with the United States, which constantly seeks to limit the boundaries of technology transfer to India. Cases in point, lack of clearance to help with the LCA-Naval, lack of adequate TOT for the Javelin missile system etc. And nor do we share opposite/contentious points of view with these nations on one of our main strategic bugbears, Pakistan.

Also, in the 1962 war, what help did we get from Soviet Union?


Irrelevant, as our ties with the Soviet Union were yet to be developed.

And for those who have been saying that the extended capabilities of SH were to be funded by the buyer, are we not funding the development of T-50?


Whereupon you demonstrate your flawed understanding of the MMRCA AND the T-50, both. First, the MMRCA is all about the acquisition of a relatively proven platform with limited modifications necessary. Its a well known axiom in aerospace, that avionics upgrades are relatively simpler than modifications to the airframe and propulsion, which is what is required for the SH to meet IAF requirements. The Rafale in comparison needs far fewer tweaks and has an already funded roadmap, whereas the growth roadmap for the SH to meet IAF requirements was unclear, dependent on IAF funding & was more risky overall. Second, the T-50 is a state of the art platform, superior to the F/A-18 E/F across the board, and a generation ahead, being designed for a degree of airframe performance that cannot be achieved by the F/A-18 E/F, whereas its avionics in development are fairly credible, with many of them being prototyped on the Su-35 itself.

We must admit the fact that we are far far behind on the technology curve and we have to pay money to fund the development of aircrafts that we need....or we can start developing them and hope that we get the same in the next 30 years!


None of which in anyway justifies the selection of the F/A-18 for the MMRCA. It failed to meet IAF requirements, period. Besides which, its doubtful the technology transfer would have gone through anyhow, when the manufacturer could not even get clearance to assist India with limited consultancy on the LCA Naval program

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2013 19:47

AmitG wrote:I am not saying that we should not collaborate with US. All I am saying is that while we denounce US technology in this forum, we are continuing to work with them in critical areas. So while Rafale has won on more than 600 parameters, and I am quite glad that IAF has made the right decision, calling US technology "phat phat" is not how it should be taken.


First, What does it matter if we call US technology "phat phat"? Why does that offend you? We have to be practical about such things.
Second, US technology in the case of the MMRCA was clearly "phat phat". Because it did not meet IAF requirements. Both the F/A-18 E/F and F-16 did not meet IAF requirements for aerodynamic performance, which was critical. And nor did they bring something game changing to the table like the F-35 claims it will do, stealth, by which it claims to make "maneuverability irrelevant", something which is regarded by many credible observers to be a cynical PR ploy.
The F-16, per Ashley Tellis, selectively quoted so far by Welch, makes it clear that the CFT equipped version fared poorly in IAF trials in the aerodynamic arena and flunked all sorts of parameters.
The F-18, a naval fighter, lugging around extra weight & many legacy design issues, did not fare too well either. The makers claimed that putting a heavier thrust engine would compensate. Really? What of the fuel burn, what of the design-test-production-validate cycle and by when would this be ready? Who would fund this? What would be the overall spares burn for this new unproven engine? All these questions were clearly evaluated by the AF and they took a practical decision.
In contrast, the so called upgrades to the Rafale are in a very advanced stage of development or have begun induction already (e.g. the avionics upgrades), and for the EF, were more around iterative improvements than an absolute necessary from day 1 (by virtue of being designed for the interception mission, the EF already had a long range radar and A2A performance, but needed to add strike capabilities iteratively - something the IAF has done itself with its Su-30 MKI).
In short, the US fielded yesterdays aircraft with relatively limited improvements when compared with practically brand new systems from Europe, and lost. The Europeans had far better technology.
Take a look at sensor fusion, neither US aircraft in the competition had it, per Flight Global. Even the much vaunted F-16 did not have it. Both the Rafale and EF come with it. Just sticking to the claims about having an AESA radar goes nowhere.
Take a look at passive aids. The Rafale for India will have a combined CCD/LRF/IRST whereas the EF comes with a passive Imaging IRST which does ranging via processing improvements. Either is better than having a podded IRST as the USN is putting on F/A-18 E/Fs stuck on a fuel tank to boot!
In terms of aerodynamics, there is no comparison. Both aircraft make the Hornet and Viper look anemic in comparison in several areas.
If the US had fielded the JSF, technology wise, they could have claimed a few brownie points, but again, would it have been ready in time for the MMRCA schedule or come with the 65% TOT mandated by the DPP, doubtful.
Last edited by Karan M on 27 Jan 2013 19:53, edited 1 time in total.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 19:51

The problem is that everyone thinks that he/she has the "correct" understanding about MMRCA and others have flawed understanding. Over the long period, MMRCA had changed a lot and that is why single engine aircrafts competed with heavier twin engine ones!

IAF has selected Rafale and they have the best information from the field trials. No one else has any better "understanding".

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2013 20:00

AmitG wrote:The problem is that everyone thinks that he/she has the "correct" understanding about MMRCA and others have flawed understanding. Over the long period, MMRCA had changed a lot and that is why single engine aircrafts competed with heavier twin engine ones!

IAF has selected Rafale and they have the best information from the field trials. No one else has any better "understanding".


Its not a question of whether everyone understands the MMRCA better or not. The question is whether you do - because you are the one attempting to make some points using dodgy comparisons.

For instance that other irrelevant bit about "single engined aircrafts competing with double engined ones" or whatever. That was a given ever since the CAG insisted India should not favor any one vendor over the other & the original MMRCA specifications were around the Mirage 2000-V subsequently thrown open to vendors worldwide. And the weight classes of the aircraft in question still put them in between the Light weight (LCA) and Heavy weight (Su-30 MKI) categories which the IAF has itself categorized, even if there was a delta between the aircraft in question. If the IAF had found a single engined fighter able to do all that the double's could do, at L1, it would have taken it.

Again, what relevance does it have to the issue at hand?

Net, this is yet another case of an irrelevant comparison, you have referred to the Mirage, 1962 etc etc and then equate that to an attempt to state that one group is having its technology as being maligned unfairly, when the facts of the matter are clear to anyone diligent who has followed the MMRCA data closely and those folks lost because their technology was not good enough.

The last bit about the IAF having better understanding through field trials. Of course. You are but stating the obvious, and what should also be obvious is that by doing so, and only shortlisting the Rafale and EF, they made it clear the other vendors were not upto par. However, you are attempting to defend the indefensible by blaming forum participants for concurring with this particular IAF view as being biased and calling US tech "xxxx" or whatever. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2013 20:07

eklavya wrote:Where does it say technology was denied? During Kargil, France embargoed the Pakistan Navy Agostas (the only decent platform in the PN), and helped the IAF a great deal. The IAF absolutely loves its Mirage 2000s.


They also stopped delivery of the Mirage 3/5s undergoing upgrade in France, which Pakistan had already paid for. Of late there has been a rather sanctimonious streak amongst French politicians (e.g. their demarches to India over Kandhamal, as if their treatment of the Roma was not 100X worse) but its the same with the US, EF combine (UK, Italy). And their lack of over the top criticism re: the 1998 tests was also noted at the time.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby AmitG » 27 Jan 2013 20:09

I am not providing dodgy comparisons Karan. How do u say F-16 is not good enough when we have problems when US supplies the Block 52 to Pakistan. Among all the five aircrafts, the only ones that had seen actual combat are American fighters. Rest all are yet to see an actual fight.

What you say anyways seems to be right because the IAF selected Rafale and they are the ones who have actually seen the aircrafts. All of us here are just relying on second hand information.

BTW, did u see the report that French are upset about US not being able to provide enough support for their Mali operations? I have my serious doubts if they expect US support in operations against Mali, how will they support us against China!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2013 20:18

AmitG wrote:On the Mirage 2000 issue, here is the excerpt from Wikipedia

" In 1999 when the Kargil conflict broke out, the Mirage 2000 performed remarkably well during the whole conflict in the high Himalayas, even though the Mirages supplied to India had limited air interdiction capability and had to be heavily modified to drop laser-guided bombs as well as conventional unguided bombs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_2000


Then you need to research the topic more, rather than just quoting stuff from Wikipedia.

The IAF Mirage 2000's had to be modified because they were primarily tasked for a few missions - air superiority (Super530D/Matra Magic-II), EW (Remora jamming pods), the strategic role, with a limited A2S capability using the Thomson-CSF Atlis LDP and the Matra BGL-1000 LGB.

This was clearly a decision driven by the IAF itself, which did not see much value in using the Mirage 2000 for strike beyond limited roles.

However, when Kargil occurred, the relative sophistication of the Mirage 2000 platform (avionics + FBW) and its airframe performance at the altitudes (delta) made it ideal for conversion to the strike role. The IAF then quickly qualified dumb bombs on the Mirage 2000 (using stores originally procured for the Gnat/Ajeet) and also integrated the Raytheon Paveway, with designation from the Litening LDP. Given the Mirage 2000 had a 1553B databus, they could do avionics integration in a quicker fashion.

If anything, this speaks well for the Mirage 2000 & how versatile it was as a platform, that with war underway, in todays times where system sophistication mitigates against quick induction, a significantly enhanced capability could be added to the platform in a quick manner.

Now, even if the French did not support us - lets take that line - the fact is the IAF could modify the aircraft and did it. The point is the French did not sanction us later for having done what we did (assuming we did it without their assistance, eg the way the LUSH upgrade for the Navy was done without assistance from BAe). Can we do the same with US procured gear? WW experience suggests otherwise.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Sagar G » 27 Jan 2013 20:30

AmitG wrote:I have my serious doubts if they expect US support in operations against Mali, how will they support us against China!


First of all why shall we look upto any country to support us in case of a war against China and secondly a counter question to your's is who will support China in a war against India ???

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2013 20:34

AmitG wrote:I am not providing dodgy comparisons Karan.


Let me explain below.

How do u say F-16 is not good enough when we have problems when US supplies the Block 52 to Pakistan.


India should have a problem if the US even supplies catapults to Pakistan, its that straightforward. Pakistan should not receive an iota of aid from any nation which claims to be an Indian well wisher.

Having said that, look we need to distinguish between good and the best.

For instance, the F-16 is "good enough" for Pakistan - since its all they can afford, with a combination of FMS funds and their own money. But do you seriously think, that if they could afford it, they would not go for Rafales if they could have? In India's case, we wanted the best value for our money, and we can afford to pay for it. We are not getting FMS money which has to be spent on US gear, like Pakistan does or even Israel or Egypt.

So we chose the best two platforms & then the L1 won when looking between the two!

For Pakistan, take a look at their fleet. Its a combination of carefully husbanded assets (a few Mirage 3/5 upgrades), a majority of point defence platforms (J-7 class) and very few truly modern aircraft - the F-16s. In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king. For Pakistan, that is the F-16.

In India's case, we are slated to get upgraded Mirage 2000-Vs, upgraded MiG-29s and then there is our current benchmark, the Su-30 MKI, which has faced off & proven superior to the F-16 Block 50/52 at KKD versus the RSAF (whose F-16s were better than the PAF ones). Point is, the IAF has higher standards!

A Rafale/EF are superior to the F-16 in A2A if used to their strengths & over time, can be equivalent or even better strike platforms!

So where is the comparison! Its not about "good enough", its about getting the best.

Among all the five aircrafts, the only ones that had seen actual combat are American fighters. Rest all are yet to see an actual fight.


Incorrect! The Rafale has been deployed to Afghanistan, was used in Libya and is being used in Mali. Its also been extensively tested against all sorts of platforms, from Vipers to Hornets!
Similarly, the EF conducted limited strike ops in Libya, and has also faced off against multiple opponents.
Their development is well documented & credible.
If "proven" was all that mattered, the US would not develop the JSF but would stick to only upgrades of Vipers & Eagles. Think about why they are so desperate to develop these platforms. In a world of T-50s, Eurofighter/Rafales, advanced Flankers etc, the F-16/F-18 and even the F-15 no longer enjoy an edge & are vulnerable!

What you say anyways seems to be right because the IAF selected Rafale and they are the ones who have actually seen the aircrafts. All of us here are just relying on second hand information.


If you actually believe what the IAF says, then why this urge to somehow "defend" the losing bids?
And what is what the "second hand" information stuff. The limitations of the US platforms are very well documented by now (which is why their replacement is being developed - the JSF! As even the US does not wish to rely on them for the future!).

BTW, did u see the report that French are upset about US not being able to provide enough support for their Mali operations? I have my serious doubts if they expect US support in operations against Mali, how will they support us against China!


The French, Europeans all have cut down on their operational forces after the Cold War. The US maintains a huge expeditionary capability on account of their global empire ambitions. That does not mean the French or anyone else will necessarily have bad gear. It just means they did not prepare for operations of a similar magnitude. In our case, we cannot rely on anyone - US or France, but only rely on ourselves.

Which is why we insist on TOT for all our mainline platforms like fighters. So we can build high volume spares locally, and stockpile/support ourselves locally if the chips are down.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests