Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Nov 2014 16:57

He!He! I guess that the worthy from Pravda was peering into his empty glass and got confused over the reports he had to write. Perhaps he was trying to make a point about the "unreliability" factor of France which was kowtowing to US interests. Should India N-test again in the future,would the current French dispensation ,with a wet (pun intended!) like M.'Ollande yielding more to his baser instincts and "affairs" rather than affairs of state, yield yet again to similar US pressure? India would be up the creek without a paddle in a leaky canoe costing anywhere in the region of $20B.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 28 Nov 2014 08:03

Nikhil T wrote:French Defence Minister to visit India amid deadlock over Rafale project

NEW DELHI: With the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project for 126 Rafale fighters stuck in the final stages, French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian will be holding talks with his Indian counterpart Manohar Parrikar next week in a bid to resolve the imbroglio.

Oil price drops to $69 a barrel and Govt. will see our budget deficit shrink. Vultures (French) are smelling this unexpected bonanza and circling for final kill - perfect timing.

Anyone with a bit of commonsense knows that oil will be back at 100$ plus by next year - demand is going to come back strong once China-India and US stock markets reach new highs. Best not to count on this red herring and think at least once like Chinese - not to hand over hard earned forex to foreigners.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Nov 2014 08:53

What the hell is this type of language being used for? Vultures? Dassault was down-selected, they've been in negotiations for over 2 years, so what is with this mentality of us being ripped off, being exploited?? We knew what we were going in for, and if the MRCA was unaffordable, the GoI would've binned it. As things stand, the deal is still being negotiated and should, for the IAF's sake, fructify next year at least.

This thread has become too damn tiresome thanks to some posters..one can barely read these offensive post anymore without cringing.

the IAF has a requirement, and companies are responding to it, just as they would for any other requirement. It has been discussed to death, as to why the Tejas Mk1 cannot be the airplane to replace the MRCA..it has its own place in the orbat and some posters just need to accept it and move on. I think we've just about had enough of the daily cribbing.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Nov 2014 09:26

Kartik wrote: This thread has become too damn tiresome thanks to some posters

You should not be posting on this thread because your posts attract attention. Some of us open threads when we see some names such as yours. This thread has been an utter waste of time for several years now - I have lost count.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Nov 2014 10:31

Victor wrote:.. It is not the transfer of technology that bothers them but the potential unlimited liability.

could you pl explain what this means? any links?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Nov 2014 16:33

Kartik wrote:What the hell is this type of language being used for? Vultures? Dassault was down-selected, they've been in negotiations for over 2 years, so what is with this mentality of us being ripped off, being exploited?? We knew what we were going in for, and if the MRCA was unaffordable, the GoI would've binned it. As things stand, the deal is still being negotiated and should, for the IAF's sake, fructify next year at least.

This thread has become too damn tiresome thanks to some posters..one can barely read these offensive post anymore without cringing.

the IAF has a requirement, and companies are responding to it, just as they would for any other requirement. It has been discussed to death, as to why the Tejas Mk1 cannot be the airplane to replace the MRCA..it has its own place in the orbat and some posters just need to accept it and move on. I think we've just about had enough of the daily cribbing.

Moderator Hat ON:

Kartik - I fully understand where you're coming from. If it is of any solace, we're working on cleaning this aspect up and keeping threads in-line and more focused. Too much leeway has been given and it aspect of self-moderation seem to be lost on some posters.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Nov 2014 17:56

With regard to the Rafale's radar range, excerpts from Air & Cosmos -

« Au total, nous avons déjà réalisé une soixantaine de vols avec le nouveau radar », expliquait l'été dernier le lieutenant-colonel Laurent Royer, chef de l'équipe de marque Rafale au CEAM. Le programme d'expérimentation en prévoit 90, avec un objectif précis en ligne de mire : pouvoir « livrer » début 2014 un premier lot de quatre Rafale AESA à l'EC-1/7 « Provence » de Saint-Dizier,en même temps qu'un concept d'emploi initial pour tirer le meilleur parti de cette nouvelle capacité, notamment dans le domaine du combat air-air.

Nouvelles potentialités.

« L'écueil à éviter serait en effet de transposer nos tactiques actuelles sans tenir compte des potentialités énormes qu'offre cette nouvelle antenne », insiste le lieutenant-colonel Royer. Et celles-ci sont nombreuses. D'abord, d'un point de vue de la couverture radar : avec une portée augmentée de plus de 50 % et une zone de balayage qui passe à +/70° de part et d'autre de l'axe avion, le volume balayé par le RBE2-AESA est bien plus important que celui de l'ancien RBE2-PESA (voir ci-dessous). « Le nombre de pistes qui peuvent être détectées simultanément est presque multiplié par trois », précise le pilote de Rafale.

_______________________________________

"In total, we have already achieved sixty flights with the new radar," explained last summer Lieutenant Colonel Laurent Royer, head of the brand team Rafale EHIC. The experimental program provides for 90, with a specific goal in sight: to "deliver" early 2014 a first batch of four Rafale AESA-EC 1/7 "Provence" of Saint-Dizier, at the same time an original employment concept for making the most of this new capacity, particularly in the field of combat air to air.

New potentials.

"The pitfall would indeed transpose our current tactics without considering the enormous potential offered by this new antenna," insists Lt. Col. Royer. And they are numerous. First, a point of view of the radar coverage: with a range increased to over 50% and a scanning area that passes + / 70 ° to either side of the axis plane, the volume swept by the RBE2 AESA is more important than the former RBE2 PESA (see below). "The number of tracks that can be simultaneously detected almost tripled," says Rafale pilot.

Une zone de balayage accrue.

Cette zone de balayage considérablement accrue va donc ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives aux pilotes de Rafale dans la mission de défense aérienne. Difficile d'entrer dans le détail de ces tactiques en gestation, confidentialité oblige. Mais le lieutenant-colonel Royer nous livre quelques éléments de réflexion : « Avec deux Rafale AESA évoluant en “fond de court” au profit d'une vague de chasseurs, on obtient une capacité comparable à celle d'un mini-Awacs », estime l'aviateur. En effet, même si la portée exacte du nouveau radar est classifiée, elle est estimée à 150 km (voire un peu plus) sur une cible non furtive de type avion de combat.

_____________________________________

This greatly increased scanning area is going to open new opportunities for Rafale pilots in air defense missions. Its difficult to get into the details of these tactics in development, being classified. But Lieutenant Colonel Royer gives us some food for thought: "With two Rafale AESAs operating at standoff ranges behind a wave of hunters, a capability comparable to that of a mini-AWACS can be delivered" said the aviator. Indeed, although the exact range of the new radar is classified, it is estimated at 150 km (or a little more) on a non-stealth combat aircraft target type.

Sums up how the French Air Force plans to employ its 60 AESA equipped Rafales:

En combat hors de portée visuelle, cet avantage crucial permet d'améliorer la discrétion du Rafale face à ses ennemis. Alors que les avions équipés de radars AESA resteraient hors de portée des armements et des capteurs des chasseurs ennemis, d'autres Rafale non AESA s'approcheraient des cibles, radar éteint, maximisant l'effet de surprise pour mettre en œuvre leur Mica en profitant d'une désignation d'objectif transmise via la Liaison 16 par les Rafale à antenne active. Un concept d'emploi qui n'est pas sans rappeler celui de l'US Air Force, qui a déjà fait savoir qu'elle envisageait d'utiliser ses F-15C AESA pour détecter des cibles à longue distance, au profit de F-22 furtifs qui pourraient alors tirer leurs missiles de manière totalement discrète.

_____________________________________

In combat beyond visual range, the crucial advantage improves the discretion of the Rafale deal with his enemies. While aircraft equipped with AESA radars would remain out of reach of weapons and sensors enemy fighters, other non Rafale AESA would approach the target, radar silent, maximizing the surprise effect to launch their Micas with target designation transmitted via Link 16 by Rafales with active antennas. An employment concept that is reminiscent of the US Air Force, which has already said it plans to use its F-15C AESA to detect long-range targets, the F-22s could then use their stealth to launch their missiles totally discreet manner.

And this illustrates the basic problem here. The USAF plans to use AESA upgraded F-15Cs for detection and F-22s for launch. The Russians will use the Su-35S and PAK FA respectively. And the PLAAF will confront the IAF with J-11/J-16s linked with the J-20/31. The IAF in turn would be looking at combinations of upgraded Su-30s and PAK FAs for air superiority. (In an air defence scenario, AEW&C aircraft might come into play for target designation instead.)

The Rafale unfortunately has neither the radar range to be an effective radiating platform not the LO qualities to safely operate in depth while radar-silent. The French are experimenting with linking their Rafales to supporting (Neuron derived) FCAS units, but that's not an option for us.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 28 Nov 2014 18:34

BTW that radar range of 150km is against what RCS target?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Nov 2014 18:50

That range of 150 Km is just an unknown estimate they are assuming it in absense of confidential data.

I think in future Rafale Radar would move towards Ga/N TR module which will significantly impact range

Also a probability is to link MKI and Rafale with new Datalink so that they can use the radar range advantage of MKI

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Nov 2014 18:55

abhik wrote:BTW that radar range of 150km is against what RCS target?

3 sq m target. The PESA had a tracking range of about 110km against a 30 sq. ft target (link). An increase of 40% (acc. to the CEO of Thales Airborne Systems) would put it at about 150km. Detection range would be higher, possibly exceeding 180 km.

That's at best only comparable to the N011M Bars that became operational over a decade ago. The Irbis-E already thoroughly outranges it, as will the Super Sukhoi's (N036 derived?) AESA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Nov 2014 19:24

Austin wrote:That range of 150 Km is just an unknown estimate they are assuming it in absense of confidential data.

I think in future Rafale Radar would move towards Ga/N TR module which will significantly impact range

There are two problems with that -

1. A GaN FCR is at least a decade away from production. Assuming that the French invest in the development of a new gen 'RBE-3' (there's no public evidence of any groundwork for that), it'll only equip their older (PESA) aircraft being MLUed after 2025. It'll be cheaper for them to invest in longer ranged sensors for the FCAS instead. (Same reason why no AESA upgrade was planned for the AdlA's Mirage 2000s.)

2. Every IAF Rafale will already be equipped with a functioning RBE-2AA before a GaN option becomes available.

AESAs typically have a very long service life (the APG-81 for eg. has a design life exceeding the airframe's 8000 hrs). A radar upgrade for India isn't feasible before 2035 unless the IAF/MoD is willing to write off the existing radar's residual life, which it'll likely be unwilling to do.

Also a probability is to link MKI and Rafale with new Datalink so that they can use the radar range advantage of MKI

New datalink or not, even a radar-silent Rafale sporting a dirty payload will be vulnerable to detection and tracking by hostile radars, at ranges well outside a high pk launch envelope. And its higher endurance aside, while operating such a profile (i.e. with tracking done by the Su-30MKI) its advantages over older aircraft like the Mirage 2000 or MiG-29 (or even the Tejas) dwindle away.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Nov 2014 19:55

"More bang for the buck" ,should be our mantra.If we are spending anywhere upwards of $10B,we should acquire a mix of both quality and quantity.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 28 Nov 2014 20:16

Philip wrote:"More bang for the buck" ,should be our mantra.If we are spending anywhere upwards of $10B,we should acquire a mix of both quality and quantity.

"More bang for the buck" implies quantity rather than quality. If you want balance then this is not the right "mantra".

I'd compare it to a diversified portfolio of investments. A lower-credit bond may give you higher interest but may default when it comes time to repay the principal or when you need interest the most. You need a mix of good credit, high yield and others.

IAF already has the loudest pataka in Su-30MKI and the value-for-money toy is coming in the form of LCA. We now need the best quality we can afford for rest of the portfolio. Short of a 5th gen option, Rafale is the best out there.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 28 Nov 2014 20:25

http://sputniknews.com/military/2014...015247459.html

NEW DELHI, November 27 (Sputnik) — India is not planning to cancel the deal on purchasing French Rafale jets despite earlier media reports that it would do so if France refuses to deliver Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, a high-ranking source in Indian Defense Ministry told Sputnik Thursday.

"So far the Rafale deal with France is on, there is no problem in it," the source said.

He also added that India has "ambitious plans" to replace the country's Soviet-made MIG jets with French analogues.
The statement comes after French President Francois Hollande postponed the delivery of the first Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia over the situation in Ukraine on November 25.

Under the $1.6 billion deal signed by the two sides in June 2011, the handover of the first ship, the Vladivostok, was scheduled for November 14.

According to earlier media reports, India warned in September it would cancel the $20-$22 billion contract signed with French Dassault Aviation company on the supply of 126 Rafale fighter jets if Paris refuses to fulfil its obligations under the Mistral contract.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Nov 2014 20:31

JTull wrote:IAF already has the loudest pataka in Su-30MKI and the value-for-money toy is coming in the form of LCA. We now need the best quality we can afford for rest of the portfolio. Short of a 5th gen option, Rafale is the best out there.

In 2025, the IAF's our force structure as per our current plans will be -

______________________________________

Su-30MKI: 270 units + PAK FA: 40 units
______________________________

Rafale: 110 units
______________________

Tejas: 80 units
______________

Our heavy-medium-light force pyramid is upside down. Even with the MMRCA, the original plan was to eventually expand it to 200 aircraft plus. No chance of that happening anymore given the Rafale's cost and time-frame.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 28 Nov 2014 21:33

arthuro wrote:http://sputniknews.com/military/2014...015247459.html
According to earlier media reports, India warned in September it would cancel the $20-$22 billion contract signed with French Dassault Aviation company on the supply of 126 Rafale fighter jets if Paris refuses to fulfil its obligations under the Mistral contract.

India cancel the Rafale deal with France if France does not supply Russia with the Mistral

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Nov 2014 21:38

we should not do jugaad tot!

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 28 Nov 2014 22:22

If France will cancel the Mistral sale to Russia under US pressure, they will do the same to India under US pressure. This is the reason that inspite of all the bluster, the sale of the Mistral will not be cancelled.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 28 Nov 2014 23:45

Guddu wrote:If France will cancel the Mistral sale to Russia under US pressure, they will do the same to India under US pressure. This is the reason that inspite of all the bluster, the sale of the Mistral will not be cancelled.

1) Will it be a bad idea to ask for stalled MISTRAL SHIP deal to be delivered to India ?
2) Then after getting it lease it to Russians or operate in the area of ours& their choice (near Japan, south china sea, etc etc)
3) Use this oppurtunity and ask Russians to deliver PAKFA deal sooner.
4) Use this oppurtunity and we should pressurise French to expedite the delivery terms and get Rafale sooner.

Guru's can think ! My 2 cents !

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Nov 2014 01:24

1) Yes. The current deal is a mess with the Russian and the french relationship tested. The last thing India wants is to enter into a situation that is already turning into a diplomatic mess

2) Why would this be of any use? If the french did not want to sell it to russia, why would they agree for such an arrangement? Or why would India want to enter into such a complicated arrangement where it buys a vessel, then leases it to Russia and then asks Russia to use it over XYZ, which by your suggestions is close to Japan, where the Japanese would severely be impacted by an increased Russian presence given they do not enjoy the best relationship with Russia and would most likely see this as a direct impact on its naval presence in the region, forcing them to most likely shift up arming their LHD's to support the F-35B. If such a vessel is what the IN needs, they can build one of the many designs available internationally or design their own.

3) PAKFA is under testing, until that testing is complete there is very little the russians can do to speed that up. Development programs take their time. If you suggest hastening up the FGFA contract and getting favourable deal, well that may work but of course at the expense of other diplomatic, bilateral and multi-lateral relations.

4) Of course. But India should not even bring up the Mistral issue vis-a-vis russia other then to sort of question whether the french would make this as a habit going forward. Other then that the IAF and the MOD should bat for India and not for russia (as the article wrongly suggests, the Indian side saying "deliver Mistral to Russia or we would cancel the Rafale"

)

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 29 Nov 2014 02:07

The Mistral thing may have been brought up by our side to pressure the French but the MMRCA hanging fire for 2 years shows that both sides need the deal to go thru. For this to happen though, one side has to back down and it won't be the French:

What Dassault is saying is that "I will set up my own kitchen in India with majority Indian ownership to make my patented biryani and take full responsibility for its timeliness and quality. However I can't take this responsibility if you insist on making the biryani in your kitchen."

How reasonable is it to insist on Dassault taking full responsibility for the output of my kitchen even if I pay them huge premiums? Not at all.

Is it worth it to Dassault to buy into practically unlimited legal responsibility for an entity that it has little or no control over? Nope.

Do we have a Plan B? Nope.

That's why I expect that in all likelihood it is we who will have to back down by:
* removing HAL from the lead integrator position or
* make HAL accept full oversight and control from Dassault in the Rafale plant, including hire and fire or
* let Reliance be the lead integrator

My fear at this point is France may be more inclined to let the deal go.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Nov 2014 02:24

@Victor: "That's why I expect that in all likelihood it is we who will have to back down by:
* removing HAL from the lead integrator position or
* make HAL accept full oversight and control from Dassault in the Rafale plant, including hire and fire or
* let Reliance be the lead integrator"

Not gonna happen. The terms of the MMRCA tender expressly require HAL to be the lead integrator. To have Reliance do it would be to:

1. Hand the INC a stick to beat NaMo with ("The Industrialists' PM")
2. Set the PSU unions ablaze.

My 2 cents, the GoI will scrap the whole MMRCA exercise using this standoff as an excuse because we can't afford it anyway. The Frenchies, if they win the Qatar deal will go quiet because all they want is to keep the line open for another 5 years.

Oh!, and if Dassault give up, it does not automatically give to EF2K, the whole process needs to be restarted.

Once the deal is scrapped, the usual gap filler mentality will set in. Maybe not, with NaMo. Maybe the RDay communique will bring some new insights

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Nov 2014 02:31

SaiK wrote:
Victor wrote:.. It is not the transfer of technology that bothers them but the potential unlimited liability.
could you pl explain what this means? any links?

Links not needed. It is self evident. Dassault does not want to be held responsible for HAL screw ups WRT to build quality and or delays for which they would be financially liable. As a show of good faith, they introduced Reliance into it saying they would agree to the liability if Reliance not HAL were the lead integrator. This was done to avoid the perception that they wanted everything built in France.

All of this is public: ToI, HT, IExp

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 29 Nov 2014 08:02

A piece about French factories and indirectly about why the Rafale costs too much;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... unist.html

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 29 Nov 2014 08:58

Cosmo_R wrote: The terms of the MMRCA tender expressly require HAL to be the lead integrator.

Don't know how this piece of fiction gained traction. GoI only decided to make HAL the lead integrator after the agreement. Link. Dassault had scoped out HAL after they were declared L1 and decided that they couldn't work with them and settled for Reliance is what I remember.

To have Reliance do it would be to:
2. Set the PSU unions ablaze.

Hoorayyy!! Let's do it.

Maybe the RDay communique will bring some new insights

If you mean SH, yes it has always been and still is our only option if Rafale doesn't come thru. There is simply no time for going thru this circus again over the next 5 years. We need 2-3 sqdns of MMRCA in service next year and only SH can deliver. The improved F/A-18 was never tested and should meet MMRCA specs easily plus it is cheaper and faster all around.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Nov 2014 09:11

How is the SH the next logical choice when clearly it was the Typhoon that along with the Rafale that was shortlisted? The Super Hornet is a total dead end as far as the future of the strike aircraft is going. Only the Growler would be kept relevant, and it is quite likely that any future orders from the USN would be Growler specific.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Nov 2014 10:05

lol ..but had to post this .. "Mr Taylor said, 'I have visited the factory several times. The French workforce gets paid high wages but works only three hours'; A A 2013 global study of working hours also revealed the French worked the fewest hours of any country in the world"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3KQpsW14z
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

..better make all the Rafales here including the nuts and bolts !

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Nov 2014 10:08

cosmo_r, tell me how having reliance instead of hal make them liable? is reliance giving that guarantee or rafale folks?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Nov 2014 10:37

Victor wrote: Don't know how this piece of fiction gained traction. GoI only decided to make HAL the lead integrator after the agreement. Link. Dassault had scoped out HAL after they were declared L1 and decided that they couldn't work with them and settled for Reliance is what I remember.

According to your link, the RFP spelled out at the onset that the lead integrator was to be HAL.

"The role of HAL is already defined in the Request for Proposal for the MMRCA project. It says that the main body, aero-engines, air frame and the integration shall be done by HAL," Secretary (Defence Production) R K Mathur said at the Aero India 2013 press conference here.
.
.
.
If any company other than HAL is designated as the integrator, it would be deviation from the tender issued for the project and as per the Defence Procurement Procedure it will have to be approved by the Defence Acquisition Council, Defence Ministry sources said.

In view of this, the Ministry has decided that it will stick to the clauses of the tender issued in 2007, they said.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Nov 2014 12:56

French defence minister heads to Delhi with MMRCA on the agenda

Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
27 November 2014

He will hold discussions with Manohar Parrikar in New Delhi on 1 December, in what will be the new Indian defence minister's first meeting with an overseas counterpart.

Senior IAF officers told IHS Jane's that it was unlikely that the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract for the Rafales would be signed during Le Drian's visit, but affirmed that the trip could help progress towards a deal by the end of the current financial year in March 2015.

Official sources said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had completed negotiations with Dassault on a large part of the draft contract, which reportedly runs to about 15,000 pages.

Under the terms of the contract, 18 Rafales are to be delivered to the IAF in flyaway condition within 36 months of the deal being signed. The remaining 108 would be licence-built by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

The sources said the impasse over Dassault's reluctance to accept responsibility for these 108 platforms - with regard to delivery schedules, quality assurance, and liquidated damages - which had stalled the deal for months, had now been settled.

"Both sides [Rafale and HAL] have arrived at a compromise that appears acceptable to the MoD," a senior IAF officer said. This resolves a major blockade that was delaying the contract after Rafale was shortlisted in January 2012 from among six contenders vying for the MMRCA tender, he added.

Final approval is now awaited from the MoD's Cost Negotiation Committee, officials said.

"The Rafale deal is likely to be signed sooner than later, possibly within the next few months," military analyst Air Marshal V K Bhatia (retd) said. "It seems that the new [Bharatiya Janata Party] BJP government is mindful of the IAF's dire operational requirements".

The IAF currently operates around 32 fighter squadrons, 10 fewer than the sanctioned strength of 42. This number is likely to drop further as several fighter types, like MiG-21s and MiG-27s, are due for retirement by 2017-18.

http://www.janes.com/article/46422/fren ... hk.twitter

Russia signs contract to sell S-400 air defense missiles to China

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 3&cid=1101

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Nov 2014 13:17

arthuro wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/46422/fren ... hk.twitter

The terms of contract have supposedly been worked out. The crucial cost element is still up in the air.

Russia signs contract to sell S-400 air defense missiles to China
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 3&cid=1101

The sale has still not gone through according to a RIA Novosti report quoting a rep from the "Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation". (See Austin's posts on the China Military Watch thread.) Only matter of time though.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Nov 2014 13:42

Someone help me understand this:

Why will a company (Dassault in this case) agree to provide guarantees on work done by third party? Especially, when the company has no control over the third party in any possible manner. I can understand buyer making Dassault liable for delay(s) by HAL because of issue(s) at Dassault's end but why should Dassault be accountable for fvck-ups by HAL? Purely from a business perspective, that is an open ended liability which can sink biggest of companies.

What are we trying to achieve by asking for this clause? If MOD does not feel confident of ensuring compliance in terms of production schedule, quality, maintenance and other factors, how is Dassault in any way going to achieve the same? And hence, why should it be liable?

OR

Is the story being presented in a distorted manner? For a change, MOD is asking for liability clauses to cover various kinds of potential issues which originate due to problem from Dassault's or France's end? Something like timely hand-over of properly translated documents, training of HAL personnel, accountability for stuff supplied and Mistral type of issues.

I hope it is the latter case for that will mean we've finally learned from shoddy contracts we've being signing in the past. Andhave finally learned to cover our interests.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Nov 2014 13:56

I believe the cost issue is overhyped.

Yes it will be expensive but like every fighter jet deal with indigenous manufacturing and ToT. That's not a scoop that the negotiation committee will suddenly realize at this stage of the deal and this is not specific to the rafale.

Under the same conditions other alternatives would be just as expensive. Bit less, or more that's not the point : it is still extremely expensive if you don't buy off the shelf. Even the gripen is sold at 150M$ a piece to Brazil while they build only the wings.

I don't think that Indian authorities would back pedal at this stage and naively realize it is expensive. They can negotiate some cost reductions here and there but it is unlikely the deal in itself would be scrapped for costs reasons (because of the nature/structure of the deal itself).

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 29 Nov 2014 14:46

arthuro wrote:I believe the cost issue is overhyped.

Yes it will be expensive but like every fighter jet deal with indigenous manufacturing and ToT. That's not a scoop that the negotiation committee will suddenly realize at this stage of the deal and this is not specific to the rafale.

Under the same conditions other alternatives would be just as expensive. Bit less, or more that's not the point : it is still extremely expensive if you don't buy off the shelf. Even the gripen is sold at 150M$ a piece to Brazil while they build only the wings.

I don't think that Indian authorities would back pedal at this stage and naively realize it is expensive. They can negotiate some cost reductions here and there but it is unlikely the deal in itself would be scrapped for costs reasons (because of the nature/structure of the deal itself).

you don't understand the mentality of most indians here. they feel refale too expensive sunddenly,not because refale become suddenly more expensive than they thought,but because they suddenly find refale can not manage its duty any more,which is to defeat PLAAF.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 Nov 2014 16:33

^^^@ Liu you have really enlightened me on our mentality, since, we have constantly argued replacing Rafale with LCA Mk 1. Nice trolling. This from previous page on this thread:

the IAF has a requirement, and companies are responding to it, just as they would for any other requirement. It has been discussed to death, as to why the Tejas Mk1 cannot be the airplane to replace the MRCA..it has its own place in the orbat and some posters just need to accept it and move on. I think we've just about had enough of the daily cribbing.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 29 Nov 2014 18:45

deejay wrote: ^^^@ Liu you have really enlightened me on our mentality, since, we have constantly argued replacing Rafale with LCA Mk 1. Nice trolling. This from previous page on this thread:

the IAF has a requirement, and companies are responding to it, just as they would for any other requirement. It has been discussed to death, as to why the Tejas Mk1 cannot be the airplane to replace the MRCA..it has its own place in the orbat and some posters just need to accept it and move on. I think we've just about had enough of the daily cribbing.

had J20/J31 not rolled out, there would be much less guys here,who are against rafale deal. it is J20/j31 that makes rafale deal meaningless and costperform extremely poorly suddenly,which makes so many indians rethink the deal.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 Nov 2014 20:00

Liu really? From Sun Tsu to you. If this is what you think!!!

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Nov 2014 20:19

you don't understand the mentality of most indians here. they feel refale too expensive sunddenly,not because refale become suddenly more expensive than they thought,but because they suddenly find refale can not manage its duty any more,which is to defeat PLAAF.

Which aircraft could defeat PLAAF ? A few dozen of F35 or T50 would not change anything anyway.

With huge ground AESA radar, IR surveillance and various specific anti stealth radar a few dozen F35 or T50 would not last long against PLAAF. Not to mention that airbases would be anihilated in the first hours of a conflict.

It should also be reminded that the rafale rely on 360° AESA jamming to ensure its survivability. For the record It was the only western aircraft to defeat S300 PMU1 in MACE XIII NATO EW exercise in Slovakia. Second spectra with GaN is for 2018 with the F3R standard. I am not saying it is invincible, but many forget the role spectra plays for rafale survivability.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Nov 2014 20:53

It should also be reminded that the rafale rely on 360° AESA jamming to ensure its survivability. For the record It was the only western aircraft to defeat S300 PMU1 in MACE XIII NATO EW exercise in Slovakia. Second spectra with GaN is for 2018 with the F3R standard. I am not saying it is invincible, but many forget the role spectra plays for rafale survivability

Every modern aircraft has an inbuilt Electronic warfare suite. The amount Of EW required to penetrate an IAD is dependent on the size (RCS) of the package penetrating it in the first place. If you are sending a strike group with 4th or 4.5 generation aircraft with a weapons hanging off then you need to boost your electronic warfare. With internal jammers (AESA or no AESA) you are limited by size and power. What sort of power does the Spectra work with? Its easy to say it has AESA internal jammer, but its the power that ultimately determines your electronic warfare range and the number of frequencies one can cover affectively.

In your example, you forgot to account for the fact that both the F35 and the T-50 are going to have sophisticated Electronic warfare packages. For example, the top guy in control of the all tactical fighters in the USAF does not want the Growler anywhere close to the F-35 at time of war. The F-35 combines the Baracuda electronics warfare suite with the APG-81, that leverages a vast amount of power (it has more than 1600 elements) for electronic warfare if required. Ultimately the stealthy platforms such as the T-50, AMCA would not require heavy jamming because that defeats the entire purpose of stealthy penetration. For them Electronic warfare would be specific, narrow and cover a few gaps. So while the Spectra is a great capability, it is hardly anything that NO ONE Else has at the moment in some shape or the other and ultimately when you are talking about penetrating complex IAD's, with a non-stealthy fighter you would be limited by the amount of power you can provide to your EW. The Next generation jammer, which the USN would use for supporting its non-stealthy assets for examples generates a total of 180KW of jamming using Gallium Nitride built AESA jammers (60KW x 3 covering the narrow, mid and high bands). Remember they are also tasked with providing EW so that non-stealthy assets can perform in contested domains with the same threat the IAF would have to deal with for the same missions. The Chinese are building one of the most sophisticated IAD setups currently, and they will grow in both quality and quantity.

http://www.filedropper.com/specialreport2

Yet, Not even with this highly sophisticated "brute" approach can you jam your way through the sort of IAD threats that exist and are expected to existed in the post-2020 environment. The only way is to address this from both ends of the spectrum, i.e. attack the EM spectrum through Jamming, and shrink the RCS of your strike group creating gaps that can be exploited.

It would be unwise to treat the Rafale as a main penetrative asset against rapidly modernizing IAD threat from China. It simply isn't designed to do something like that given the threat level the French designed to around. If they had a threat of the size and scope of the Chinese IAD, they would have not made a compromise and gone in for a dedicated 5th generation platform that everyone else facing that sort of threat is doing (US, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and India) That job would squarely fall on the T-50 and AMCA going into the future especially as the IAD threat is evolving and growing very rapidly to cover not just the basic S-300 but also improved versions of it, its clones, sophisticated AESA radars, S-400 elements and other sensors all working together. When it comes to how stealthy assets will defeat IAD's, it boils down to tactics, technologies, reduced RCS therefore exploiting the gaps in the SAM rings and electronic warfare. The larger UHF and VHF radars would need to be dealt with jamming, stand off strike and through other means while your FCR's are dealt with stealth and your regular strike means. The really large radars are more strategic, less mobile and therefore would be targets for Unmanned aerial vehicles that excel at missions where there is not a lot of discrimination required.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Nov 2014 21:36

brar_w wrote:
It should also be reminded that the rafale rely on 360° AESA jamming to ensure its survivability. For the record It was the only western aircraft to defeat S300 PMU1 in MACE XIII NATO EW exercise in Slovakia. Second spectra with GaN is for 2018 with the F3R standard. I am not saying it is invincible, but many forget the role spectra plays for rafale survivability
Every modern aircraft has an inbuilt Electronic warfare suite. The amount Of EW required to penetrate an IAD is dependent on the size (RCS) of the package penetrating it in the first place. If you are sending a strike group with 4th or 4.5 generation aircraft with a weapons hanging off then you need to boost your electronic warfare. With internal jammers (AESA or no AESA) you are limited by size and power. What sort of power does the Spectra work with? Its easy to say it has AESA internal jammer, but its the power that ultimately determines your electronic warfare range and the number of frequencies one can cover affectively.

In your example, you forgot to account for the fact that both the F35 and the T-50 are going to have sophisticated Electronic warfare packages. For example, the top guy in control of the all tactical fighters in the USAF does not want the Growler anywhere close to the F-35 at time of war. The F-35 combines the Baracuda electronics warfare suite with the APG-81, that leverages a vast amount of power (it has more than 1600 elements) for electronic warfare if required. Ultimately the stealthy platforms such as the T-50, AMCA would not require heavy jamming because that defeats the entire purpose of stealthy penetration. For them Electronic warfare would be specific, narrow and cover a few gaps. So while the Spectra is a great capability, it is hardly anything that NO ONE Else has at the moment in some shape or the other and ultimately when you are talking about penetrating complex IAD's, with a non-stealthy fighter you would be limited by the amount of power you can provide to your EW. The Next generation jammer, which the USN would use for supporting its non-stealthy assets for examples generates a total of 180KW of jamming using Gallium Nitride built AESA jammers (60KW x 3 covering the narrow, mid and high bands). Remember they are also tasked with providing EW so that non-stealthy assets can perform in contested domains with the same threat the IAF would have to deal with for the same missions. The Chinese are building one of the most sophisticated IAD setups currently, and they will grow in both quality and quantity.

http://www.filedropper.com/specialreport2

It would be unwise to treat the Rafale as a main penetrative asset against rapidly modernizing IAD threat from China. It simply isn't designed to do something like that given the threat level the French designed to around. If they had a threat of the size and scope of the Chinese IAD, they would have not made a compromise and gone in for a dedicated 5th generation platform that everyone else facing that sort of threat is doing (US, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and India) That job would squarely fall on the T-50 and AMCA going into the future especially as the IAD threat is evolving and growing very rapidly to cover not just the basic S-300 but also improved versions of it, its clones, sophisticated AESA radars, S-400 elements and other sensors all working together. When it comes to how stealthy assets will defeat IAD's, it boils down to tactics, technologies, reduced RCS therefore exploiting the gaps in the SAM rings and electronic warfare. The larger UHF and VHF radars would need to be dealt with jamming, stand off strike and through other means while your FCR's are dealt with stealth and your regular strike means. The really large radars are more strategic, less mobile and therefore would be targets for Unmanned aerial vehicles that excel at missions where there is not a lot of discrimination required.

As usual good analysis from you brar_w

..thanks !