VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

[idan]

So with one squadron of LCA Tejas operational, are we flying any Tejas CAP missions in Ladakh today armed with Astra BVRs? Can we go to combat with Tejas today? Now is the need for flexing muscles ... are we there with our first squadron of indigenous fighter? That will send a loud message to foreign vendors and citizens alike ... this is 2020 or are we are still talking about 2025, 2030 for a fully combat ready indigenous platform? If the latter be the case then therein lies the fallacy. Whenever we have an external crisis or threat we go shopping for foreign products!

[Nihat]

I'd suggest reading up on the interview with the chief test pilot of the LCA tejas program in Hush kit.

The LCA is fully combat ready but at the same time it's still an evolving and maturing platform. It's armed with astra and derby as a2a missiles and capable of undertaking CAP and limited penetrative ground strike missions including delivery of precision weapons.

As far as pushing it into the current crisis goes, if necessary it will be deployed but given that it's training and tactics are still evolving, this is not the most optimum option currently.

[idan]

I'd suggest reading up on the interview with the chief test pilot of the LCA tejas program in Hush kit.

The LCA is fully combat ready but at the same time it's still an evolving and maturing platform. It's armed with astra and derby as a2a missiles and capable of undertaking CAP and limited penetrative ground strike missions including delivery of precision weapons.

As far as pushing it into the current crisis goes, if necessary it will be deployed but given that it's training and tactics are still evolving, this is not the most optimum option currently.

Or shall we say perpetually evolving not just training and tactics but the platform itself when the enemy is knocking at the doors. It is high time we rethink national interest and priorities first and be self critical. Tejas is meant to be frontline fighter replacing our ageing Mig 21s ... if a border war breaks out today then where are they now?

[srai]

^^^

In a wartime, all assets are deployed. Tejas has already participated in multiple IAF war exercises where it performed beyond expectations. It had the best bombing accuracy. It flew 6 sorties in a day. Multi-role combat capability was conducted where it dropped LGB and shot down a target on the same sortie. It can employ a wide range of IAF munitions. It can fly and fight from all IAF airbases with extensive testing done at Leh over many years. The first LCA squadron has been at it for 3-4 years now.

So it’s ready my friend

[srin]

And yet inspite of Thales having demonstrated a perfectly workable AESA radar with the Tejas and MBDA having expressed its inability to integrate with a non European radar on multiple occasions to the IAF, on October 26, 2018, HAL signed an agreement with Elta for the Elta 2052 radars thereby ruling out the Meteor for the Tejas.

It is my understanding that the current Rafale deal includes integrating Brahmos NG and the Astra with the RBE-2AA. If that is indeed the case then it could also have been negotiated with Thales to integrate the Astra and the Brahmos NG with the Thales radar on the Tejas had it been chosen.

The only reason IMO that Elta 2052 was chosen was pricing because the Elta 2052 was already being priced out with upgrading the Jaguars. This is a perfect example of being penny wise and pound foolish. How much more expensive would the Thales have been. Double the price? Even if the Thales radar had cost Euro 15 million more per unit for integration, IMO it would have been more than worth it for the benefit of having the Meteor without losing the ability to integrate Astra, Asraam and Brahmos NG. A total of 80 Rafale and 216 Meteor equipped Tejas would have made the IAF formidable without even considering the SU-30 upgrades. There would have been no need for any further MMRCA.

IMO, HAL the IAF and the MOD babus who were dealing with Dassault were completely out of sync and out of touch with each other and
the result is a dysfunctional procurement policy.

There was a tender and 2052 won. For whatever reason, RBE-2 didn't. I don't have data points on why RBE-2 didn't win the MK1A AESA tender. Maybe RBE-2 wasn't price competitive or technically inferior or Thales didn't agree to the TOT aspects ? Or are you suggesting that HAL should have chosen RBE-2 despite the deficiencies ?

Second, if the sole premise for going for RBE-2 is going to be Meteor, then there are other ways of skinning the cat: convince them to integrate it (pay extra, go for big contract); or better yet, work on Astra Mk2 with our own SFDR.

[basant]

Is this still the Rafale thread? Why is LCA Mk1 thread being deprived of its resources and we are investing in foreign maal for discussion too?

[ldev]

And yet inspite of Thales having demonstrated a perfectly workable AESA radar with the Tejas and MBDA having expressed its inability to integrate with a non European radar on multiple occasions to the IAF, on October 26, 2018, HAL signed an agreement with Elta for the Elta 2052 radars thereby ruling out the Meteor for the Tejas.

It is my understanding that the current Rafale deal includes integrating Brahmos NG and the Astra with the RBE-2AA. If that is indeed the case then it could also have been negotiated with Thales to integrate the Astra and the Brahmos NG with the Thales radar on the Tejas had it been chosen.

The only reason IMO that Elta 2052 was chosen was pricing because the Elta 2052 was already being priced out with upgrading the Jaguars. This is a perfect example of being penny wise and pound foolish. How much more expensive would the Thales have been. Double the price? Even if the Thales radar had cost Euro 15 million more per unit for integration, IMO it would have been more than worth it for the benefit of having the Meteor without losing the ability to integrate Astra, Asraam and Brahmos NG. A total of 80 Rafale and 216 Meteor equipped Tejas would have made the IAF formidable without even considering the SU-30 upgrades. There would have been no need for any further MMRCA.

IMO, HAL the IAF and the MOD babus who were dealing with Dassault were completely out of sync and out of touch with each other and
the result is a dysfunctional procurement policy.

There was a tender and 2052 won. For whatever reason, RBE-2 didn't. I don't have data points on why RBE-2 didn't win the MK1A AESA tender. Maybe RBE-2 wasn't price competitive or technically inferior or Thales didn't agree to the TOT aspects ? Or are you suggesting that HAL should have chosen RBE-2 despite the deficiencies ?

Second, if the sole premise for going for RBE-2 is going to be Meteor, then there are other ways of skinning the cat: convince them to integrate it (pay extra, go for big contract); or better yet, work on Astra Mk2 with our own SFDR.

Think about it. When it came to evaluating the MMRCA entries the IAF went for the best of the best, price be damned. And the best package including the radar and the AAM was the Rafale. That came through torturous evaluations done on the aircraft via tests all over the place. Note that the IAF did not say that the cheapest entry will win. It wanted the best possible kit that responded to the tender.

In contrast now compare how HAL went about choosing the radar and by implication the AAMs for the Tejas. Cheapest offer was ELTA with the 252. And by implication the IAF got the Derby with a range of ~50 km. And the Astra with a range of ~100 km. But the same or a very similar radar that was available by Thales for the best of the best Rafale was not chosen for the Tejas inspite of it being available with the same Meteor missile that the IAF so badly wanted on the Rafale which has a No Escape Zone of 60 km.

So for buying an imported aircraft the IAF wants the best of the best of the best. But when HAL wants to equip the Tejas they go strictly by lowest tender? How about getting the best of the best of the best in terms of radar and missiles for the Tejas i.e. the same equipment as the Rafale. Have the same consistent policy towards both imports and domestic fighters. This combination of the Thales and Meteor would have been the lever to get the LCA into large scale operations with the IAF and quickly too. Once it enters large scale deployment then improvements in it's components, weapons integrations etc. take on a life of their own.

I would go so far as to say that even today HAL should cancel the ELTA contract, pay the penalty and order the Thales radar which is ready.

[Rakesh]

OK no package deal if you must. But a deal for the supply of a Thales radar for the Tejas? They bid for the Tejas radar contract and at least as of October 2017, a full year before Elta was awarded the contract there is an excerpt from a news report:

That was the point of your entire argument - a package deal.

But since you would like to pivot away from that and change the goalposts, I will play along!

In the meantime in the one year between Thales having an AESA radar suitable for the Tejas and the award of the contract MBDA wrote 5 letters to the IAF saying that HAL must choose any European radar which had been approved by the 6 nation consortium for the Tejas if the IAF wanted the Meteor missile integrated with the Tejas.

So HAL should be obligated to Thales because they wrote five letters? Is that honestly your line of reasoning?

You highlighted the paucity of smartness in our procurement system, but you forgot the cardinal rule of procurement - tendering. HAL had to put out a tender....that is how the system works ldev. Is the basic nuts & bolts of procurement. Put out a tender, do a technical downselect and then select L1. That is the A-B-C of procurement. To circumvent that process will invite charges of nepotism and corruption - what RaGa accused NaMo of doing in the fake Rafale scam. No PSU will want to touch that scenario with a ten foot pole.

The very same MBDA that wrote five or how many ever letters to the IAF Chief, HAL and everyone else highlighting all the security concerns they had with integrating the Meteor onto the Tejas (fitted with an Elta AESAR) will gladly do the integration of that very Meteor missile when the Tejas is fitted with the Uttam AESA. In South Korea, MBDA has agreed to integrate the Meteor with the KF-X which is set to have an AESAR from Hanwha Systems. See below and once again, please take note of the source of the link...

South Korea to integrate MBDA's Meteor missile onto KF-X fighter aircraft
https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... -aircraft/
22 Nov 2019

Éric Béranger, CEO of MBDA, said: “We’re very pleased to mark this next and important step in our partnership with KAI and the Korean Defence Acquisition Program Administration. South Korea is a strategic market for MBDA, and we’re proud that Meteor will be providing KF-X with the world’s most potent air-to-air capability.”

Tendering allows the GOI to state that a competition was held among all the OEMs who responded to the tender and the OEM that met all the requirements of the tender - at the least expensive price - was the one who won the contract. Do you even *remember* Bofors? That same procurement system was used to select the GE F414 for the Tejas Mk2 which was in competition with the EJ200 from Eurojet.

Why would the IAF spend $2 million euros for each Meteor missile, when they can get the same capability for way cheaper with the Astra Mk2 and SFDR? When that happens, watch how MBDA will come offering all sorts of goodies for Meteor integration with Tejas.

MBDA is not even interested in integrating Meteor on our upgraded Mirage 2000s. They cited the reason of it being too expensive to do. At the end of the day, MBDA is a for profit organization and they will make business decisions which will give them the greatest return but at the same time, protect their intellectual property. The concerns they raised in their numerous letters were valid concerns to them. Yet this same concern does not exist with South Korea and neither will it exist when the Uttam is installed on the Tejas.

And yet inspite of Thales having demonstrated a perfectly workable AESA radar with the Tejas and MBDA having expressed its inability to integrate with a non European radar on multiple occasions to the IAF, on October 26, 2018, HAL signed an agreement with Elta for the Elta 2052 radars thereby ruling out the Meteor for the Tejas.

Think why MBDA does not want to integrate the Meteor with the Elta on the Tejas and why they will integrate that same missile on a South Korean fighter. Think about that and you will get your answer and it has nothing to do with a dysfunctional procurement policy at the MoD.

It is my understanding that the current Rafale deal includes integrating Brahmos NG and the Astra with the RBE-2AA. If that is indeed the case then it could also have been negotiated with Thales to integrate the Astra and the Brahmos NG with the Thales radar on the Tejas had it been chosen.

Same as above ---> if MBDA is willing to install BrahMos NG and Astra with the RBE-2AA on the Rafale, what is the issue with doing the same on the Tejas with an Elta radar? Who is the root cause of the issue? MoD? HAL? IAF? or Elta? India or her procurement system is not the issue here. Because if it was, as you allege, why would Thales agree to install BrahMos and Astra on the Rafale?

The only reason IMO that Elta 2052 was chosen was pricing because the Elta 2052 was already being priced out with upgrading the Jaguars. This is a perfect example of being penny wise and pound foolish. How much more expensive would the Thales have been. Double the price? Even if the Thales radar had cost Euro 15 million more per unit for integration, IMO it would have been more than worth it for the benefit of having the Meteor without losing the ability to integrate Astra, Asraam and Brahmos NG. A total of 80 Rafale and 216 Meteor equipped Tejas would have made the IAF formidable without even considering the SU-30 upgrades. There would have been no need for any further MMRCA.

IMO, HAL the IAF and the MOD babus who were dealing with Dassault were completely out of sync and out of touch with each other and the result is a dysfunctional procurement policy.

Let us take your scenario of the Thales AESAR being double the price of her Elta counterpart to its logical conclusion.

Please explain how the MoD Babu in charge of overseeing the procurement would approve such a scenario? The DPP 2016 does not permit that and he knows that really well. What reasoning will he write on the file? And without his approval that file will not move. You expect him to know anything about Meteor? Last month he was in charge of grain imports and working out of the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare. As part of babu rotation, he then gets transferred to the Ministry of Defence. To him, rice grain and Meteor missile are the same damn thing - a commodity - that has to follow the procurement process. That is what he is trained to do during his civil service tenure. He does not know the inner workings of Elta AESAR and Thales AESAR, but he is in charge and he is not going to risk his pension or his job to please the IAF. That Babu will not approve acquisition of an AESAR that is more expensive than its counterpart that took part in the tender and met the stipulations of that tender.

Next year, as part of babu rotation, he may get transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare where he may be in charge of condom acquisition for Family Planning Clinics. Grain = Commodity, Thales AESAR = Commodity, Condom = Commodity...you get the idea?

So what can the IAF do, if they want to see the Meteor end up as an option on the Tejas? Develop Uttam and then MBDA will likely be open to the idea of Tejas-Meteor integration. But will the IAF go down that path, once Astra Mk2 and SFDR come on board? Will the IAF spend their precious CAPEX on 100 Meteors for the Tejas, when they can get 175 Astra Mk2 and/or SFDR for the same price?

[ldev]

Let us take your scenario of the Thales AESAR being double the price of her Elta counterpart to its logical conclusion.

See my post above. You cannot have 2 different standards for procurement. One for imported aircraft where only the best of the best is chosen, price being immaterial. Because if you were to go by the lowest tender option, I daresay the F-16 would have been the winner.

And then when it comes to HAL say that the determining factor is price and because Elta offer is lower than Thales so go by that metric. Implication being that for domestic production, second best is good enough because it meets the convoluted procurement criteria where the most important factor is that the MOD babu has to have a CYA back up.

[Rakesh]

Think about it. When it came to evaluating the MMRCA entries the IAF went for the best of the best, price be damned. And the best package including the radar and the AAM was the Rafale. That came through torturous evaluations done on the aircraft via tests all over the place. Note that the IAF did not say that the cheapest entry will win. It wanted the best possible kit that responded to the tender.

Wrong Again. The amount of falsehoods that you come up with is amazing.

Rafale was L1, but the entire bone of contention with Dassault was how they arrived at L1. The UPA Govt knew this and so did the NDA Govt when they took over in 2014. When Parrikar knew that the 126 deal would not go through, the IAF was asked how many aircraft do they need right away and the answer was 36.

I know what you are trying to do, but it is not going to work.

In contrast now compare how HAL went about choosing the radar and by implication the AAMs for the Tejas. Cheapest offer was ELTA with the 252. And by implication the IAF got the Derby with a range of ~50 km. And the Astra with a range of ~100 km. But the same or a very similar radar that was available by Thales for the best of the best Rafale was not chosen for the Tejas inspite of it being available with the same Meteor missile that the IAF so badly wanted on the Rafale which has a No Escape Zone of 60 km.

So for buying an imported aircraft the IAF wants the best of the best of the best. But when HAL wants to equip the Tejas they go strictly by lowest tender? How about getting the best of the best of the best in terms of radar and missiles for the Tejas i.e. the same equipment as the Rafale. Have the same consistent policy towards both imports and domestic fighters. This combination of the Thales and Meteor would have been the lever to get the LCA into large scale operations with the IAF and quickly too. Once it enters large scale deployment then improvements in it's components, weapons integrations etc. take on a life of their own.

I would go so far as to say that even today HAL should cancel the ELTA contract, pay the penalty and order the Thales radar which is ready.

Complete fluff and hot air, that I have discounted above.

[Rakesh]

See my post above. You cannot have 2 different standards for procurement. One for imported aircraft where only the best of the best is chosen, price being immaterial. Because if you were to go by the lowest tender option, I daresay the F-16 would have been the winner.

And then when it comes to HAL say that the determining factor is price and because Elta offer is lower than Thales so go by that metric. Implication being that for domestic production, second best is good enough because it meets the convoluted procurement criteria where the most important factor is that the MOD babu has to have a CYA back up.

The standard of the procurement is the same. Show me the documents otherwise. You are making the accusation, so provide the evidence.

[nachiket]

Or shall we say perpetually evolving not just training and tactics but the platform itself when the enemy is knocking at the doors. It is high time we rethink national interest and priorities first and be self critical. Tejas is meant to be frontline fighter replacing our ageing Mig 21s ... if a border war breaks out today then where are they now?

Has a full blown war broken out yet? How do you know what the IAF will or won't do with the Tejas squadron at its disposal if that situation arises? IAF involvement in current crisis has not gone beyond routine CAP missions using assets already available in theater. There has been no great surge or redeployment of assets to forward bases beyond the usual (yes Mig-29's in Leh have been observed for donkey years now). This is nowhere close to a Kargil like situation and even then, only a part of the IAF's strength was deployed in theater.

And every new aircraft type will take time to become operational. 1965 was all-out war and we used our brand new Mig-21's very sparingly for the same reason. By the time 1971 came around they were fully operational and gave a good account of themselves. Do you think the IAF will start flying CAP's on the Chinese border using Rafales if they were to be delivered today?

[Rakesh]

Is this still the Rafale thread? Why is LCA Mk1 thread being deprived of its resources and we are investing in foreign maal for discussion too?

Its okay. its is good to hash this out.

ldev is just frustrated that IAF is getting the Rafale over the F-16. He is providing entertainment for us all. Enjoy

This much takleef over losing a contest that was decided on 31 Jan 2012. Almost 10 years ago, but so hard to move on. My, oh my!

[ldev]

See my post above. You cannot have 2 different standards for procurement. One for imported aircraft where only the best of the best is chosen, price being immaterial. Because if you were to go by the lowest tender option, I daresay the F-16 would have been the winner.

And then when it comes to HAL say that the determining factor is price and because Elta offer is lower than Thales so go by that metric. Implication being that for domestic production, second best is good enough because it meets the convoluted procurement criteria where the most important factor is that the MOD babu has to have a CYA back up.

The standard of the procurement is the same. Show me the documents otherwise. You are making the accusation, so provide the evidence.

Asked how it had chosen the Elta ELM 2052 AESA radar for the Tejas Mark 1A and ruled out the Thales and Saab radars, HAL chief R Madhavan stated: “The contract has been finalised as per HAL’s techno-commercial (procurement) procedures and the lowest bidder was chosen.”

Like I said earlier for HAL the criteria is lowest bidder. For IAF direct procurement it is the most capable aircraft. 2 different standards.

[Rakesh]

Read what you have quoted above ---> lowest bidder (or L1) in the AESAR tender. That is from the HAL Chief.

31 Jan 2012, the MoD selected Rafale (L1) based on the submissions provided by Dassault and Airbus. Again lowest bidder.

It is the same thing.

[ldev]

Is this still the Rafale thread? Why is LCA Mk1 thread being deprived of its resources and we are investing in foreign maal for discussion too?

Its okay. its is good to hash this out.

ldev is just frustrated that IAF is getting the Rafale over the F-16. He is providing entertainment for us all. Enjoy

Sorry, I am frustrated that the IAF will have to do with just 32 Rafale whose AAMs provide the IAF clear dominance with anything that the PLAAF or PAF throws at them. When in fact with with the Thales/Meteor combination on the Tejas, the IAF would have had an infinitely greater number of aircraft with the same massive advantage in BVR capability.

The IAF needs numbers and this would have been the best way to get those numbers.

The F-16 support was there for the same reason. Within a given budget how does the IAF maximize it's numbers at a capability level which is superior to the PLAAF and PAF. With the 5 billion or 10 billion that the IAF will spend, how do you get the maximum number of platforms which surpass what the PLAAF and PAF can throw at the IAF. That is the bottom line.

[Aditya_V]

I dont think so, then why haggle 53000 crore to 39000 crore, if MOD/IAF says RBE 2 is required HAL would have gone along. There is a cost of an RBE which is much higher than the EL 2052, we don't the power requirements of the RBE 2 to be much more effective than the EL 2052, can one engine give enough power.

I think we are making a lot os assumptions based on limited info in public domain.

[Rakesh]

Sorry, I am frustrated that the IAF will have to do with just 32 Rafale whose AAMs provide the IAF clear dominance with anything that the PLAAF or PAF throws at them. When in fact with with the Thales/Meteor combination on the Tejas, the IAF would have had an infinitely greater number of aircraft with the same massive advantage in BVR capability.

The IAF needs numbers and this would have been the best way to get those numbers.

The F-16 support was there for the same reason. Within a given budget how does the IAF maximize it's numbers at a capability level which is superior to the PLAAF and PAF. With the 5 billion or 10 billion that the IAF will spend, how do you get the maximum number of platforms which surpass what the PLAAF and PAF can throw at the IAF. That is the bottom line.

Wow, I never knew that you decided to arbitrarily reduce the number of Rafales from 36 to 32.

And why would the Meteor provide dominance? PL-15 is coming on those JF-17s and they have a range of 300 km.

Where 300 km and where 150 km? Even AIM-120D does not have a range of 300 km. We will lose onlee.

[Rakesh]

I dont think so, then why haggle 53000 crore to 39000 crore, if MOD/IAF says RBE 2 is required HAL would have gone along. There is a cost of an RBE which is much higher than the EL 2052, we don't the power requirements of the RBE 2 to be much more effective than the EL 2052, can one engine give enough power.

I think we are making a lot os assumptions based on limited info in public domain.

Arey Bhai, why even go there? Why use logic? Let him continue....

[nachiket]

MBDA refused to integrate the Meteor onto our Mirage-2000's as part of the upgrade. The M2k is a French aircraft with a French radar and we paid around $40mil per aircraft for the upgrade. And ldev here is convinced they would have happily integrated the Meteor onto the Tejas, if only we bought the Thales radar and even if they had, we could have actually afforded it.

[ldev]

I dont think so, then why haggle 53000 crore to 39000 crore, if MOD/IAF says RBE 2 is required HAL would have gone along. There is a cost of an RBE which is much higher than the EL 2052, we don't the power requirements of the RBE 2 to be much more effective than the EL 2052, can one engine give enough power.

I think we are making a lot os assumptions based on limited info in public domain.

Read that article I posted above in which Thales in October 2017 said they have developed a AESA solution for the Tejas based on the RBE-2AA radar, that is fully compliant with HAL requirements.

[Rakesh]

[ldev]

MBDA refused to integrate the Meteor onto our Mirage-2000's as part of the upgrade. The M2k is a French aircraft with a French radar and we paid around $40mil per aircraft for the upgrade. And ldev here is convinced they would have happily integrated the Meteor onto the Tejas, if only we bought the RBE2 radar and even if they had, we could have actually afforded it.

Because the radar on the Mirage 2000 will not be able to guide the Meteor to it's full range. You can integrate the Meteor with the 2000 provided you change the radar on it also and the IAF did not want to do.

Just like the Canadian Air Force got AMRAAM 120Ds for it's CF-18s but the AAM cannot be used to it's full range because being older aircraft they do not have a more modern AESA radar. Same thing. Now the Canadian Air Force is upgrading to the AN/APG-79 Raytheon radars to enable full use of the 120D.

[Kartik]

The standard of the procurement is the same. Show me the documents otherwise. You are making the accusation, so provide the evidence.

Asked how it had chosen the Elta ELM 2052 AESA radar for the Tejas Mark 1A and ruled out the Thales and Saab radars, HAL chief R Madhavan stated: “The contract has been finalised as per HAL’s techno-commercial (procurement) procedures and the lowest bidder was chosen.”

Like I said earlier for HAL the criteria is lowest bidder. For IAF direct procurement it is the most capable aircraft. 2 different standards.

Lowest bidder that MEETS the requirement. Elta 2052 met all the requirements, and HAL already had a history of working with Elta on the 2032 and 2052 radar for the DARIN3 upgrade.

the F-16IN that was offered to India for MRCA, to be honest, would've met nearly all of the IAF's requirements, but there was and possibly still is a big bias against it due to the PAF association and also being an American fighter. Being single engine, it would've had a slightly higher attrition rate than twin engine MRCAs, but it would've been the most cost effective of the MRCAs offered, apart from the MiG-35.

I still feel the F-21 is a great jet and will once again meet all of the IAF's MRFA requirements, but won't be able to surmount the institutional bias against it.

Hence, our best bet is the Rafale, and the bulwark to be formed then by the Tejas Mk2 MWF.

[nachiket]

MBDA refused to integrate the Meteor onto our Mirage-2000's as part of the upgrade. The M2k is a French aircraft with a French radar and we paid around $40mil per aircraft for the upgrade. And ldev here is convinced they would have happily integrated the Meteor onto the Tejas, if only we bought the RBE2 radar and even if they had, we could have actually afforded it.

Because the radar on the Mirage 2000 will not be able to guide the Meteor to it's full range. You can integrate the Meteor with the 2000 provided you change the radar on it also and the IAF did not want to do.

The upgrade included the switch from the older RDM radar on our M2k's to the RDY. And that radar has a good enough range to make use of the Meteor's higher range. It would certainly give it a significantly longer reach than the MICA. Also, it was the IAF who wanted it. What was the problem the French had exactly, if we were ready to pay for it?

[basant]

This much takleef over losing a contest that was decided on 27 April 2011. Almost 10 years ago, but so hard to move on. My, oh my!

I remember reading long time back, not sure if it was on BRF, that LCA does not have the required power for radar (also considering its radar diameter) to exploit Meteor's range. If it is true, and I would like to know if it is so, RBE2 and Meteor would be moot. Of course one can still argue on higher NEZ, but I-Derby ER should have a comparable NEZ at a much more affordable cost.

[Rakesh]

Like I said earlier for HAL the criteria is lowest bidder. For IAF direct procurement it is the most capable aircraft. 2 different standards.

Lowest bidder that MEETS the requirement. Elta 2052 met all the requirements, and HAL already had a history of working with Elta on the 2032 and 2052 radar for the DARIN3 upgrade.

The bolded section is inconsequential to ldev. That is just a minor quibble

Unfortunately for him, that is not how the MoD works. Oh well....

[Rakesh]

This much takleef over losing a contest that was decided on 27 April 2011. Almost 10 years ago, but so hard to move on. My, oh my!

I remember reading long time back, not sure if it was on BRF, that LCA does not have the required power for radar (also considering its radar diameter) to exploit Meteor's range. If it is true, and I would like to know if it is so, RBE2 and Meteor would be moot. Of course one can still argue on higher NEZ, but I-Derby ER should have a comparable NEZ at a much more affordable cost.

Cost is a bad word...hush basant hush!

[nachiket]

This much takleef over losing a contest that was decided on 27 April 2011. Almost 10 years ago, but so hard to move on. My, oh my!

I remember reading long time back, not sure if it was on BRF, that LCA does not have the required power for radar (also considering its radar diameter) to exploit Meteor's range. If it is true, and I would like to know if it is so, RBE2 and Meteor would be moot. Of course one can still argue on higher NEZ, but I-Derby ER should have a comparable NEZ at a much more affordable cost.

This entire Meteor argument is a red herring. The IAF chief has himself expressed confidence in the Astra Mk1's performance after the final tests and given it a thumbs up. It is enough for our current requirements and the Mk2 and SFDR are in the pipeline. And the Tejas will get all of these.

[ldev]

Because the radar on the Mirage 2000 will not be able to guide the Meteor to it's full range. You can integrate the Meteor with the 2000 provided you change the radar on it also and the IAF did not want to do.

The upgrade included the switch from the older RDM radar on our M2k's to the RDY. And that radar has a good enough range to make use of the Meteor's higher range. It would certainly give it a significantly longer reach than the MICA. Also, it was the IAF who wanted it. What was the problem the French had exactly, if we were ready to pay for it?

Akshay Vartak Flag of India
@akshayvartak84
·
Jul 10, 2019
Is it technically feasible to have MBDA Meteor Air to Air Missile on Mirage 2000?This has not been tried by French Air Force. I know that MICA missle is possible.

Vishnu Som
@VishnuNDTV
·
Jul 10, 2019
Doesnt make sense unless the RDY radar of the upgraded Mirage is changed. The missile greatly outranges the radar presently.

Hope this answers your question.

[ldev]

Lowest bidder that MEETS the requirement. Elta 2052 met all the requirements, and HAL already had a history of working with Elta on the 2032 and 2052 radar for the DARIN3 upgrade.

the F-16IN that was offered to India for MRCA, to be honest, would've met nearly all of the IAF's requirements, but there was and possibly still is a big bias against it due to the PAF association and also being an American fighter. Being single engine, it would've had a slightly higher attrition rate than twin engine MRCAs, but it would've been the most cost effective of the MRCAs offered, apart from the MiG-35.

I still feel the F-21 is a great jet and will once again meet all of the IAF's MRFA requirements, but won't be able to surmount the institutional bias against it.

Hence, our best bet is the Rafale, and the bulwark to be formed then by the Tejas Mk2 MWF.

Totally agree. Institutional bias and then forum bias

[Kartik]

This much takleef over losing a contest that was decided on 27 April 2011. Almost 10 years ago, but so hard to move on. My, oh my!

I remember reading long time back, not sure if it was on BRF, that LCA does not have the required power for radar (also considering its radar diameter) to exploit Meteor's range. If it is true, and I would like to know if it is so, RBE2 and Meteor would be moot. Of course one can still argue on higher NEZ, but I-Derby ER should have a comparable NEZ at a much more affordable cost.

No way that the I-Derby ER's NEZ is comparable to the Meteor's. The Meteor is powered all the way to the end. the I-Derby ER has a dual pulse motor but depending on the range at which it is used and the second pulse kicks in, the NEZ will vary.

[basant]

Hope this answers your question.

My questions was about RBE-2, not RDY.

[basant]

Cost is a bad word...hush basant hush!

With a little luck, we'd beat India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 thread using LCA in Rafale thread.

[brar_w]

I remember reading long time back, not sure if it was on BRF, that LCA does not have the required power for radar (also considering its radar diameter) to exploit Meteor's range. If it is true, and I would like to know if it is so, RBE2 and Meteor would be moot. Of course one can still argue on higher NEZ, but I-Derby ER should have a comparable NEZ at a much more affordable cost.

No way that the I-Derby ER's NEZ is comparable to the Meteor's. The Meteor is powered all the way to the end. the I-Derby ER has a dual pulse motor but depending on the range at which it is used and the second pulse kicks in, the NEZ will vary.

Missile diameter also matters. You can pulse but if you have a smaller diameter and overall dimensions you are also limited in the volume for the propellant regardless of any staging or pulsed operations (seeker aperture size benefits aside). So some of that need to pulse will come because of the need to offset that disadvantage. Extending the range by pulsing the motor is a good and affordable way but I'm sure if money and schedule was not an object the Israelis would have preferred a 7 or 7+ " missile with single or dual pulsed capability. That seems to be the sweet spot for that class of MRAAM's.

[basant]

No way that the I-Derby ER's NEZ is comparable to the Meteor's. The Meteor is powered all the way to the end. the I-Derby ER has a dual pulse motor but depending on the range at which it is used and the second pulse kicks in, the NEZ will vary.

I-Derby ER has dual pulse. I think the lowest NEZ of Meteor stated was around 60km. The actual NEZs wouldn't be disclosed. As IAF did not crib about it so it's safe to say that they are happy with I-Derby ER.

[nachiket]

Hope this answers your question.

BVRAAM's are rarely fired at the edge of their engagement envelopes. The MICA especially which is the only BVRAAM that the M2k can use (unlike the Tejas which can use the Astra and i-Derby) has a range disadvantage against the AMRAAM. Having the Meteor available could have helped considering the Meteor has a much larger NEZ and would have a higher pk than the MICA at the same range allowing it to be fired earlier in actual combat even if it is not at its own max range.

[ramana]

I'd suggest reading up on the interview with the chief test pilot of the LCA tejas program in Hush kit.

The LCA is fully combat ready but at the same time it's still an evolving and maturing platform. It's armed with astra and derby as a2a missiles and capable of undertaking CAP and limited penetrative ground strike missions including delivery of precision weapons.

As far as pushing it into the current crisis goes, if necessary it will be deployed but given that it's training and tactics are still evolving, this is not the most optimum option currently.

Please give this quote.
I thought Tejas was qualified with Derby only.
I don't know why both IAF and DRDO did not push for atleast captive flights of Astra on Tejas.
everything was only about Su-30MKI integration and Tejas later.

Thanks in advance.

[Kartik]

No way that the I-Derby ER's NEZ is comparable to the Meteor's. The Meteor is powered all the way to the end. the I-Derby ER has a dual pulse motor but depending on the range at which it is used and the second pulse kicks in, the NEZ will vary.

I-Derby ER has dual pulse. I think the lowest NEZ of Meteor stated was around 60km. The actual NEZs wouldn't be disclosed. As IAF did not crib about it so it's safe to say that they are happy with I-Derby ER.

NEZ is not just about a range. It is an envelope, basically a bubble within which the targeted enemy fighter cannot escape. The IAF hasn't yet ordered I-Derby ER, or at least there is no publicly known order for it from the IAF. We still are using old IN Derby stocks for the Tejas Mk1 fleet.

[fanne]

Guys enough of this juvenile tutu mai mai
There is war going on, can we focus on that. Every time I come to see if any bird has landed and I see 7th grade fight, my daddy is bigger than yours. Please there is option of private messaging, take it out there and spare the rest.