India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 May 2011 01:55

Take that is guarantee if none of these europeans could provide value addition, we will cancel the mmrca contract. Unkill would be looking for such happening, which is why I think our MoD and service forces have done an intelligent job of eliminating the khan crafts. Now these european mftrs are vulnerable and finessed if they don't provide us the required.

Soon..MoD and GoI will be hell bent on LCA Mk2 and AMCA numbers rather MMRCA. Whatever that is need to jump start or boost LCA/AMCA technology, we shall look for it here. It is a wonderful decision to go against the khans.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 01 May 2011 02:08

I am no expert at aviation, but after reading a lot of posts and all the technical sides to the arguments that people have posted.

I feel that if GoI can manage the uncertainties, the fickleness and bickering of the 4 partners in the EADS, India should go in for the EF Typhoon. But managing that relationship is GoI's job, no IAF's job.

4 partners means that economic instability in one will affect the growth and upgradation process of the fighter as a whole. The 4 current partners are themselves aware of this fact which is why they are welcoming India in to stabilize things a bit. But one has to consider this fact - all the partners are eager to reduce the number of their ordered aircraft, and will not be very keen to keep upgrading. IAF usually runs its fighters for many more number of years than the europeans do, and the IAF still upgrades them then.

But that having being said, the EF-Typhoon seems to have a brighter future, though both EF and Rafale are really really closely matched.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 May 2011 02:33

According to this Rafale's payload is unbelievable:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... page1.aspx

Rafale has excellent payload for its small size. Officially Rafale C can carry a incredible 20900 pounds of payload despite the fact that it is slightly smaller than Typhoon which can carry only 16500 pounds.

The payload of Rafale C is also officially MORE than F-18EF ( F-18EF is 42% larger than rafale C, but F-18ef carries only 17700 pound officially).

And this is not all. When Rafale get its uprated M88-3 engine and when the new 3000 liter (792.6gals) center line external fuel tank is being qualified for use, rafale external payload weight will further increase to almost 23000 pound !!! Thats almost the same as the 24000 pounds achieve by the 50-65% larger F-15E.

Rafale C MTOW will soon be increase to 60,000 pounds. Rafale C is about 20680 pound when empty. Its MTOW to empty weight ratio is 2.9 times !!

F-15E MTOW to empty ratio is 2.56 or less. F-15E probably rank second.

No other airplane is close or even close. eurofighter Typhoon MTWO to empty weight is only 2.14 !

Even if Rafale's capabilities are equal or slightly lesser, imagine the saving fuel and manpower for IAF.

Where is JeanM these days? He should be back to bring more news regarding this wonderful machine!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 May 2011 02:36

sohels wrote:How does an aircraft that has a thrust ratio of nearly 1, fail to takeoff from anywhere? A fully loaded Boeing 737 has no problems in taking off from Leh.

Fully loaded huh? care to let us know what the Pax payload, cargo payload and fuel is for a Boeing 737 taking off from Leh? Oh, and keep in mind that temperatures are not constant throughout the year and nor are head-winds or tail-winds, all of which impact take-off performance.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2011 03:02

Indranil - I am not trying to prove how good these two aircraft types are. I was just attempting to point out that these two aircraft, when developed to their potential, will not be any less than the Su-30 MKI in many areas, and may in fact offer niche capabilities that exceed those of others. BTW a gent from Brazil had shared some facts on the net - he is a Brazilian parliamentary officer and journalist who had the chance to interact with IAF officers when they visited Brazil to discuss Brazil's FX-2 offer. Quick notes- Rafale met IAF A2A requirements and dominated A2G, and even the US guys noted that its Spectra EW suite was top notch. My point is if we get source codes & customization plus local manufacture, the IAF's strike capabilities will go up many many times over and seriously, if the PAF/PLAAF fanboys even did a fraction of the research on either type, they should be really wailing about how the IAF's combat punch will increase by a magnitude that is not even funny. Imagine, EF or Rafale with Meteors being datalinked by fighters tracking targets on passive feed or from AEW&C. The NEZ of this system makes it a BVR king

indranilroy wrote:What I don't understand is IAF's to-be operational structure. Beyond 2020 IAF plans to now maintain approximately 280 Su-30s, 120 EF/Rafales (probably the 3 of the 4 most expensive fourth gen planes to maintain, the 4th being the F-15), 250 FGFAs and then nothing all the way till 140 LCAs! Is this a good economical set up of operation?

AMCAs joining in from 2025-2030 from the look of things be the first planes to bridge the huge gap between the Su-30s/MMRCA/FGFAs and the LCAs

The world over, AFs seem to exhibit a pyramidal structure of much more numerous lower/middle planes are pressed in after the frontline planes have provided some kind of air superiority. For a given amount of money to spend this hierarchical structure makes perfect economic sense to me. While the IAF is completely upside-down. It will by 2030 have 720-850 frontline planes and about 200 odd planes to come in later. I kind of don't understand this.

There is nothing to understand here...its just what we have to live with. The IAF is a menagerie of different types (often) purchased thanks to a combination of politics and cheap availability (eg some MiG series) to western types which were too expensive to acquire in bulk (exception being the Jaguar). Now add the PLAAF transition to a heavy -medium fighter force & the IAF is scrambling to adapt. So on the one hand they want more technology because they they have less fighters, on the one hand they want to replace their medium weight strike fighters with fighters of a similar size category and at the same time, they want imports but local industry is increasingly important because acquisitions from abroad come with strings and are more and more expensive. Add all this up and hence you have the compromises you mentioned. Countries which adopt a unified 2-3 tier force with single types have to make compromises - either purchase whats available locally (eg China with J-10) or acquire the best at the cost of local industry (eg UK favoring JSF despite presence of EF Typhoon). We have to balance our long term needs versus our short term security requirements hence there are often different types.

Basically for heavy fighters, we'll have Su-30 MKIs & FGFAs (around 27 squadrons in all) replacing some of the older Jags as well
The MiG-27 series and a portion of the MiG-21 fleet will be replaced by the MMRCA: around six squadrons
Another bunch of MiG-21 Bisons plus MOFTU, around 6-8 squadrons will be replaced by the LCA.

The remaining Jaguars, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s - some 220 aircraft, 11 squadrons and more, will need to be replaced by the AMCA but probably in lesser numbers, say 8 squadrons

So basically IAF is moving to a heavy (more than 60%) , medium (30%), rest will be light fighters (10% but still a sizeable 140-160 aircraft order)

The combination of technology plus force multipliers should allow us to face the two front conflict issue reasonably well. We are basically moving from a light dominated, medium rest force - to a force with around 60% heavies,

So thats 4 types versus: Mig-21, MiG-23, MiG-27, MiG-25, MiG-29, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 earlier. Out of which we did not manufacture several of these in India (MiG-23,25,29, Mirage)
An improvement at any rate since more of these spares will be sourced locally.

Also, please dont underestimate offsets. Thanks to offset requirements, vendors will either set up subsidiaries in India or transfer critical process knowledge (in the process building up local firms capable of meeting stringent aerospace level certifications). There is going to be a substantial boom for aerospace, IT, ECE, mechanical engineers with $5Bn of offset work flowing back to Indian firms. Even if half goes to PSUs, the rest is not chump change.

And your point of EF/Rafale being cheaper to maintain: time will tell. At present, from news coming out from UK/France, and other evaluations from elsewhere, it doesn't seem to be the case. But your point is valid that how do we compare it against the operational cost of the Su-30. It is not competing anywhere, and the guys operating it will never divulge the numbers.

It is not a question of cheaper to maintain alone, it is a case of easier to maintain. Remember BITE is added to key Su-30 avionics and there is EF standard automated data collection and fatigue monitoring system, but the original Flanker was the basis of the Su-30 MKI, and the Russians were not really short of manpower. In short, the Rafale and EF should take fewer MMH per flight hour, which means fewer people, which translates to cost but most importantly time & people availability. So the Su-30 MKI is a far cry from earlier planes and quite comparable to (say) the Strike Eagles etc, but the Rafale and EF should be one step ahead. Don't go by news from UK/France media alone - they (like ours) tend to sensationalize stuff, and with budget cuts, they are not funding their fleets properly despite trying to project power. Over time though, with more and more subsystem production moved to India, things will be pretty ok for our aircraft fleets.
One big thing is also risk mitigation. We are now multi-sourcing our fleet and thats a good thing from the risk point of view.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 May 2011 03:10

^ Boss one question how dependent are autonav and TERPROM on military grade GPS coordinates ?

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 01 May 2011 03:15

Rafale gets air launched brahmos on its center pylon. There are no known integration issues of french and indo-russian stuff on one bird.
And an official release will be issued for 200+ AC after the L1(which is rafale ) is short listed.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 01 May 2011 03:21

Regarding Leh takeoffs

Quote from Wikipedia Leh airport article

Also, due to the presence of mountain winds in the afternoon, all flights in Leh take off and land in the morning, around 7:00 am.

AJames · Post by **AJames** » 01 May 2011 03:23

Manish_Sharma wrote:According to this Rafale's payload is unbelievable:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... page1.aspx

Rafale has excellent payload for its small size. Officially Rafale C can carry a incredible 20900 pounds of payload despite the fact that it is slightly smaller than Typhoon which can carry only 16500 pounds.

The payload of Rafale C is also officially MORE than F-18EF ( F-18EF is 42% larger than rafale C, but F-18ef carries only 17700 pound officially).

And this is not all. When Rafale get its uprated M88-3 engine and when the new 3000 liter (792.6gals) center line external fuel tank is being qualified for use, rafale external payload weight will further increase to almost 23000 pound !!! Thats almost the same as the 24000 pounds achieve by the 50-65% larger F-15E.

Rafale C MTOW will soon be increase to 60,000 pounds. Rafale C is about 20680 pound when empty. Its MTOW to empty weight ratio is 2.9 times !!

F-15E MTOW to empty ratio is 2.56 or less. F-15E probably rank second.

No other airplane is close or even close. eurofighter Typhoon MTWO to empty weight is only 2.14 !
Even if Rafale's capabilities are equal or slightly lesser, imagine the saving fuel and manpower for IAF.

Where is JeanM these days? He should be back to bring more news regarding this wonderful machine!

I think the Eurofighter, although it has a lot of promise, is a dead end due to the fact that most of its European partners have lost interest. the British want the F35 and won't do much with the Eurofighter. The Italians and Spanish are saddled with huge national debts and so don't want to spend on it, and the Germans who are saddled with paying for loans to the other European debtor countries, are keen on cutting back on orders. Unlike Rafael which has full air to ground and carrier based capability and fully developed systems now, I fear if India goes for the Eurofighter, the Indian taxpayer will be saddled with footing the bill for the necessary development for the benefit of the European companies involved.

Two more possible advantages of the Rafael are that the future Kaveri Mk II being developed for the AMCA by GTRE/SNECMA is about the right size to be fitted in the Rafael as an upgrade, and since the Rafael's radar diameter is 550mm compared with the LCA's 650mm, the same radar can be fitted on both LCA and Rafael. These are potential money savers as well as allowing indigenous supply of these two critical components which is insurance against sanctions in future. The Rafael will complement the LCA well - the former being a very capable ground attack aircraft with the necessary weight lifting and avionics capability to do the job, while the LCA Mk II will be an excellent lightweight point defence aircraft.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 01 May 2011 03:26

Gagan wrote:I am no expert at aviation, but after reading a lot of posts and all the technical sides to the arguments that people have posted.

I feel that if GoI can manage the uncertainties, the fickleness and bickering of the 4 partners in the EADS, India should go in for the EF Typhoon. But managing that relationship is GoI's job, no IAF's job.

4 partners means that economic instability in one will affect the growth and upgradation process of the fighter as a whole. The 4 current partners are themselves aware of this fact which is why they are welcoming India in to stabilize things a bit. But one has to consider this fact - all the partners are eager to reduce the number of their ordered aircraft, and will not be very keen to keep upgrading. IAF usually runs its fighters for many more number of years than the europeans do, and the IAF still upgrades them then.

But that having being said, the EF-Typhoon seems to have a brighter future, though both EF and Rafale are really really closely matched.

Even the consortium knows, if its between them and french,french can pull the plug easily. French are known for their evil indoo sort business practices and when it comes to India they had their reserved spot without anyone else can spy on.
The 2 shortlisted is only to bring down the cost and except some more goodies.
While comparing the gains of involvement in the consortium of 5 and the hazzles and risks and time over runs along with cost over runs , pains will go easily beyond any gains of monetary value. Hey I have 36 AC built and waiting for landing gears which are supossed to come from one of the consortium coutires. And then lets say Italy is the one and it outsourced the work to manufacturers in germany and spain.Lol we will be building the aircraft till the end of next decade. and by the time we fly it it will be obsolete.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 01 May 2011 03:39

Karan M,
I feel that you are overestimating the advantage that TERPROM will give to Rafale. I mean, passiveness aside, the radar altimeter is good enough for low altitude flying. Even in baseline Su-27, flying at low altitude was never a problem. In Su-27, when switched to Basic or NAV mode, the radar altimeter reading is effortlessly visible in the middle right of HUD. So, that was no problem even in baseline Su-27.
But MKI has perhaps the best SAR out there. Add to that the excellent payload capacity, range and Brahmos integration, MKI is as good as Rafale in strike role.

In A2A, Rafale is of no match. Leaving the maneuverability aside, the datalink and the gigantic BARS radar convert MKI practically into a mini AEWAC (and that's no exaggeration). Also, the Rafale's IRST is immature to say the least. Compare that with the OLS-30. There is not even a contest.

The RCS reducing measures in Rafale and EF are nearly meaningless against powerful radars like BARS and APG-79. Surely, Dassault is not going to tell us that Rafale will be invisible to BARS even within a 100km radius! And you know that BVR shots are not taken even near that range. So, I am leaving a lot of extra room here.

The only thing in favour of Rafale is Spectra. If that indeed performs as per its hype, then R118 may not be good enough.

To make myself clear, I am not against Rafale. In fact, Rafale has always been my choice for MMRCA from the start. It is just that, like indranil, I was always mystified by the whole MRCA saga itself. Buying more Su-30s always seemed more a logical choice to me.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 01 May 2011 03:45

The 2 shortlisted is only to bring down the cost and except some more goodies.

that is another thing Uncle can do. they can *secretly* whisper to EADS that it's a dog and pony show and that they have "very credible" sources which tell them that Rafale is done deal.....indirectly shafting India by making sure that price competition becomes non-issue and we end up spending the highest quote from the French. Uncle is very capable of such pettiness. for that matter, every country is capable of that. if it comes to it, we'll just have to suck it up and keep our chins raised. nothing we can do about it. although, it depends if EADS believes it or not.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 01 May 2011 04:20

I second the thoughts of Indranil and Gaur. When MKI can do the job and is much cheaper why we need this whole MMRCA business? May be one small advantage is diversification. Does that justify the extra cost and problems involved. I do not know.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 May 2011 04:26

jaladipc wrote: Even the consortium knows, if its between them and french,french can pull the plug easily. French are known for their evil indoo sort business practices and when it comes to India they had their reserved spot without anyone else can spy on.
The 2 shortlisted is only to bring down the cost and except some more goodies.
While comparing the gains of involvement in the consortium of 5 and the hazzles and risks and time over runs along with cost over runs , pains will go easily beyond any gains of monetary value. Hey I have 36 AC built and waiting for landing gears which are supossed to come from one of the consortium coutires. And then lets say Italy is the one and it outsourced the work to manufacturers in germany and spain.Lol we will be building the aircraft till the end of next decade. and by the time we fly it it will be obsolete.

UK Complained about the same.

If we go for Rafale, will they take our Mirages?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 May 2011 04:27

One good outcome is whining on MRCA thread is confined to only two planes now!

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 May 2011 04:58

I thought we were done with the whining about why not order more MKIs onlee in the previous thread itself?

One - More numbers in half the time. HAL is at max cap in MKI production? As is Irkut? can't really throw more money and get more mki's or something like that.

Two - risk amortisation. 3/4th of the entire fleet will be russian if we just get more MKIs. Already we're facing enough problems with spares and support from the russians wrt the MKIs. Not to mention maintenance costs for operation and upkeep of the MKIs.

Three - Tech. By getting a western a/c, we get tech of a different and possibly advanced kind. This is not limited to the aircraft itself but the payload too. Particularly BVR AAMs and AASM types. The R-77 replacement isn't in sight and our own stocks are ageing. We need a newer and better performing stock for the next so many odd years until we get the R-77 replacement.

Four - Influence. By putting $10 bil on the table, we will be able to use it for our foreign policy if we play our cards right.

Five - Personnel. MKI is a 2-pilot bird. Rafale and EF will for the most part be single pilot birds. Pilot shortage is a serious issue and for the same number of aircraft, number of pilots needed will be close to half of that needed for the MKIs.

And these are just off the top of my head. People, please. Answers to this question are all over the previous thread. Lets not rehash the whole discussion again.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 May 2011 05:09

Regarding Rafale here are some interesting facts:

-Dassault offered full ToT on rafale to Brazil.
-Dassault submitted a tender to supply 28 armed aircraft to Kuwait. The price being asked is €3.9 billion, to which another €800 million is added for weapons.
- IOL says: UAE has asked the company to look into fitting the aircraft with SLAM ER/2 missiles, manufactured by Boeing, instead of MBDAAM39. The Emiratis say they want missiles capable of reaching targets deep inside Iranian territory, and while the AM39 has a range of 100kms, the SLAM ER/2 can travel 200-250kms. Apart from the U.S., only two countries have SLAM ER/2. South Korea has 47 of the missiles while Turkey has 50. Fitting Rafale with SLAM ER/2 would present technical but also commercial difficulties for Dassault, which would have to cut MBDA out of the picture.

UAE has walled their purchase of rafale in 2009 (was cleared up later but is now stalled over offsets) for following reasons:

Apart from hints by both sides about the reasons why Dassault Aviation’s efforts to sell the Rafale fighter to the United Arab Emirates are stalled (engine thrust, Meteor missiles, etc), the range of the fighter’s radar is holding up the transaction with Abu Dhabi. Dassault says it is ready to fit Rafale out with all options, and particular the AESA RBE2 radar built by Thales. The French air force’s Rafales won’t have the radar until 2012. The radar’s range is 50% greater than that of the passive radars on French Mirage 2000s currently in service in Abu Dhabi. But the emirate would like even greater range so that it won’t be caught off guard by any attack by Iran. The improvement will add quite a lot to the development costs, and the French don’t want to pay the bill alone.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2011 05:41

indranilroy wrote: So please answer a simple a question:
Why should I pay more to do less work than what a Su-30 can?

The MKI weighs 25 tons loaded
EF - 16 tons
Rafale 14 tons.

The per-sortie fuel cost is likely to be correspondingly higher for the MKI simply because it has to lug so much more weight around. The cost of fuel is never ever considered in our calculations. If 30% of the IAFs sorties are taken over by one of the European jets as opposed to allowing the MKI to do 60% - it translates to a huge saving in fuel consumption and costs.

There is a good chance that some of these Euro engines have a better fuel consumption figure and MTBF than Russian engines. The presence of TV is added weight, complexity and fuel consumption anyway. Even if TV is not used in 80% of routine flights - the extra weight is lugged around.

The number of pilots required is also decreased somewhat because the MKI must fly with two.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 May 2011 05:42

Prasad wrote:Five - Personnel. MKI is a 2-pilot bird. Rafale and EF will for the most part be single pilot birds. Pilot shortage is a serious issue and for the same number of aircraft, number of pilots needed will be close to half of that needed for the MKIs.

The IAF loves the twin cockpit system and in their own words, "Two pairs of eyes are always better than one." But pilot shortage is a serious issue and I am not sure how they are addressing that. But I would not doubt if they ordered a significant number (if not all) of twin seater Rafale/Typhoon aircraft.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2011 05:45

negi wrote:
Karan M wrote:About the only thing "missing" in the Rafale is its radar size. If they had scaled up that nose for a larger set
Boss how diffilcult is it modify the fore section to allow for a Radar antenna of higher aperture ?

That would kill the area ruling (see - I am such an expert - I know the words "area ruling - so there!)that has been used. the sunken cheeks I am sure is to produce an aerodynamically efficient body.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 May 2011 06:00

Can the Euro or Rafale engine be used on follow-on LCA or the AMACA?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2011 06:07

If you ignore other factors, the MKI ends up carrying 50-60% more weight and 100% more pilots than either of the two European fighters. Weight wise 2 MKI sorties would cost as much as 3 Eurobird sorties. That means that for approximately the same fuel consumption one could do 300 sorties on Euro birds versus 200 on the MKI, and a corresponding ratio of man hours required. It also means that if an air base is to house one squadron of MKIs it would need twice the space for pilot accommodation that as singe seater squadron would require.

I don't know the number of personnel required for maintenance per MKI. Is there any public information on number per Eurobird? The Europeans may well have deesigned for reducing the personnel costs. I am not sure if that thinking was current when the Su-27, the mother of Su-30 was designed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 May 2011 06:29

Shiv, Is it possible to have two sets of crews for these planes just like subs have to increase the utilization factors.

Also can you comment on the institutional factors that made the IAF put such high emphasis on meeting the parameters and not budging?

Can you comment on earlier plane selections like Gnat, Hunter, Jaguar etc. I recall we have an article on how the Mig 21 was chosen in the archives.

Contrast this with how Bofors gun the second choice got selected.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2011 06:58

ramana I don't have clear answers to your questions, but I am certain that it is normal practice to have more crews than planes. That becomes vital at wartime when the planes may have to be flown at a blistering sortie rate and fresh pilots should be available. In peacetime a lot of pilots get posted in various other places for other duties.

I don't think it would have been that difficult for the IAF to reach a decision about those 600 plus parameters. The parameters themselves are surely well known - and probably include things like turn rate climb rate, fuel consumption, turn around time etc which are objective and can be measured with a stop watch or some other measuring device - so no chance of bias - especially because the manufacturers test pilots would have been present to verify. I am sure they even countersigned the data sheet (my guess). Other things like cockpit comfort, ergonomics and view are subjective and were probably scored on a scale of 1 to 10 or something by more than one pilot.

I have no knowledge about the Gnat and Hunter selections - both were in service by the time I got hooked on to military aircraft as a little boy. But I am certain that the IAF used the same objective evaluation for both DPSA (Jaguar/Viggen/F-1) and AJT (Hawk/Alpha jet). In fact AM Rajkumar has a fascinating article on the comparison he did between the Hawk and Alphajet, but political considerations delayed the choice greatly. I can't recall what they were - need to look it up again.

But I think this is the first time we have had a "global" fly off. Earlier political considerations and money limited our choices. I suppose the Chinese could have entered the race with the J-10. But they did not

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 May 2011 07:17

shiv wrote: That would kill the area ruling (see - I am such an expert - I know the words "area ruling - so there!)that has been used. the sunken cheeks I am sure is to produce an aerodynamically efficient body.

Boss I am technically challenged myself ; to clarify I am of the view that of all the fighter AC I have seen (person/pics) Rafale has shortest nose cone section specially in front of the canopy; I was wondering if it could be elongated and hence effective diameter available to the Radar antenna could be increased. Mirage and Harrier family did that back in 80s , not sure as to how big an engg. challenge is it to do the same with Rafale.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 May 2011 07:27

shiv wrote:
negi wrote: Boss how diffilcult is it modify the fore section to allow for a Radar antenna of higher aperture ?
That would kill the area ruling (see - I am such an expert - I know the words "area ruling - so there!)that has been used. the sunken cheeks I am sure is to produce an aerodynamically efficient body.

The are ruling could have been done in various ways. in fact that shape is not the most optimized as it increases skin drag. That shape is for using the forebody to ram air into the inlets at higher AoA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 May 2011 07:29

Karan M wrote:Your premise is wrong that a Rafale or EF can necessarily do less than what a Su-30 can do. Nor are you considering the technology upgrade HAL will retool for via the assembly of the Rafale & EF. Precision manufacturing to the highest tolerance will be critical for future programs.

But lets get to capabilities.
Please go to Flightglobal and read on the Rafale's integrated FBW, autonav and Terprom capabilities. These make it a phenomenal striker. The Su-30 MKI does not have Terprom which if i remember, both Rafale and EF have. The use of GIS data with Terprom tightly integrated into the Navigation system makes the Rafale perfect for strike roles, flying at extreme low levels (radar horizon reduced). It was designed to penetrate heavily defended SAM networks as part of the French nuclear deterrent. Hence the entire focus on low observability built into the airframe. The Su-30 MKI OTOH relies on TFR (which can trigger warnings) or otherwise, medium high alt strikes with PGMs like the KAB-500, KH-59MK, Kh-31 & in the future Nirbhay & Brahmos. Having said, that, the Rafale option may well turn out to be more cost effective against heavy integrated IADS as it would need less jamming support thanks to its discrete terrain hugging capabilities, and the phenomenal AASM - which it can target upto six, on the fly, in a single sortie. The light fighters are nowhere as capable, when carrying a heavy load.

Furthermore, two pilots, or even 1 pilot + WSO for the MKI puts more strain on the IAF training infrastructure. While exact numbers are not likely to be released, its likely the MKI has higher MMH/FH than the EF and Rafale which were designed a generation later, and will hence incorporate more iterative improvements in maintainability. Less ground crew, simply put. Again, an investment which pays off over time.

Similarly, the EF is quite comparable to the Su-30 in Air to Air, though it lags in Air to Ground which capabilities can be integrated over time. It needs avionics upgrades and software releases not airframe improvements and these are possible.

What you & many of the Gripen advocates simply dont understand is that the Gripen was never good enough to go head to head and win, on a consistent basis, against the kind of fighters the PLAAF is now fielding. The Flanker series has been reverse engineered by the PLAAF and even with their lower baseline technology, the sheer size of the radar aperture and the massive thrust available allows for PLAAF Flankers to do reasonably well in BVR & the Flanker is no slouch in WVR as well, with HMCS and R-73E/Local Chinese missiles. Just look at the J-20 nose.

Nor was the Gripen reasonably equipped to deal with a representative threat IADS. The two American fighters were good there, but the airframe performance of the Viper has suffered over the years as more and more weight has been added on, Pakistan operates but one variant before, and the Hornet would fare third best to Rafale and EF in A2A. Never mind, that with the LCA, the IAF has a light fighter covered.

So basically, MMRCA
- Cheaper logistical footprint (including personnel) than MKI
- Risk mitigation (preventing overreliance on Russia)
- Tech infusion in manufacturing & offsets to Indian industry
- Provides capabilities that are world class and in some cases unique - eg Spectra on the fly targeting with AASM, low level strike capabilities in discreet mode, FLIR+TV for discrete attacks, and for the Typhoon as well, there are some pretty nifty things built into the aircraft. Sensor fusion as on the Rafale is nothing to sneeze at. Its taken decades of effort and the MKI too will have it, as will the LCA (our progress on that front can be guaged from several programs) but the manner in which Rafale & EF have integrated capabilities of this sort, make them able to handle tasks which would otherwise require two pilots. Reportedly, even the latest Block F-15s are not as capable.

good post there Karan. couldn't have put it better myself.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 May 2011 07:34

shiv sir, the planes engines do not lug the weight around except in the case the altitude gain. The lift does that. The thrust produced by the engine in leveled flight is proportional to the drag. And in that repect, I suspect that at transonic sorties the Su-30MKI will be 1.5 times the MMRCAs.

Anyways even if you considered the differential in fuel consumption, it will not make up for differential of around 100 million between the life-cost of a typical medium and heavy weight fighter.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 May 2011 07:39

Karan, if you ask me Indranil, what is your favourite plane in the MMRCA, I will say Karan, without a doubt the Rafale. I love it for its avionics, probably the best the field today.

But for the MMRCA, I would say, it is a double edged sword. I hope it brings in the technology we are hoping for. But history has taught us else wise. For the submarines weren't we told "as quickly as Indians can absorb"!

I know that the IAF got what it could till yesterday. I hoped it would have straightened it out with the MMRCA. As I said I would be happiest to be proven wrong.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 May 2011 07:49

^ Well Indranil you are drawing an incorrect analogy there; the Submarine fiasco is primarily because we decided to build the Scorpenes in India and obviously the French took advantage of the bozos in the MoD.

In fact I am surprised when you ask as to why did IAF opt for a medium-heavy and expensive bird as the Rafale/EF as against Gripen; you see from IAF's vantage point given the overheads in Indian procurement system it makes perfect sense to buy the best out there that way they ensure that their fleet remains competitive for a longer period of time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 May 2011 07:53

The level of mki worship in br has reached alarming levels like the f solah fetish in pak. Stmts like mki has thd best sar radar....when we read even old gen like rdy2 and apg73 have wY better sar modes than any rus radar. Also just aperture size is not the decider else french mirages would not detect and kill f15s on exercise...ew must support radar...and mki has rcs of a small ship vs rafale or ef.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 May 2011 08:03

Prasad wrote:I thought we were done with the whining about why not order more MKIs onlee in the previous thread itself?

One - More numbers in half the time. HAL is at max cap in MKI production? As is Irkut? can't really throw more money and get more mki's or something like that.

One would set up a line for the MMRCA, right? Why couldn't that line have been of a MKI?

Prasad wrote: Two - risk amortisation. 3/4th of the entire fleet will be russian if we just get more MKIs. Already we're facing enough problems with spares and support from the russians wrt the MKIs. Not to mention maintenance costs for operation and upkeep of the MKIs.

The EF operators are facing similar problems with their EFs! their own home-grown maal! for us it will not even be home-grown. At least with the MKI it is a known devil.

Prasad wrote: Three - Tech. By getting a western a/c, we get tech of a different and possibly advanced kind. This is not limited to the aircraft itself but the payload too. Particularly BVR AAMs and AASM types. The R-77 replacement isn't in sight and our own stocks are ageing. We need a newer and better performing stock for the next so many odd years until we get the R-77 replacement.

Good point indeed. But we could have fit this on su-30s as well. If we can integrate the Astra, why not others?

Prasad wrote: Four - Influence. By putting $10 bil on the table, we will be able to use it for our foreign policy if we play our cards right.

You think because of this next time we say something and US says something, we would be heard?

Prasad wrote: Five - Personnel. MKI is a 2-pilot bird. Rafale and EF will for the most part be single pilot birds. Pilot shortage is a serious issue and for the same number of aircraft, number of pilots needed will be close to half of that needed for the MKIs.

You and IAF are at logger heads. MKI and FGFA are 2-seaters by choice. and FGFA will have similar if not better pilot aides

I am not in favour of more MKIs. I am in favour of something which is cheaper to acquire/maintain/upgrade and with the same money, get many of those. If your spending more money per piece, that is when I have questions.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 May 2011 08:15

weight for weight, size for size US/Europe have had better radars and smarter weapons for decades
rdy2/apg63/apg73/ps05 vs the clunky sets like kopyo, zhuk on mig29 etc. Rus lacking the miniaturization and electronics made an attempt to overcome this using brute force approach of larger apertures. well when the west scaled up the aperture they are still way ahead as the apg77 and apg79 show (and hopefully the rbe2 aesa an captor-E mashallah)

in weapons the scene is even worse - just compare the stuff like harpoon/apache/kepd/j-series to the stuff like kh59 - no stealth, needs a separate data link pod hanging out. in sensor fusion and LPI we know the west is much ahead. likewise the geophysika sapsan pod is not a export competitor to sniper XR/damocles/litening. same for opto - electronic and SAR payloads incl in UAV and planes.

and that is what WORRIES me about the whole Pakfa thing. I have NO DOUBT in airframe they will do a great job. the AL41 will be a good engine (though not the F135/F136). NIIP tikhomirov would likely make a pretty good new radar. but in terms of all the bits and pieces of sensor fusion and avionics and next-gen weapons the picture looks cloudish to me. I do not see Rus working on the kind of weapons that make a difference like AASM or J-series. rumours of next gen AAMs have remained so - so far. they still seem to prefer brute force and size in weapons over slim, smart and stealthy. they still cannot match the williams intl turbofans or the tiny IIR seekers now proliferating in western systems.

in the end I hope we do not end up with another nuova MKI - a good airframe and platform but lagging in terms of radar,avionics, network integration and smart weapons vs its closest peer the F-15E.

we are putting a shitload of $$ into pakfa. I hope we obtain written guarantees that Ru and MRCA vendors will work together to put western and indian/israeli weapons on the PAKFA too.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 May 2011 08:23

negi wrote:^ Well Indranil you are drawing an incorrect analogy there; the Submarine fiasco is primarily because we decided to build the Scorpenes in India and obviously the French took advantage of the bozos in the MoD.

In fact I am surprised when you ask as to why did IAF opt for a medium-heavy and expensive bird as the Rafale/EF as against Gripen; you see from IAF's vantage point given the overheads in Indian procurement system it makes perfect sense to buy the best out there that way they ensure that their fleet remains competitive for a longer period of time.

Very logical indeed. But there are two ways of attaining the same objective with the same amount of money. A qualitative way and a numerous way. In combat stories that I have read, qualitative advantage wears off much faster and resillience pays. So I am asking for the numerous method.

I don't believe in ToT and hence I question what a spanky new plane (my favourite in this case) is going to get for us. If we would get ToT out of this I will be the happiest. History has taught me elsewise.

I believe the Rafale is going to curve out a niche for itself in strike role in the IAF. I also concede that probably HAL will learn a lot from this new tooling effort. I hope it validates the cost we are going to incur.

I am big MKI-fan. But I am not for more MKI for the IAF. What I don't understand is when the costs surmount what is potrayed as the most potent fighter in our force. I would have loved to see a more structured strike potential. But Karan is right. May be with our mix-and-match policy a flat all top-notch fighters strike capability is how IAF likes to fight. Probably IAF should do away with the misnomers of medium et.al.

All my bickering is moot. We have reached a down select and God knows how happy I am for it. I hope IAF makes the wise choice for the Rafale. With the 280+250 odd sukhois we would be doing quite well in the A2A department. Let the MMRCA provide an unequitable strike advantage.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 May 2011 08:27

Rakesh wrote:
Prasad wrote:Five - Personnel. MKI is a 2-pilot bird. Rafale and EF will for the most part be single pilot birds. Pilot shortage is a serious issue and for the same number of aircraft, number of pilots needed will be close to half of that needed for the MKIs.
The IAF loves the twin cockpit system and in their own words, "Two pairs of eyes are always better than one." But pilot shortage is a serious issue and I am not sure how they are addressing that. But I would not doubt if they ordered a significant number (if not all) of twin seater Rafale/Typhoon aircraft.

Rakeshji,
I presume that the stealth bird is going to be a 2-seater. I wonder if the IAF can muster enough pilots for nearly 4/5ths of a fleet of 2-seaters. If they can then this particular point is then worthless

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 01 May 2011 08:33

@Indranilji

My previous post was focused on the ToT. And many have responded to your query on why not ramp up the SU-30 #s? A question which I myself pondered until recently.

Thanks fellow BRFites who have explained the reasons why a new gen a/c makes sense.

Now that we are careening towards an eurobird, I would prefer the Rafale. Not only for its attributes, but also the khichdi of so many owners for the EF, and the fact that there will, and are, question marks over its long term viability in terms of commitment to it, and the reported mess that they have made getting the EF to its current level. It is a fine bird nonetheless.

One consideration which keeps cropping up in my mind is what happens if we re-activate Pokharan? The French never imposed sanctions. And as an Indian, with a no-first-use nuclear doctrine, I have the non-negotiable right to do that, which I will not barter away. I am sure that the issues of sanctions will be a part of the contract negotiations. Remember thet the sanctions hurt our LCA project? A senior retired IAF flyboy (a friend of over 30 years) mentioned that if this had not happened we would have saved a few years and the LCA would have proven itself to be a mean machine by now!

If I get any news from flying professionals to this question which has plagued us, I will definitely post it for the benefit of fellow BRFites.

Cheers.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2011 08:36

indranilroy wrote:
The are ruling could have been done in various ways. in fact that shape is not the most optimized as it increases skin drag. That shape is for using the forebody to ram air into the inlets at higher AoA.

I am sure you know better than me - but the Frenchies were planning a shipborne aircraft as well as a land based one and perhaps design constraints (eg length) were based on that.

I find it interesting to look at that table which shows the Rafale as having 5 wet points. The Eurofighter has 3 and I don't know if the MKI has even one. Clearly the MKI has a lot of space for internal fuel - an advantage the Rafale - at half the MKI's weight, does not enjoy. But 5 wet points give a great deal of flexibility in a range versus warload tradeoff.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 May 2011 08:42

Italy spain and uk will use quick escape route and buy more jsf. France for good or bad is stuck with rafale only and has to make it work properly not trickle fund and dilly dally leaving it half baked like the ef abandoned by its parents and now looking to be adopted by rich folks like ksa and needy ones like india

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 May 2011 08:55

Borrowed from keypub. Illustrates the difference in the size of the nose and consequently radar aperture. The Captor-E will be about 60% larger than the RBE-2 AA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 May 2011 09:26

regarding the radar t/r panels, can't extra panels be housed inside the leading bulge edge just before the canards?