India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 02 May 2011 04:55

Not because of this IAF deal, but in general, the handful of cabinet ministers who
hold a high level of ethics, Antony is one of them. He is a person of strict principle
and not amenable to pressure tactics (of chacha). Actually, it is heard that Antony
abhored Roemar's psy-op for his country's companies. ...But can Antony keep his job now?
Will madam pull some strings?

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 02 May 2011 05:01

Ok guys as Ravi has requested, lets stop all this tu tu mein mein (bickering) over uncle's planes that are no longer part of MMRCA. Keep this thread limited only to Typhoon and Rafale because that is reality at the end of the day. Please contribute positively without adding any noise to this thread.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 02 May 2011 05:06

Well my request is to both sides. People who are for uncle's jets and also to people who are against uncle's jets. Many of us would like this thread to be limited to analyzing EF and Rafale and their possible impact on Indian defense industry and IAF future planes. Thanks.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 May 2011 05:19

^^^

+++1.

Perhaps we should start a new MMRCA thread - just for Rafale and EF.

Let the two "sides" continue here? I suspect it will take a while for the emotions to subside.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 May 2011 05:21

Please stop moderating. We have moderators for this.

Please don't preach. Express what you feel. That should be enough.

I am reporting this message to the mods requesting them to clean the last few comments including this one.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 May 2011 05:58

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.

the breakup of the single/twin seaters is already known. Its going to be 80 single seaters and 46 twin seaters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 May 2011 06:05

> Integration of Alarm to be replaced by electronic attack mode of CAPTOR-E.

hooyeah sir! should be a good thing in the 2 seater models for sure.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 May 2011 06:08

er - let me ask a rhetorical question. How many people attempted the IIT exam and did not get in? if you did not get in were you "rejected"? Are you rejects? Useless good for nothing morons? Why are you wasting time on the internet then you slobs?

It is semantics but this world revolves around semantics (I thought I was the only guy who said this until I saw Jasjit Singh saying the same thing in an article on Air Dominance)

The Eurfofighter and Rafale were selected. The American fighters were not rejected as incapable. They just did not meet India's specific requirements.

It is, however in the interests of a whole lot of vested interests in the world to treat this as a rejection. For example US lobbies will try and pressurize India by saying "You rejected America". Or even the EF and Rafale lobbies, looking for other sales will say "The US fighters were rejected". There is a world of a difference between "rejected " and "not selected".

When you are repairing some old stuff and looking for a washer or a nut from a box of old bent and broken odds and ends you reject most and select one. When you are in the supermarket to buy toothpaste and see row upon rwo of boxes - you select one. You are not rejecting other similar boxes. You pick one that catches your eye.

I would look around for articles that use a particular type of language or expression to see where they are coming from. Just some OT piskology.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 May 2011 06:10

F-18 wing loading seems almost 50% higher than the two JEE toppers

for a carrier based a/c it sure has vast proportions - almost 12 feet wider and longer .... albeit with folding wings.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 May 2011 06:17

Shiv ji,

Thanks.

I am one of those that think the decision to base it solely on technical qualification was a political decision. JMT.

But, then, I will never know.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 May 2011 06:37

Shiv ji,
+1.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 May 2011 06:39

For what it is worth:

Exclusive: U.S. long feared India arms-sale snags, cable shows

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 May 2011 06:44

shiv wrote:I would look around for articles that use a particular type of language or expression to see where they are coming from. Just some OT piskology.

And make the list Sir!

Onlee MUTS and Poaks seem to be shocked at the technical selection. Lets keep in mind Customer is always right.

Sayak · Post by **Sayak** » 02 May 2011 07:03

Anybody have ideas how EF or Rafele selection will possibly help with LCA's radar???

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 May 2011 07:11

nukavarapu wrote:Its not always the emotions. How can anyone explain or justify people ranting endlessly for not selecting the Teens?

Why are you trying to explain?

Your explanation is not going to suffice their bitterness.

And their bitterness is not going to change GOI's decision.

IAF is getting what it needs. I, for example am trying to understand their decision from the cost and return on investment POV. Karan explained it from the capability acquired POV. I am not a sentimental guy and in matters of defence respect the guy who is most cold-hearted. I don't believe in this chagrin of either "we shouldn't buy Unkil stuff, period" or "we will face wrath of unkil if we don't". We should buy things strictly based on our requirements. If US is that path,s o be it. C-130J/P-8I/howitzers/Jalashwa are prime examples. If strategic alliance with the US brings benefits to us, we would be foolish to completely throw it away too. On the other hand I have better options than what US offers, we should buy that. CAse in point MMRCA!

Why should we have to have explain to anybody?

And I don't think that we should just limit discussion to EF Rafale either. We will only be constricting our knowledge and analysis, Rakshaks have shown enough capability in the past to prevent a thread from derailing. What is the need for preaching?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 02 May 2011 07:48

Why the critics of India's combat jet deal are wrong
The Hindu

Praveen Swami is Diplomatic Editor of The Daily Telegraph, London.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 May 2011 07:50

NRao wrote:
I am one of those that think the decision to base it solely on technical qualification was a political decision. JMT.

Absolutely. It is very ve-ry Indian. With no disrespect to my late mother I will point out that she would try and make me attend family functions that I did not want to attend by pretending that my wife or my children have expressed great enthusiasm for going. Knowing fully well that if confronted they would not be able to say that they too did not want to go. Win win for my late mother. Many in my family use this tactic on a regular basis.

GoI points the finger at Air Force for making the selection but tells Air Force to choose what it wants without pressure. win win.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2011 08:06

It depends how one looks:

Babu: Technically political decision
Force: Politically technical decision

Now, let us use the same techno-political decision to get to a final chosen one. The brutal mortal combat actually begins.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 May 2011 08:07

shukla wrote:Why the critics of India's combat jet deal are wrong
The Hindu

Praveen Swami is Diplomatic Editor of The Daily Telegraph, London.

Thank you Shukla ji. This is exactly what I wanted to say

Like all other transactional dealings between states, arms purchases do indeed have strategic implications. India ought, for sound common sense reasons, to pursue a robust relationship with the United States. It is unclear, though, why the purchase of this particular weapons system ought to undermine the larger strategic relationship between India and the U.S.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 May 2011 08:49

Manny wrote:I totally understand where you are coming from. You feel America is the enemy unlike China etc.

I get that feeling from your schadenfreude laughter. Must feel really good to stick it to the Americans eh?

you really think F-18 and and F-16 are better than EF and rafale on technical grounds ?

because that's where they lost out, not some touchy-feely 'political reliability' issue as you are trying to make it.

sumeet sahab, thx. this thread moves too damn fast !

@ Ravi Karumanchiri, excellent comparison saarjee, esp the comparison on cannons, which not many include in their analysis.
______________________________

NRao wrote: I am one of those that think the decision to base it solely on technical qualification was a political decision. JMT.

very astute sarjee !

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 May 2011 08:55

VinodTK wrote:India’s Rejection Of US Aircraft As Seen By China – Analysis

What? 12 Bill $ for a Permanent 5 seat? Just pay them that and give IAF what it wants.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 May 2011 09:00

or the some reason the usaf planes seem to carry a massive amt of cannon ammo vs other sdre types:

--wiki--
The F-14 has a capacity of 676 rounds while the F/A-18 has a capacity of 578 rounds of 20mm linkless M-50 or PGU series electrically primed ammunition
The internally mounted 20mm cannon system is common to all versions of the F-15. This system combines the widely used (F-4, F-16, F-18) M61 cannon with 940 rounds (A through D models) or 500 rounds (E model) of ammunition. The cannon can be loaded with target practice, armor piercing, or high explosive incendiary rounds. The primary use of the cannon is in the extremely short range (less than 2000 feet) air-to-air environment, where more sophistacated air-to-air missiles are ineffective. Alternately, the cannon has limited usefulness in a ground strafing role.

--
even a/c like the jaguar with 2 x 30mm cannons carry only 150 rds per gun. Mig27 has 300. Mirage2000 has 300 rounds between 2 guns. rafale 125. even the meaty tornado has 2 cannons with each with 180 rounds.

-
so US inspite of having some of the best sensors and missiles still puts a lot of faith in guns somehow...

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 May 2011 09:06

^ They learnt it the hard way , remember the first F-4 Phantoms did not have any internal gun and they had issues engaging enemy Ac during the Vietnam war when the bogey was too close and hence moving across the bore-sight of the sidewinder . The RU and French Ac have 30mm canons so number of rounds are less (weight limitations I guess).

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 May 2011 09:19

negi wrote:^ They learnt it the hard way , remember the first F-4 Phantoms did not have any internal gun and they had issues engaging enemy Ac during the Vietnam war when the bogey was too close and hence moving across the bore-sight of the sidewinder . The RU and French Ac have 30mm canons so number of rounds are less (weight limitations I guess).

Not only them saar but even the russians and us. The first Mig-21's didnt have guns either and in the 1965 war we struggled as the 2 AAM's they were fitted with were useless for dogfighting. It was only in 1967 that the Mig-21 was fitted with a gun. A fact ignored by American documentaries. Thats why even in the Vietnam war, the MIg-21 did not engage in much of dogfighting until the late 1960's, till then it was done by the Mig-19's

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 May 2011 09:44

Austin wrote:If EADS is offering us partnership in Eurofighter program then its a good value for money , every time Eurofighter sale takes place we get to produce components and mint money out of it , considering Typhoon is still a viable fighter that would sell internationally for the next 15 years , it would bring in dollar for every dollar we spend on this deal plus generate jobs locally for long term beyond the MMRCA deal.

May be 10 years from now Europe might think building the Eurofighter at HAL complex in India is more profitable and makes it more competitive in export market compared to building in Europe , the possibilities are immense.

Remember in the same period Eurofighter will compete with Rafale , Su-35 and Superhornet and making its more competitive will just improve its export prospects.

As a fighter its quite capable , granted right now its not mature as Rafale in A2G arena or perhaps lacks a good AESA but this is just a passing phase , 5 years from now we will have a better Eurofighter then what we have now.

haha Austin ! I remember how gung-ho you used to be about the Typhoon long ago..nice to see that the love is back!:P

But you're right in one sense- that the Typhoon will be a more capable (Tranche 3A/B version) and consequently a viable fighter for sales/support for a long time and it does have more backing than the Rafale alone does. But it always was and will remain one damn costly fighter. We can look at the BAe Hawk sale and how HAL/BAe actually looked at marketing the Hawk together. But then again, the Typhoon actually has 4 nations that have a lot invested in developing and manufacturing it, so they won't be happy to see a "Made in India" Typhoon sold directly- some parts maybe? yes, thats possible. But who knows how much money is to be made in that. And with Japan (another likely Typhoon customer) there is talk of allowing Japan to build it themselves and also to get them to develop it further on their own.

OTOH, with the Rafale, if Dassault were to offer joint sales/manufacturing of the Rafale, we'll definitely get a bigger share of the pie- and the Rafale's appeal will go up with a large sale, making it that much more attractive to the richer buyers that are still looking for a non-F35 fighter.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 May 2011 09:47

singha ji, reason is that US uses smaller caliber cannons. they have to pump in a lot of metal to destroy a target. while the russkies OTOH went for careful aiming so that even one decent hit would be enough. this is true from the days of korean war.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 May 2011 09:54

Does Typhoon have a gun? I seem to recall that the Brit version had the gun removed.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 May 2011 10:15

Singha wrote:Shiv, I believe the typhoon can just about fire one paveway weapon now and self-guide it. earlier it could release the weapon but a tornado had to guide it. the next step is more spooky - releases multiple weapons and guide them in parallel (not sure how its done but tornado is said to be able to do it). makes sense I suppose with weapons being released from upto 50km away now, you better release multiple weapons in the first pass and get home ... not turn for a second pass when defences are hunting for you.

perhaps they showed IAF what it could do now, and also the roadmap for future.

Compare that to the Rafale that during ATLC in the middle east was able to hit 6 targets within 1 minute with 6 AASMs. Now in a real world scenario 6 individual targets struck within 1 minute from a stand-off distance allow the Rafale to scoot out of the danger zone AFTER having struck the targets and still be able to defend itself against ANY PAF fighters with even a modest 2 MICA or Meteors.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 02 May 2011 10:56

shiv wrote:Does Typhoon have a gun? I seem to recall that the Brit version had the gun removed.

saar ji typhoon ul jahaje kaffr bavandar has a 27mm mauser single barrel cannon.

IIRC RAF typhoons are/were gonna get the cannon re-enstated.

Will · Post by **Will** » 02 May 2011 11:06

It is funny how most on BR and other sites(including some very esteemed and knowledgable members) are happy with the MMRCA downselect while surprisingly most of the Indian jornulists are crying blue murder on the murder of the Indo-US strategic partnership. Does this stem from the lifafa culture

:D:D???? Uncle Sam must have been keeping them happy and now they have to show their gratitude by making a lot of noise about the decision

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 May 2011 11:08

Manny wrote:I am seeing different reasons for why the F-18s were rejected. This is like...sling every excuse hoping something would stick.

The reason that the US is an unreliable partner and that they would hold off on spares etc during a crisis is very real and very valid. However, this is not a new development. It was known already going in. So why go in without clearing this up in the first place?

The most important and disturbing thing in all of this is, how India has acted so stereotypically as we have been accused of by our enemies.. Kind of sneaky. Why did not India openly and honestly speak about these concerns with the Americans? Americans like to deal with issues face to face. Openly and honestly. Anything less is sneaky. Why not tell the Americans to their face, that unless the US can do this and this and even make legislative changes if necessary, its not possible for India to even consider the US aircraft? I am not saying the India did not talk about these to the Americans. I do not have all these information. But I am going by all these various reasons spouted by the media.

My objections is not that these US aircrafts were rejected..but by the way it was done. Something stinks.

Everyone keeps saying the US is not a reliable partner. The Q is, Is India a reliable partner?

Bullshit. Shiv sir could go to town with your attitude over here. I won't bother to do that though..

Why does America need to be treated any differently than Sweden or Russia in this MRCA competition's case? It was promised to be a fair competition and if the US, Swedish and Russian fighters didn't qualify for ANY reason whatsoever, they deserved to be informed in the exact same way. You are implying that there was something wrong in the way that the MoD handled this. Point out how exactly should this have been done? Should the Ambassador of the US have been summoned and then told that the US fighters would go no further? And this would've meant that India is a reliable partner or that the US would've been any less pissed off ?!

the very fact that India let the US, Sweden and Russia know that their fighters were not going further in the same way, itself is a big thing. it shows that what AK Antony said, was true- that politics or strategic concerns were not as big factors as they were made out to be by analysts- the IAF never said that it was important- the MoD never officially said it was important. Self-professed experts made it out to be the most important factor and now that they have pie on their face, they're going around looking to make bullshit allegations of "reliability" on the part of India and what not.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 02 May 2011 11:16

Kartik wrote:
Singha wrote:Shiv, I believe the typhoon can just about fire one paveway weapon now and self-guide it. earlier it could release the weapon but a tornado had to guide it. the next step is more spooky - releases multiple weapons and guide them in parallel (not sure how its done but tornado is said to be able to do it). makes sense I suppose with weapons being released from upto 50km away now, you better release multiple weapons in the first pass and get home ... not turn for a second pass when defences are hunting for you.

perhaps they showed IAF what it could do now, and also the roadmap for future.
Compare that to the Rafale that during ATLC in the middle east was able to hit 6 targets within 1 minute with 6 AASMs. Now in a real world scenario 6 individual targets struck within 1 minute from a stand-off distance allow the Rafale to scoot out of the danger zone AFTER having struck the targets and still be able to defend itself against ANY PAF fighters with even a modest 2 MICA or Meteors.

Saar I agree with the above comment, however we need to take a close look at the RAF FGR4 Typhoon version as the RAF is the one that is putting in the most enhancements for their Typhoons and while it will remain costly (although it is debatable as to how much will the whole made in India tag be able to reduce the cost) if the IAF does decide to add some proper AG abilities to the Typhoon it is going to become one hell of a multirole ac. Who is gonna take the bill for the other AG capabilities though?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 May 2011 11:17

Kartik wrote:OTOH, with the Rafale, if Dassault were to offer joint sales/manufacturing of the Rafale, we'll definitely get a bigger share of the pie- and the Rafale's appeal will go up with a large sale, making it that much more attractive to the richer buyers that are still looking for a non-F35 fighter.

LoL, if we sell Rafale, which is not happening and looks like impossible in future too.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 02 May 2011 11:54

Swedish newspaper reactions to Gripen downselect

Read through the comments!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 May 2011 12:52

Will wrote:Does this stem from the lifafa culture :D:D???? Uncle Sam must have been keeping them happy and now they have to show their gratitude by making a lot of noise about the decision

Most of the jurnos who are crying foul got all paid sponsored trip to US and some even got rides ,no reason to believe they are lifafa types but then it would affect their future sponsored trip to the US since they are out JMT

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 May 2011 13:10

Kartik wrote:haha Austin ! I remember how gung-ho you used to be about the Typhoon long ago..nice to see that the love is back!:P

I still have my heart on the fair English girl for sure

yes, thats possible. But who knows how much money is to be made in that. And with Japan (another likely Typhoon customer) there is talk of allowing Japan to build it themselves and also to get them to develop it further on their own.

Its true not many would be happy to cut their jobs and let it go to India ( who in their right mind would do that ) but that is something not really in the control of these nations , if building Typhoon in India is considered cost effective with greater margins to be made and most importantly increase its competitiveness these nations would have no problems in doing so , at the end many key components would come from them , some would be made here just depends on the economy of the scale and the nature of the order involved.

Certainly the order for 126 MMRCA plus options for 74 more which is more likely to be exercised then not means a big number for EADS , we have seen how the MKI order has grown over time , the MMRCA order could swell beyond the 200 mark.

Beyond a good figher which I think typhoon,rafale or super hornet is we need to see the business aspect of the deal , a good business opportunity that would let HAL expand its global footprint and makes it more competitive is always welcome.

OTOH, with the Rafale, if Dassault were to offer joint sales/manufacturing of the Rafale, we'll definitely get a bigger share of the pie- and the Rafale's appeal will go up with a large sale, making it that much more attractive to the richer buyers that are still looking for a non-F35 fighter.

I have not read about Dassault offering us a partnership for Rafale the way EADS is offering us as per some news reports , if Dassault offers us a partnership agreement similar to EADS then certainly its worth but I have my doubts on that , the french might be generous with technology and cost but they know in the long run they have many fishes to fry and why share it with India.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 02 May 2011 15:51

Good amount of the costs in modern aircraft is software related. I'm quite sure there won't be all that much subassembly work for Indian companies.
In case of future exports it's certainly better to do the final assembly in India, and to win contracts then to offer assembly in Europe and lose out
on cost grounds.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 May 2011 17:21

Austin

I have not read about Dassault offering us a partnership for Rafale the way EADS is offering us as per some news reports , if Dassault offers us a partnership agreement similar to EADS then certainly its worth but I have my doubts on that , the french might be generous with technology and cost but they know in the long run they have many fishes to fry and why share it with India.

So far Dassault has kept a relatively very low profile.

The finalists have now got to be very creative in the package they offer, to win the deal. And to address the negatives of their offering (both will have some), very convincingly. And keep their cards close to their chest.The fact that EF consortium has already displayed one card, i.e. to make us a participant in their consortium, may in hindsight been a not very wise move. It gives Dassault the knowledge they should not have got!

The winner is the one who is hungrier for the business. I only hope that the IAF get the a/c best suited for them.

Somehow, to me, the Rafale seems to carry, comparitively, less baggage, better affordability and less risk. But then I maybe wrong as my personal opinion on matters technical maybe flawed. Nonetheless, it has been announced as one that meets IAF's approval.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 May 2011 19:21

Rahul M wrote: you really think F-18 and and F-16 are better than EF and rafale on technical grounds ?
because that's where they lost out, not some touchy-feely 'political reliability' issue as you are trying to make it.

Not at all. I was solely talking about in dealing with an important and friendly country of the United States. If reliability is a primary concern (I am not the one who keep bringing this up although I believe it should be brought up) which many here have said, then that should have been discussed first before the whole evaluation. Even if the US offers F-22 at the lower price, if they restrain India via conditions, India should reject the offer. Is all. Basically tell the US, straight to its face that its impossible for India to risk buying from the US since its not reliable with all the condition they impose on such defense deal. I believe unless the US gives cart Blanche in how India uses its defense equipment, India ought not buy from the US. Neither should India buy any inferior equipment.

Some others have said, why should India treat the US differently? Well La dee da from the moral relativists who live in la la land. Deal with reality., the US is the most powerful country in the world. Its influence on other countries is unmatched. They can even make the EU do what it wants if necessary.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 May 2011 19:37

Manny wrote: Not at all. I was solely talking about in dealing with an important and friendly country of the United States. If reliability is a primary concern (I am not the one who keep bringing this up although I believe it should be brought up) which many here have said, then that should have been discussed first before the whole evaluation. Is all. Basically tell the US, straight to its face that its impossible for India to risk buying from the US since its not reliable with all the condition they impose on such defense deal. I believe unless the US gives cart Blanche in how India uses its defense equipment, India ought not buy from the US. Neither should India buy any inferior equipment.

They have been told the Indian way. Why slobber and tell them the American way. If you think it's impolite that's tough. Why not let them learn the way we deal with people.

The Americans are not stupid. I wonder if you have read American assessments of how the Japanese reach decisions and how to negotiate with the Japanese? They are perfectly capable of understanding alien behavior without our having to speak to them like Americans. We do things in our way. We don't necessarily say thank you and consider it odd if closely related people or friends have to thank each other. "Please" is odd in India - Nobody really says "Krupya ek gilas paani dena". You say "Pani chahiye" Macaulay has created some odd freaks out of Indians - but hey that's us.

The American planes did not meet the requirements of the IAF. What is important is to let the IAF get what it wants and not have a loud caterwaul about the way to tell the Americans something. Just my view. All this "How to talk to Americans" and "We should talk like his and not like that" is off topic and is only great material for me to go off on a piskological tangent.

In India it is extremely impolite to say no. You get a wedding invite in a place 1000 km away that you can never attend and you still never say "No, I can't come". That is a curse. An ill omen. Not a blessing.

You don't tell the Americans on your face "No we don't like your stuff" You tell the people whose stuff you like that they are selected. Why are you trying to make Indians act like Americans? I see too much of that on here. I see people saying "Let's listen to our President" when they do not mean Patil. They speak of sums of money when they do not mean Rupees. We sometimes half live in America on this forum. It is deadly irritating for those of us who have little to do with America and it makes me worry about the next US election and months of boredom reading about irrelevant US stuff on BRF. Your rant too is irrelevant.