Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

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.
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2398
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Yogi_G » 05 Jan 2015 14:03

Parrikar needs to bring up the recent Russian mistral deal to add additional pressure on the French. It is the $$ the Frenchies are after and we need to make sure they fall in line.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2015 14:32

Indian defence minister admits complications in Rafale talks

Key Points

India's defence minister Manohar Parrikar has said that negotiations with Dassault over the purchase of 126 Rafale fighters have suffered 'complications'
Parrikar also suggested that India could opt for more licence-built Su-30s instead

India's long-delayed procurement of 126 Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft has once again run into "complications", defence minister Manohar Parrikar admitted on 30 December.

Parrikar did not specify these difficulties at a press conference in New Delhi, but tellingly stated that additional licence-built Sukhoi Su-30MKI multirole fighters would be "adequate" for the Indian Air Force (IAF) in the event of the Rafale deal being scrapped.

"The Su-30MKI is an adequate aircraft for meeting the air force's needs," Parrikar said, adding that at INR3.58 billion (USD59.66 million) each, the unit cost of the Su-30MKIs being licence-built by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was less than half that of a Rafale. :eek:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2015 16:16

That's a big figure.Imagine getting 240 Flankers instead of just 120 Raffys.Or if split with MIG-29s more than 300 aircraft for the same price. That would dramatically increase sqd. strength.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9467
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Jan 2015 16:22

I think it is what is going to happen. More Su30mki. I do not see French changing their price at all at this stage.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby nits » 05 Jan 2015 16:27

Lets assume we opt for Su-30 and decision has been made after 6 month that is by July 2015- how much time will we need to finalize negotiations with Russians and start production ? Also we need to consider to set up extra production line as current line is still delivering past orders... so its not something which will be a quick short fix but something I support and wish IAF should go ahead with along with a mix order of SU-30 and LCA MK2...

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3858
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby deejay » 05 Jan 2015 16:40

Dassault is a poor negotiator would be the reason they have so few (read nil) deals to show for the Rafale. Going back on promises, trying to hood wink the buyer, ethically wrong practices of deliberately delaying the contract wow. The news posted by Eric Leiderman is interesting to say the least.

The French are playing 'french cricket'.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2015 17:03

Not to mention that its pres. is more interested in his amorous "cycling" activities than running the ship of state! M.Hollande's brains appear to be located lower down in his anatomy.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 05 Jan 2015 18:32

That IDRW article seems to have been written in Babelfish. I'm not disagreeing with the premise but I do suspect it reflects the wrath of HAL which is now (justifiably) bent on nailing Dassault.

Rafale no longer makes sense from either a situational or financial standpoint.

Whatever one might say about GOTUS' unreliability, US firms (Boeing, LM et al) scrupulously follow contracts, deliver on time and don't go around greasing palms (there's a law for that :))

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 05 Jan 2015 19:28

Whatever one might say about GOTUS' unreliability, US firms (Boeing, LM et al) scrupulously follow contracts

:rotfl: Not to forget provisions such as waiver to arm 'rebels' or 'moderates' or that the biggest customer Saudi is not affected by its plan to buy nukes. As far as our neighbors are considered, the USA has exported a lot of armaments to pakis even by periodically lifting its own sanctions. So it is not about unreliability but about waivers/exceptions or just outright silence of protesters. for some more info, link .

More on US arms control, post 26/11. link. The US arms sales are meant to further US goals. See also the part in the link titled "A Primer on U.S. Arms Export Policy".

kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby kuldipchager » 05 Jan 2015 19:43

I think we should if we really need mid size fighter, the best will be SU 35/Mig 35 single engine.SU 35 is very close SU 30 we have already.It will be much cheaper then (half price) then French fighter.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 05 Jan 2015 19:52

vishvak wrote:
Whatever one might say about GOTUS' unreliability, US firms (Boeing, LM et al) scrupulously follow contracts

:rotfl: Not to forget provisions such as waiver to arm 'rebels' or 'moderates' or that the biggest customer Saudi is not affected by its plan to buy nukes. As far as our neighbors are considered, the USA has exported a lot of armaments to pakis even by periodically lifting its own sanctions. So it is not about unreliability but about waivers/exceptions or just outright silence of protesters. for some more info, link .

More on US arms control, post 26/11. link. The US arms sales are meant to further US goals. See also the part in the link titled "A Primer on U.S. Arms Export Policy".


I'm beginning to think you really don't like the US :) That is your birth right just as Philip has the right to love Russia.

FWIW, many of us here really want to shift the prism from being 'anti' some country to one of pure 'pro-India'. If the US wants to sell us P-8s and the IN wants and needs it, I could not care less what their motivations or actions in other parts of the world are. They are very good at trade-offs and we should do the same all the while keeping our strategic interest in mind.

Any way, OT

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Jan 2015 20:01

The US arms sales are meant to further US goals.


Substitute the Bold portion with any other nation in the world that has any level of defense export. In fact it would be a fairly substantial injustice to the folks that elect leadership in most democratic nations if the elected officials did not "further national interests" in selling arms in the global market or if the "buyer" did not exercise its own national interest in committing large amounts of foreign exchange towards acquisition of military hardware.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 05 Jan 2015 20:30

OT here. Trying to make sense of one liners etc.
==============================

When it is all about national interests, then it follows that people do not have birthright to pass value judgements about others nor have birthright to discuss much outside topics of national interests in general. Nothing personal only when it is about politics. Not to forget, USA is a Christian nation link and Saudi(for example) is a Muslims nation, with its own push and pulls - from arming 'rebels'/'moderates' etc and independent practices like sanctioning/sponsoring nuke programs etc etc.

So USA/Saudi sponsoring Pakistan nuke program or not objecting to nuke sales etc is justified since it is all about realpolitik.

A relevant question, in realpolitik, is therefore, when it comes to reduce dependence on Russian planes, how smart it is to increase dependence on USA?

We have had common defense projects with Russia in the past wrt Sukhoi, for example. Or Brahmos missile program. On the other hand, USA arms sales have come just as Indians are increasingly producing more over time - and not earlier. As it is, arms sales from USA have come along with offers of 'next gen' or improved weapons when we are just about to produce a similar piece of hardware. On the other hand, claiming that USA is a reliable supplier is also a weapons sales perspective while we have our own experience with Tejas program.

All this has been chewed over multiple threads again and again only, like American bubble gum. Hence OT.

member_28476
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28476 » 05 Jan 2015 20:33

Mig 35 is twin engined and was rejected during tactical eval.
SU35, despite general shape has few in common with SU30. Much wider use of titanium, completely different electronics and FBW...
So no it will not come at the price of a SU30.
It is funny how unsourced statements from mre or less copetent journalists suddenly become God's truth for some when they match their opinion...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2015 21:09

Pagot wrote:Mig 35 is twin engined and was rejected during tactical eval.
SU35, despite general shape has few in common with SU30. Much wider use of titanium, completely different electronics and FBW...
So no it will not come at the price of a SU30.
It is funny how unsourced statements from mre or less copetent journalists suddenly become God's truth for some when they match their opinion...


Forget the Sukhoi option. And forget the less competent journoes.

What about the "complications" that the Def Min has stated? And the option *he* has provided? Why run from that?

And, why such dead silence from France? Competent journoes, politicians, Dassault, other reliable sources? (outside of what you have posted so far please. Thx.)

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21044
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Prem » 06 Jan 2015 00:20

Experts are saying Euro will soon meet Mexican Churo(Peso) in value. The how come price keep going up Rafale or they are trying to recover the Ghoos they paid to Congroos of UPA.

member_28476
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28476 » 06 Jan 2015 03:00

Forget the Sukhoi option. And forget the less competent journoes.

What about the "complications" that the Def Min has stated? And the option *he* has provided? Why run from that?

And, why such dead silence from France? Competent journoes, politicians, Dassault, other reliable sources? (outside of what you have posted so far please. Thx.)


Because average french aren't really interested in it tbh. Competent journoes etc. Know ultimate negociation round is starting within days and catching their breath.
Dassault allways was a fairly secrecive company...

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1121
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby koti » 07 Jan 2015 07:10

Interesting take on Rafale vis-a-vis MKI

I was following the conclusion until I realized the IAF shortlisted both Rafale and EF. EF does not have(?) any of the said advantages of the Rafale(Multirole origins). Which makes the argument a moot for the end user.
This can mean the combination of MKI, Jaguar and LCA should have been sufficient enough for the Strike role too in the eyes of IAF.
Any thoughts?
Also, any points in support of MKI addressing the mentioned shortcomings?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 07 Jan 2015 08:05

^^^^
My opinion is that more and more DPSA missions will end up in the purview of cheap cruise missiles. It is getting harder and harder to shake off any Ground to Air stuff below 14/15k feet. You won't even know you have one of those optically tracking devices slewing missiles at you till one explodes very close to you.

For the next 20 years, between the upgraded mirage & Jaguar, there is enough firepower to do any DPSA mission that IAF may want (they shouldn't, unless all enemy ground radars are totally destroyed). It will take another 7-10 years to induct the rafale and use it operationally for any mission, let alone DPSA missions.

Cost of two Rafales for DPSA mission = 156 M * 2 = 312M ( 20 billion for 128 assets)
Cost of training for DPSA mission = 5 years * 120 hours = 620 hours = 30 Million??$
(maintenance, training, fuel, salaries, intel gathering, planners etc)
Cost of missiles for taking out one site = 2 * 2 million = 4 Million.
Some measure of cost = 346 Million$ = $346M * 63Rupees = 2180 crores.


You may or may not see those DPSA assets again, if you send them in fortified territory.
Probability of success of mission: We want this to be atleast more than 50%
Probability of losing assets: We want this to be atleast less than 50%
The target value needs to be greater than 2180 crores to justify a DPSA mission when there is a less than 50% chance of returning. All other target values can be calculated by multiplying some factor of 2180 * success factor

Cost of Nirbhay = 10 crores.
2180 / 10 crores = 218 missiles.

According to my calculations DPSA is a bad idea to begin with in today's hardened enemy environment. You can take out many a radar and important sites for that price, without putting human lives on the line within a 1000 km range.

I am open to corrections.

member_20155
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20155 » 07 Jan 2015 12:17

Rafale featured in Flight Deck Ops of CDG.
[youtube]oo_vTqdIZbw#t=26[/youtube]

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2015 12:31

@Cybaru, Taking out targets with cruise missiles and even stand off munition (JSOW, JASSM, Storm Shadow types) is going to get progressively harder against peer threats such as China. Folks around the world have learnt hard lessons from watching the Gulf War in the 90's are unlikely to give nicely prepped targets both from the C2C and A2AD perspective. At the AFA session in the US for example the head of the Pacific air-force was talking about decoys in development (presumably in china) that now actively and very accurately replicate signature (emission) profiles of the system they are representing. Similarly C2C is going to be spread out and the IAD is going to be significantly layered and connected at various levels (hence the I in AD). China is most likely going to become the world leader in IAD spending if it hasn't already and will at some point be the biggest proliferator of integrated air defenses. With the proliferation of technology in general (AESA, computing, miniaturization etc) you will have a very strong network in both the active and passive domains feeding those Air defenses. This gives rise to a need of some very very solid ISR and having high discriminating sensors and a targeting person in the loop to make sense of it all. Even stand off UCAV's are going to be very limited here because they do as told and not respond tactically. As was the case in the Gulf War, a well equipped, well trained enemy (peer) is unlikely to have its IAD blasting away (emitting) for your weapons to target and neither is going to let one develop a comprehensive SA and ISR picture to send dozens if not hundreds of cruise missiles (with high travel times) to targets . A near peer enemy is also likely to operate in the cyber domain and have significant investment in things like GPS denial, EM spectrum control over its own territory.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srai » 07 Jan 2015 12:43

koti wrote:Interesting take on Rafale vis-a-vis MKI

I was following the conclusion until I realized the IAF shortlisted both Rafale and EF. EF does not have(?) any of the said advantages of the Rafale(Multirole origins). Which makes the argument a moot for the end user.
This can mean the combination of MKI, Jaguar and LCA should have been sufficient enough for the Strike role too in the eyes of IAF.
Any thoughts?
Also, any points in support of MKI addressing the mentioned shortcomings?


If it is DPSA the IAF wants immediately, the cheapest option would to license build a few squadrons of re-engined Jaguar Darin-III standard. No new infrastructure required other than supporting additional numbers.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 07 Jan 2015 13:37

Srai,

I have never understood the rational for the MMRCA. The LCA has matured. Let it replace the Mig & Jag & Mirage 2k. Over the next 15 years. If you need heavy long range strike. The MKI is good enough for the role.

In the same time line you can perfect the domestic AMCA and it can start to enter sq service.

The IAF mantra ought to be simplify the logistics and training. Some thing that can best be done using as few types as possible. So that costs are be reduced.

While at the same time build the numbers needed for a full fledged 2 front war.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 07 Jan 2015 18:10

srai wrote:Interesting take on Rafale vis-a-vis MKI....

If it is DPSA the IAF wants immediately, the cheapest option would to license build a few squadrons of re-engined Jaguar Darin-III standard. No new infrastructure required other than supporting additional numbers.


+1

I really can't understand the case for buying MMRCA for terrain hugging flight profiles in DPSA mode. As brar_w has pointed out elsewhere, ADs, MANPADs make this a suicidal tactic. Isn't the whole idea of PGMs and standoff weapons to eliminate the need for pilots to get close?

I don't know what the DARIN 3 upgrade involves, but I'd guess that it would allow (together with up-engining with the F-125) to do standoff missions.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 08 Jan 2015 00:54

brar_w wrote:@Cybaru, Taking out targets with cruise missiles and even stand off munition (JSOW, JASSM, Storm Shadow types) is going to get progressively harder against peer threats such as China. Folks around the world have learnt hard lessons from watching the Gulf War in the 90's are unlikely to give nicely prepped targets both from the C2C and A2AD perspective. At the AFA session in the US for example the head of the Pacific air-force was talking about decoys in development (presumably in china) that now actively and very accurately replicate signature (emission) profiles of the system they are representing. Similarly C2C is going to be spread out and the IAD is going to be significantly layered and connected at various levels (hence the I in AD). China is most likely going to become the world leader in IAD spending if it hasn't already and will at some point be the biggest proliferator of integrated air defenses. With the proliferation of technology in general (AESA, computing, miniaturization etc) you will have a very strong network in both the active and passive domains feeding those Air defenses. This gives rise to a need of some very very solid ISR and having high discriminating sensors and a targeting person in the loop to make sense of it all.


Yeah, this is the reason to abandon DPSA. Even khan uncle does not attempt it until the air space is sanitized.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1121
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby koti » 08 Jan 2015 02:50

Cosmo_R wrote:I really can't understand the case for buying MMRCA for terrain hugging flight profiles in DPSA mode. As brar_w has pointed out elsewhere, ADs, MANPADs make this a suicidal tactic. Isn't the whole idea of PGMs and standoff weapons to eliminate the need for pilots to get close?

I think the terrain hugging profile is very relevant and actually more important as the SAMs improve. Though it is dangerous, I think there will always be enough priorities that balance out the risk/reward.
It should be fairly ok against MANPADS as the reaction times will be pretty minimal and the lo profiles will typically be high speed dashes. Most of the time, I doubt if the operators will be able to differentiate between friendlies and hostile aircraft.(Night times etc.)

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Jan 2015 04:28

koti wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:I really can't understand the case for buying MMRCA for terrain hugging flight profiles in DPSA mode. As brar_w has pointed out elsewhere, ADs, MANPADs make this a suicidal tactic. Isn't the whole idea of PGMs and standoff weapons to eliminate the need for pilots to get close?

I think the terrain hugging profile is very relevant and actually more important as the SAMs improve. Though it is dangerous, I think there will always be enough priorities that balance out the risk/reward.
It should be fairly ok against MANPADS as the reaction times will be pretty minimal and the lo profiles will typically be high speed dashes. Most of the time, I doubt if the operators will be able to differentiate between friendlies and hostile aircraft.(Night times etc.)


I am not convinced of this in an era of PGMs, cruise missiles, and ATACAMS. In any event, we have Jaguars so why the MMRCA?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ass-05100/

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3858
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby deejay » 08 Jan 2015 06:47

Cybaru wrote:
brar_w wrote:@Cybaru, Taking out targets with cruise missiles and even stand off munition (JSOW, JASSM, Storm Shadow types) is going to get progressively harder against peer threats such as China. Folks around the world have learnt hard lessons from watching the Gulf War in the 90's are unlikely to give nicely prepped targets both from the C2C and A2AD perspective. At the AFA session in the US for example the head of the Pacific air-force was talking about decoys in development (presumably in china) that now actively and very accurately replicate signature (emission) profiles of the system they are representing. Similarly C2C is going to be spread out and the IAD is going to be significantly layered and connected at various levels (hence the I in AD). China is most likely going to become the world leader in IAD spending if it hasn't already and will at some point be the biggest proliferator of integrated air defenses. With the proliferation of technology in general (AESA, computing, miniaturization etc) you will have a very strong network in both the active and passive domains feeding those Air defenses. This gives rise to a need of some very very solid ISR and having high discriminating sensors and a targeting person in the loop to make sense of it all.


Yeah, this is the reason to abandon DPSA. Even khan uncle does not attempt it until the air space is sanitized.


Using Khan uncle's war tactics for our needs - may not be wise. Khan uncle never goes to war with neighbours who can strike Khan uncle. We might just need Deep Strike capability because:
a) we want to strike deep
b) we want to strike 'from' deep within.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 08 Jan 2015 09:29

deejay wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Yeah, this is the reason to abandon DPSA. Even khan uncle does not attempt it until the air space is sanitized.


Using Khan uncle's war tactics for our needs - may not be wise. Khan uncle never goes to war with neighbours who can strike Khan uncle. We might just need Deep Strike capability because:
a) we want to strike deep
b) we want to strike 'from' deep within.


My contention is that in today's deeply defended airstpace, DPSA has very low returns. I am also stating that khan uncle recognized that and started working towards long range munitions to counter this. It's not that Khan uncle doesn't choose DPSA because there are other viable options, but that those options exist today because the DPSA payoff is very low.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Jan 2015 11:37

If one remembers the air war in GW1,the RAF's Tornados suffered losses because they operated at low level,where a plethora of sophisticated MANPADS and anti-air guns proliferated,more today then at that time. On the other hand ,terrain following Tomahawk missiles were seen live on CNN striking targets in Baghdad. Since then,the US has used extensively LR/stand-off cruise missiles and ASMs to their advantage in the various conflicts experienced over the last decade+,as well as using UCAVs to prosecute important targets. With its array of surveillance assets from sats to aircraft,drones,etc.,the US will still be able to take out more rather than less of enemy targets despite air defences getting more sophisticated,spread out,multiple command centres,decoys,cyberwarfare,etc. The fact that it also uses extensively veteran B-52 bombers while Russia uses its own vintage equiv,the TU-95 Bears,indicates that the high-alt bombing role remains very valid,esp. if these ultra-LR bombers are equipped with stand-off missiles.

Nirbhay aboard our own TU-142 LRMPs could strike at targets successfully thousands of KMs away,anywhere in the IOR or Indo-China Sea. The IAF have neglected the need for a strat. bombing ,not replacing the Canberra of yore.It should seriously look for a suitable aircraft to meet the two-front war,which could even have a N-dimension as the chief of our IDS said recently.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1121
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby koti » 08 Jan 2015 19:50

Can't agree completely Phillip Saab.
B52s and Bears will be only used in a sanitized airspace; which is an unlikely scenario for IAF.

Though LACMs are effective in tackling static infrastructure, I have not read about their effectiveness in a dynamic battlefield(CAS/SEAD/Interdiction).

That said, I have been long suggesting the maritime advantages of Backfire for IN.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 09 Jan 2015 00:17

One didn't mention the stealth bombers also in service.Just pointingout that vintage Cold War era bombers are still being actively used by both sides.Bears have been testing UK/European defences recently.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2015 00:36

@ Phillip, the USAF does not mince words in describing the B-52 as a strictly stand off platform for missions against near peer threats. Furthermore, the problem isn't with the expense of the B-52 launching a barrage of JASSM - ER's, but the fact that these high cost, stand off weapons require target information which the enemy is actively making extremely hard to acquire. Simply put there is very much a need to have assets over the target with preferably multiple sensors discriminating and providing ISR for the purposes of targeting. This is the main reason why the JSF for example has a very comprehensive active and passive suite and why the F-22's unique passive RF suite is being valued as an ISR tool. Collectively those in command refer to this as a "non-traditional ISR source' but as these platforms mature these lines would be further blurred. If you read the 50+ Page case for the LRS-B it is precisely because the B-52's won't be able to survive and the B-2's are too few in numbers. The LRS-B is therefore meant to replace the entire lot of B-1s and B-52's moving forward.

SEAD/DEAD and CAS is going to be a mid-altitude affair not because that is a "sexier" way to do it, but because you go in low you will have to trade off some very very expensive hardware to losses. No one is going to take that gamble against a modern IAD in an A2AD environment. The Chinese would love if the USAF stuck to the F-35 as a low penetrator. It looses its stealth, looses its ability to early detect threats and avoid and/or take action and it looses its main advantage that the sensors provide. Similarly in the case of the IAF, the high cost of the Rafale as a system would make flying low against modern systems a very expensive affair. Stealth by no means assures 100% survivability. The program goal of the B-2 Bomber, was to ensure 80% survivability (20% of the fleet lost to IAD's) at that time against modern soviet Union IAD's (the best in the world). Had the SU not vanished that survivability in today's time would have probably been around 60%.

So while the B-52's may be an awesome platform for CAS against Jihadi's, or may be of some use against a lesser threat still operating with 10-20 year old "thinking"/mind set, they are nearly useless against a threat like China that itself is most probably the world's largest acquirer of IAD's and a practitioner of the "fast-Follower" process that would even put Samsung to shame. You cannot lob a JASSM if your enemy fields a huge amount of decoys all with emissions that are damn hard to discriminate, or if the enemy creates a fog of war where little is known to effectively develop hundreds of targets for targeting. You can also not take things like GPS, and Satellite based intelligence or BDA activities for granted. If you need to kill a dozen or more targets just to shut off or 'sanitize' a particular area of interest from RF activity then good luck sending tactical platforms up with SO weapons that not only cost in the millions, but also require a large number of platforms to act together to create that target--->weapon loop to get the time-critical kill. There is a reason why ISR is the main driver of investment, be it the fast-jets being developed for the TAF or the RQ-180 being developed for the 30th Reconnaissance Squadron. There is a long drawn out need to put a sensor suite of X band and UHF, AESA elements onboard stealthy platforms in order to go in and conduct the iSR missions in areas where a JSTAR cannot operate. Some of these elements would be in the SAR modes on the F-22, and F-35 (Both survivable platforms) whereas the others are most likely on the RQ-180, and would definitely be on the LRS-B

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 09 Jan 2015 01:06

Tx Brar.Of coursethe Balkans War happened some time ago,but there too,the NATO air campaign came in for some criticism for being off target on many an occasion. Current conflicts that are taking place are not between great poers directly,but in some cases resemble the proxy wars of the CW.Ukraine for ex. With China its going to be the maritime sphere that will be crucial,as China depends heavily upon the seas for exports,energy/raw material supplies,etc. As it has extended its footprint in Africa and the Americas,the task of protecting its merchant fleet has increased,why we are seeing so much unpreecented invetsment in the PLAN.

The IAF is going to have its task cut out in any conflict with China,whether on one or two fronts.The lack of numbers of aircraft ,esp. strike aircratf and munitions is deeply worrying. Why tactical missile production is going apace,BMos,etc.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby ldev » 09 Jan 2015 01:19

Notwithstanding modern air defences being developed by China, I still think that the IN TU-142s must be modified to carry Nirbhay whose range has to be increased to 2000-2500 kms. India has to also get basing or at least transit rights from Vietnam. The TU-142s were designed to carry upto 16 long range KH-55s with a range of 2500 kms. With the P-8s taking over the primary ASW role, the TU-142s have to become the primary stand off weapons platform for the Nirbhay to be used from long ranges from the outside boundaries of the South China and East China seas, far outside the range of mainland based Chinese interceptors.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srai » 09 Jan 2015 07:10

Cosmo_R wrote:...
I don't know what the DARIN 3 upgrade involves, but I'd guess that it would allow (together with up-engining with the F-125) to do standoff missions.


Darin III is a pretty extensive Jaguar MLU. Here are some details:
Fresh delay hits Indian Jaguar upgrade
...
Delayed items include the aircraft's indigenously-developed open system architecture mission computer (OSAMC), and its associated software, which is being developed by HAL’s Mission & Combat System Research & Design Centre.

The OSAMC completed its safety of flight test in 2013, and was given clearance for rig integration and evaluation last November by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification. Development work on the equipment had begun in 2007.

The Darin III programme also involves incorporating a new avionics architecture with the OSAMC, with structural modifications required to accommodate an Elta Systems multi-mode radar on land strike variants. Two new multi-functional displays are added in the cockpit, while earlier analogue flight and engine displays are being replaced with an engine and flight instrument system/integrated standby instrument system. Navigation, electronic warfare and weapons delivery systems have also been upgraded.

Efforts to re-engine the air force's entire fleet of more than 120 Sepecat- and HAL-built Jaguars with Honeywell F125-INs have also been delayed. Honeywell responded to a single-source request for proposal issued in 2012 for 270 of the engines, and a source says that "the technical evaluation is under way now”.

Darin III-standard Jaguars are also slated to receive MBDA's ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missile and Textron Defence Systems' CBU-105 Sensor Fused Weapon, although a contract has yet to be signed for the former type. Textron is due to complete mission control unit software development and aircraft integration by the end of September 2015, and has already delivered India's weapons to the US Air Force via a Foreign Military Sales deal.

Maritime strike variants of the Jaguar are now equipped with Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles, with integration work having concluded during 2013.
...

Image

HAL's Jaguar Darin III Makes Maiden Flight
...
The upgrade incorporates new state-of-the-art avionics architecture including Mission Computer (MC), Engine and Flight Instrument System (EFIS), Solid State Digital Video Recording System (SSDVRS), Solid State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR) and additional functions in inertial global positioning system (INGPS), autopilot, radar and RWR. The upgrade covers modern navigation, EW and weapon delivery system with INGPS using primary and reversionary modes, state-of-the–art, man-machine interface (near glass cockpit) with two smart multifunction display and head-up display.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4421
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby putnanja » 09 Jan 2015 07:30

Bharat Karnad on Rafale Purchase ...

Ditching Rafale

...
Perceiving India as the perennial sucker, Dassault chose Reliance Aerospace Technologies Pvt Ltd (RATPL) as partner in the hope that the fabled Ambani reach and influence in Delhi would help it get around the HAL production obligation. Problems were not anticipated as evidenced by RATPL approaching the Andhra Pradesh government in 2013 for land around Hyderabad to set up a factory. But because RATPL has zero experience in producing anything remotely related to aviation, Dassault saw it as an opportunity to “double dip”, meaning arrange it so India would pay it twice for the same aircraft! This was to be managed thus: Dassault would set up a production line under RATPL aegis importing every last screw and production jig and collect the money for the 108 Rafales it puts together here at the cost-plus-profit price HAL would charge IAF. In other words, Dassault would export the Rafale assembly kits and wherewithal virtually to itself and pocket the proceeds while paying a premium to RATPL.

But this double dipping ruse in the works merely whetted France’s appetite for more. Capitalising on the IAF brass’ penchant for newer French aircraft and the Indian government’s tendency eventually to cave into the military’s demands, Dassault proposed an enlarged Rafale deal with the cost revised upwards from the $30 billion level to a $45-$50 billion contract. For such enhanced sums, Dassault sought to replace the Rafale originally offered with the slightly better “F-3R” version, promised a mid-life upgrade involving retrofitment of the Thales RBE2 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, and suggested India’s future fifth and sixth generation combat aircraft needs be met by the “F-4R” and “F-5R” configurations (or whatever designations they are given) now on the drawing board featuring crystal blade for jet turbines, “fly-by-light” technology, etc. Such contract extension suits the IAF fine because it plays on Vayu Bhavan’s antipathy for Russian hardware (expressed in terms of “diversity of suppliers”) as well as indigenous aircraft, and undermines both the multi-billion dollar project jointly to develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft, Su-50 PAK/FA with Russia and the Indian AMCA with its design finalised.

...
...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2015 08:19

Dunno.

What is this double dipping he is talking of? I thought that India would pay an agreed amount (+/- some I guess) for everything: planes, ToT, etc. Was HAL expected to tack on a profit for itself - beyond the expected cost agreed to with France? IF so, why was not that added to the life-cycle costs? Or is it considered after life cost?

The F-3R ............... we saw that coming. But what is this nonsense of a fifth and sixth gen stuff? I mean if France is buying that stuff that is a different story. But with two "5th Gen" plane in the pipeline, who, in India, would even think of a Rafale as a "5th Gen" plane? Seriously.

I can see the costs reach $40-50 billion even without this ruse of a 5th/6th Gen aesop's fables.

Get 60-80 from the FrAF - modify them to some extent and dump them in 15 years. Will help build numbers soon, pay relatively less (France has no concept of less) and keep them as much as possible without breaking the bank for the FGFA (which seems to be a drama unto itself) + AMCA.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srai » 09 Jan 2015 08:44

NRao wrote:...
Get 60-80 from the FrAF - modify them to some extent and dump them in 15 years. Will help build numbers soon, pay relatively less (France has no concept of less) and keep them as much as possible without breaking the bank for the FGFA (which seems to be a drama unto itself) + AMCA.


There is no point getting 60-80 Rafales for 15 years. The cost of new support infrastructure and lifecycle costs should make anyone think twice about such a proposition. Rather, it would be better for the IAF to get more quantities of existing service types i.e. Mirage-2000, MiG-29, Jaguar and/or Su-30 MKI.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby karan_mc » 09 Jan 2015 08:48

Su-35 or Super 30 could be good enough , IAF can also look into Air force variant of Mki-29k .


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests