India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 09 May 2011 12:46

[quote="aditya.agd"]American foreign policy needs to be cautiously handled. Pls do not buy American weapons because then u will be bombed one day. They have bombed every country to which they supplied weapons to.

quote]

That's a joke, right? I've seen it a couple of times on BRF, so just in case repetition causes this to be accepted as fact, it isn't true: I don't think the US has bombed the UK or India. Yet.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2011 14:35

if the pakistanis have based their ereyie system on the saab-2000 airframe isnt that a out of production plane which would be specially made for pak order? production stopped for commercial use in 1999. for Pak they restarted production of 5 airframes in 2008.

looking at the list of 14 current operators hardly anyone has >5 and the unknown names indicate they might just be residual airframes no longer in much active service if at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_2000

the pakis will certainly have to pay highly for continued product support and spares over 40 yrs vs the far more successful EMB-145 we ran with. 1100 have been built already and more are being built. there are eight military operators alone per wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_ERJ_145_family

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 May 2011 16:55

srai,. yeah.. it is impossible to flip all MKIs with GaN AESA and we shall wait is not what you should read from my earlier post. Please take it from the larger t/r module basis.. normally for an economy like ours, we can't be experimenting with too many variants at the same time, however a tranche approach is must, that I agree. Hence, the larger share must go to a mature tech product is what I am saying.

We can start out with GaAs t/r for a Squadron or two, and freeze there.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2011 17:59

the tag team concept between F-15 with large aperture radars playing spotter and F-22 with smaller (relatively) radars playing shooters puzzles me.

USA and Japan have ample number of E3 planes available.

sounds like a plan to find a role for the latest F-15K/SG/Silent types which are like solutions looking for problems in usaf service.

another more believeable theory could be the APG77 will need lots more funding and years of sw/hw upgrades to reach its full potential as claimed in the fanboy literature, so the F-15 with the less ambitious apg63vX are the backup insurance policy thats always more guaranteed to work - kinda like a SLK roadster that may or may not start every morning to a honda accord that will.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 May 2011 18:39

Rakesh wrote:
abhik wrote:Why the swooning over AASM? Exactly what is so special about this $300,000 weapon? Hardly anybody seems to point out that it still relies on american GPS. And its IR guided version still nowhere to be seen. This is while weapons (which are probably much cheaper) from Khan and Israel like the Spice munition have been around for years. All I see is French marketing BS an people buying it hook, line and sinker.
Do you know of any missile of this nature, that does not rely on American GPS? Perhaps we should buy them instead. GPS is the standard...the other option is GLONASS which is still not operational. And missiles of this precision are expensive indeed...but you need to see what we are capable of destroying (SAM sites, which are a lot more expensive than $300,000).

The way I see it this will become another "brahamastra", so expensive that the IAF will be able to buy only a tiny number of them. So my question is why not consider something like the 20,000$ JDAM with a range extension glide kit (which probably wont cost much more)? and what overwhelming advantage does the AASM provide over such a solution?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2011 20:23

agreed. the J-series and paveway have been produced in vast numbers and are much cheaper in comparison.

the best soln is a range of desi weapons using the Sudarshan seeker - 250lb, 500lb, 1000lb and 2000lb unitary HE ("GBU") weapons and 500lb and 1000lb "CBU" cluster and submunitions. and then add range extention wings to a few. special purpose 2000lb bunker buster weapons for the MRCA and MKI could be worked out.

this would perhaps be the most strategic program for the IAF if they be interested. we can obtain help and parts from the likes of Israel.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2011 21:08

singha wrote:the tag team concept between F-15 with large aperture radars playing spotter and F-22 with smaller (relatively) radars playing shooters puzzles me.

USA and Japan have ample number of E3 planes available.

sounds like a plan to find a role for the latest F-15K/SG/Silent types which are like solutions looking for problems in usaf service.

another more believeable theory could be the APG77 will need lots more funding and years of sw/hw upgrades to reach its full potential as claimed in the fanboy literature, so the F-15 with the less ambitious apg63vX are the backup insurance policy thats always more guaranteed to work - kinda like a SLK roadster that may or may not start every morning to a honda accord that will.

The answers are fairly straightforward. The E-3s despite all their upgrades are dated aircraft and have challenges in detecting and tracking large numbers of low flying very low rcs targets (against ground clutter), which is what the concept of F-15s & F-22s "doing a wall" is all about. The MSA on the E-3 puts out a lot of power & the signal processing would be top notch, but at the end of the day, its a MSA, it cannot rapidly revisit certain targets while scanning a large volume of airspace. Our Phalcon can do that thanks to its AESA, Also, the resolution would not be good enough against a LO/VLO target against clutter, to guide a missile within seeker range (which too would be reduced), hence the powerful X Band AESAs on the F-15s and F-22s come into play. Which is where the wall tactic comes into play, the limitation of all fighter radars is the small amount of volume they scan versus a full blown AWACs, so you fly a bunch together strung together in a line, and they datalink the data for a common picture.

The MiG-31s as I mentioned before were designed for much the same reason. Now why F-22s and F-15s and not just F-22s, well, because there are too few of the latter & Obama cancelled the program, plus the F-15, for all its vintage has reportedly a bigger aperture (allowing it to pick up targets a bit farther away) and more persistence (carrying both internal and external fuel). For regular targets, the F-15s will play the mini AEW&C role, they can go with the F-22s into hostile airspace, and unlike AWACs can defend themselves & even retaliate, plus they can also carry out other tasks such as ECM and SEAD allowing the F-22s to operate with impunity.

The F-22 already has reached its potential, at least to a reasonable A2A level. It has already, in exercises demonstrated all its A2A modes etc & been used as the "forward eyes and ears" of the AWACs which stays behind - whatever the AWACS could not really detect or wanted greater focus on, the F-22s would pick up using LPI radar/ALR-94 and communicate it back to the AWACS. Here is one critical weakness of the F-22 AFAIK, the aircraft still doesnt have a stealthy transmit capable datalink for non stealth fighters. So all comms are voice only. Nor does it have a HMD, or even an IRST. Basically they spent so much on the airframe basics that they lost out on the funding for some critical capabilities. In contrast, IMO, the FGFA represents a much more balanced set of capabilities being procured from day one. Of course, its decades later so piggybacks on newer tech., but still.

This Cruise Missile/VLO thing is the reason I have been harping on "more more" when it comes to fighter radars for the MMRCA..in this case size does matter. Our saving grace is that we have that massive Su-30 to leverage, and the Bars is a very credible system, outperforming even some of the latest AESAs. It will be able to act as our "adjunct to AWACS" with its WSO, once we have that Operational Data Link (ODL) in fleet wide service, networking all our sensors (air, ground), shooters, and the network nodes (IACCS, BADZ centers). Once the AESA arrives or even a higher power TWT for the Bars (as phase1) it will be even better, but at the end of the day, I wish all our fighters had the ability to perform the maximum number of roles.

In that sense, I also hope we make our MiG-29s and Jaguars as A2G capable as possible, adding more PGMs & ARMs. Otherwise a disproportionate share of the burden falls on the MKIs. We can take on PAF & hold off PLAAF even so, but for actually conducting a proper air campaign in the two front scenario we really need the fleet to be as multiroled as possible. We should, as the Chinese did, just TOT some Kh-31 or Kh-25/38, etc and build up stocks. The ALARM is reportedly an excellent missile, and one we should procure for the SEAD role. Yet, it hasnt been qualified for the Rafale or Typhoon AFAIK, this just shows we need far more than the Europeans who can count on USAF assets in a NATO ops

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2011 21:14

abhik wrote:The way I see it this will become another "brahamastra", so expensive that the IAF will be able to buy only a tiny number of them. So my question is why not consider something like the 20,000$ JDAM with a range extension glide kit (which probably wont cost much more)? and what overwhelming advantage does the AASM provide over such a solution?

Seeker! Not only more accurate but more effective against on the move targets. The Spice is not going to be much cheaper either. And JDAM etc are all dependent on GPS as Rakesh said. Till we have Glonass guided weapons aplenty, this reliance will remain. The AASM is a pretty effective weapon all said and done. The IAF has been evaluating it for a while.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 20Aircraft

There is the Kh-38 but its not battle tested

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2011 21:16

Singha wrote:if the pakistanis have based their ereyie system on the saab-2000 airframe isnt that a out of production plane which would be specially made for pak order? production stopped for commercial use in 1999. for Pak they restarted production of 5 airframes in 2008.

looking at the list of 14 current operators hardly anyone has >5 and the unknown names indicate they might just be residual airframes no longer in much active service if at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_2000

the pakis will certainly have to pay highly for continued product support and spares over 40 yrs vs the far more successful EMB-145 we ran with. 1100 have been built already and more are being built. there are eight military operators alone per wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_ERJ_145_family

Tactical genius saar, they have an aircraft which few others use, so that makes them more unique and taller more mard than IAF which is using "large IL-78" aircraft. Not fashionable! Unlike the cramped, hand me down SAAB-2000s

BENNY · Post by **BENNY** » 09 May 2011 21:32

Disappointed in India, Boeing and Lockheed Martin Eye Other Fighter Requirements

U.S. defense contractors eliminated from the $10 billion competition to provide India's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) cite several other international programs and competitions as opportunities for their respective platforms. But the start of Japan's F-X contest in April and fighter requirements in countries including Denmark, Malaysia and Brazil did nothing to mask the clear disappointment expressed by U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer and contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, over India's down-select decision.

The Indian Defence Ministry on April 28 said it had short-listed the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon for the MMRCA requirement, eliminating Boeing's F/A-18IN Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin's F-16 as well as the Saab Gripen and Mikoyan MiG-35. Roemer resigned as ambassador to New Delhi the same day, although reportedly his decision predated the down select choice.

Lockheed Martin is contracted to produce the F-16 through mid-2013. Deliveries under the 126-aircraft MMRCA program would have started in 2015 or beyond, extending F-16 production.

"It's certainly a loss; let's not sugarcoat it," said Bill McHenry, Lockheed Martin director of business development for F-16 programs. "We were spending a lot of effort and a lot of time. We took the Indian competition seriously and we were planning on those aircraft."

Nevertheless, Lockheed Martin is set to provide F-16s under Foreign Military Sales to Iraq and Oman. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in September notified Congress of the Obama administration's intent to sell 18 F-16IQs to Iraq, a sale worth $4.2 billion with associated equipment and services. DSCA notified Congress in August of the intent to sell 18 Block 50/52 F-16s to Oman in a transaction valued at $3.5 billion.

India was the first international competition in which Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was offered. Australia has ordered 24 tandem-seat F/A-18Fs as an interim step to Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II.

"We have work with the U.S. Navy going on that guarantees [Super Hornet] production to 2015," said a Boeing spokeswoman. Beyond that, she said, Boeing plans to compete for Japan's F-X requirement, for which bids are due in September, and fighter acquisitions by Brazil, Denmark, Malaysia and unidentified Middle Eastern countries.McHenry said Lockheed Martin is offering either the F-16 or F-35 for many of the same competitions.

[urlhttp://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page ... nts-29532/][/url]

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 09 May 2011 22:09

18 F-16 for 3.5 billion?

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 May 2011 22:21

OT ., but if india selects the Rafale ., would there be some co development of a new AESA radar with Thales ? a fully indian aesa is what IAF needs.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 09 May 2011 22:24

krishnan wrote:18 F-16 for 3.5 billion?

List Price

Also, there is a fixed cost of setup, training, etc. that is distributed over a small number of planes. Additionally, it probably includes cost of armaments and lot of spares.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 May 2011 00:16

Karan M wrote:... The ALARM is reportedly an excellent missile, and one we should procure for the SEAD role. Yet, it hasnt been qualified for the Rafale or Typhoon AFAIK, this just shows we need far more than the Europeans who can count on USAF assets in a NATO ops

Very true.

Looking at the recent Libyan conflict, it was the US who did 90% of the SEAD operations using its Tomahawk CM, HARM(?) and F-18 Growler. EU's contribution was very little in comparison in the SEAD phase. As long as the US is around with its vast inventory of Tomahawk, HARM, and other PGMs and F-18 Growler, EU feels it does not need to pursue serious independent SEAD capability.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 10 May 2011 01:06

No wonder even German plans to develop ARMIGER (anti radiation with Intelligent guidance and extended range) fell through.

ALARM is definitely an option. However, we should see what we can develop by ourselves or in cooperation with Russians. For SEAD we need a combo of powerful stand off jammers and anti radiation missiles.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 May 2011 01:29

The Trishul was supposed to have an airborne anti ground radar role.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 10 May 2011 01:34

But after Brahmos and Nirbhay experience it shouldn't be that difficult for us to make an AGM for SEAD that has dual seeker [Anti radiation homing + IIR], range 250 kms +, Supersonic speed (~ mach 3), Inertial Navigation System etc

I think its possible in house with some help from outside. Imagine all folks who cannot get HARM for whatever reasons and you see there is a good export market for this baby as well. Assistance as deemed necessary can be sought from MBDA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 May 2011 01:43

You want something fast i.e rules out the Nirbhay type. And Brahmos is too heavy. I dont think they need assistance. Its just matter of priority.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 10 May 2011 01:47

No what I meant is that some technologies and experience from them can go into making our desi ARM. Its not that we don't have a base or have to start from (absolute) scratch.

I think CM is a higher priority. Because CMs can be used for SEAD and more ... But sometime down the line [later this decade] we need to launch an effort for desi ARM & PGM family.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 02:12

Perhaps someone bring light what technologies went into siva pod to cue ARM on MKI, and we could assess at what level we are to bring out a HARM quickly to the program. Nirbhay is way too big for MRCA/MKI launch is what I am thinking and besides, we want a super duper 3 or 4mach++ with 120km range HARM (high speed) would be ideal for LCA and MRCA/fgfa as well.

How difficult it would be convert the Astra one to ASM mode with mostly HARM circuitry, for both mobile and stationed radiating target?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 May 2011 02:26

OK. You need a radiation seeker, an IMU type to keep on track in case the source gets switched off, and to keep on track to prevent being diverted by adjacent sources, an IIR for visual and good motor for long range.

The Trishul etc had the first, the NAG/HELINA has the other seeker, I dont know about the rest.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 02:44

So, I read the most difficult problem here is locking on the ground target in the midst of many other radiation source identified as clutter.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 10 May 2011 04:36

Someone please explain to me.

1 Why on earth is IAF going for Rafel or EF when countries like UK and all others who are not part of the EF consortium are purchasing the JSF??

2 isint Rafael already an old plane?

3 Could it not have been possible to purchase more SU-30's, and waited for the JSF?

I understand that JSF has been offered to India.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 10 May 2011 05:02

^^^IMHO, the JSF-35 is a dud.

It shouldn't even be called a "fighter", and it certainly isn't multi-role. It is a dedicated ground-attack craft, with very limited range and payload, and whatever "stealth" attributes it has, are optimized against ground-based radar only. Also, because it has only one engine, it also has reduced combat reliability, and even worse, it likely has a huge IR signature.

The Rafale, for example, is better in every aspect, and its 'low observability' design isn't fixated on a small RCS alone, but also on the minimization of IR signature.

The JSF-35 does little better than Mach 1.05 (as compared to the Rafale's Mach 2+), and the thing has terrible wing loading (meaning poor manueverability), and very limited communications and net-centric warfare capability.

Also, the thing is super expensive, and is far from being ready-to-buy. There are still hundreds of flight tests and design changes pending.

The JSF-35 is all hype. The Rafale and Eurofighter would eat it for a light snack. I could go on and on, but others on the net have already done that, and they're better at it. JMT

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2011 05:03

Rishirishi wrote:Someone please explain to me.

1 Why on earth is IAF going for Rafel or EF when countries like UK and all others who are not part of the EF consortium are purchasing the JSF??

They looked good.

2 isint Rafael already an old plane?

We will get new ones, not used ones.

3 Could it not have been possible to purchase more SU-30's, and waited for the JSF?

I understand that JSF has been offered to India.

India did not want to wait, they just wanted to purchase pretty planes. JSF looks bulky. F-22 was not on offer.
Seriously though, JSF is still in the works, India wanted ready aircraft ASAP.

BTW, have you even bothered reading the thread?

Guys,

Just check out the Rafale on Youtube - cockpit is tiny, it comes across as a far more compact platform than the EF. Su-30 is spacious in comparison. But boy, fighter pilots are a rare breed they dont get mind such closed environments as on the Rafale.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 10 May 2011 05:10

Rishirishi wrote:Someone please explain to me.

1 Why on earth is IAF going for Rafel or EF when countries like UK and all others who are not part of the EF consortium are purchasing the JSF??

2 isint Rafael already an old plane?

3 Could it not have been possible to purchase more SU-30's, and waited for the JSF?

I understand that JSF has been offered to India.

1) Better ToT offered to India, and isn't second hand Amerikansi 1970 pieces of Tom Cruise over hyped donkey turd with modern electronics.

2) It entered service in 2000

3) Why the hell would we want the JSF? Oh wait because all the western buffoons have fallen for the snake oil propaganda so India should too? MKI's are being inducted in greater numbers and we awaiting the PAKFA/FGFA which in turn will prove to the Americans what a waste of money the JSF was.

4) JSF was offered to India, if India purchased the F 16 which Pakistan has. And again, the JSF is a overpriced aircraft that doesn't do much. India is already in a partnership with Sukhoi OKB to develop the FGFA/PAKFA, which in turn is a heavier, much more capable fighter than the JSF could ever dream to be and at a more reasonable cost.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 10 May 2011 05:53

Anyone can send me link, with regards to the shortcomming of JSF. i still find it hard to imagine, that US would produce anything other then the best.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 07:17

google it for yourself mr. double rishi, and please to share with us what you find. tia

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 10 May 2011 07:53

Rishirishi wrote:Anyone can send me link, with regards to the shortcomming of JSF. i still find it hard to imagine, that US would produce anything other then the best.

F-35 Fleet grounded For generator Failure, Leak

F-35 Might not get IOC by 2016 : Vice Adm. David Venlet

AND Now latest update ,Israel will get F-35 only in 2018 same time FGFA will start arriving in India

Israel sticks to F-35 despite possible lag to 2018

S.G.Dev · Post by **S.G.Dev** » 10 May 2011 08:02

Does anyone know roughly how much net profit the seller would make on this deal?

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 10 May 2011 08:10

Documentary on the JSF-35 - PART 1

Documentary on the JSF-35 - PART 2

If you don't mind a little bit of Dutch...
Documentary on the JSF-35 - PART 3

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 10 May 2011 09:06

Rishirishi wrote:Anyone can send me link, with regards to the shortcomming of JSF. i still find it hard to imagine, that US would produce anything other then the best.

It's called lobbying, and the Americans are really good at that. Besides, America already spends the most out of any western nation on Healthcare yet, it doesn't do half as much as the Universal programs employed by the Europeans and those are half as much cost Per Capita.

Any how, I have posed a documentary by Nova on the bid for the JSF in the Military Multimedia Thread. Watch it and see how complex the two vying fighters were and how Boeing's design was even more flawed then Lockheed's.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 11:33

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:It is a dedicated ground-attack craft

False, it is designed to be the PRIMARY air-superiority fighter of the USAF and USN.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:with very limited range

It has better range than the F-16 and SH.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:payload

It can carry more payload than the 'heavy' SH.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:and whatever "stealth" attributes it has, are optimized against ground-based radar only

False.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:even worse, it likely has a huge IR signature.

False, a lot of attention was paid to minimizing IR.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:The Rafale, for example, is better in every aspect

The Rafale has the RCS of a flying barn compared to the F-35.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:The JSF-35 does little better than Mach 1.05 (as compared to the Rafale's Mach 2+)

False, it does at least M1.6.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:and the thing has terrible wing loading (meaning poor manueverability)

False, it is as maneuverable as an UNLOADED F-16.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:and very limited communications and net-centric warfare capability.

That doesn't even make sense. It has the most advanced avionics suite of any current or planned fighter.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Also, the thing is super expensive

If it is 'super expensive', so is the EF and Rafale . . .

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:The JSF-35 is all hype. The Rafale and Eurofighter would eat it for a light snack.

If you want to delude yourself, be my guest.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 11:38

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Documentary on the JSF-35 - PART 1

Pierre Sprey is a long-time F-35 hater, but the world has long since passed him by and he isn't taken seriously by people in industry.

If it gives you any idea how far out-to-lunch he is, he still hates that the F-16 has a radar.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 May 2011 14:04

A beautiful shot of Rafale at Brazil:

Another nice shot:

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 10 May 2011 14:22

<OT>FWIW, F35 is not as stealthy as the Raptor, carries only as much arms as upgraded F-18, enough has been written about its lack of legs and maneuverability. Not enough justification for the exhorbidantly high price. No stealthy enemies to fight. And the way partner nations are cancelling or downsizing orders, clear that this wont be worth it is price.</OT>

Now back to MRCA.

Same bang for buck assessment, I think Rafale provides more than EF per dollar. But I doubt if the french with as open to including India as partners in future research.

1. When is the last time we have seen them do partnerships? Maitri/Kaveri-Snecma deals have been in the pipeline for a very long time, nothing considerable has happened. Maitri is a buy of seeker tech, Kaveri is the buy of ECO core.
2. The reason American sanctions never affected french equipment supplies is the same reason they wont encourage partnerships. They value their independence in strategic ties and technological research. Good thing for us is, there is always a price for what you want to buy
3. Rafale is too mature. Engine roadmap is already there, AESA is already there, the whole airframe has been validated, seen action in wars, exercises. IMO, as a partner we can only give thrust (money), the direction for future tranches are already there.

This is in sharp contract with EF which is being downsized/abandoned in place of F-35s. The A2G still needs work, AESA has more scope, navalizing it is something we can contribute towards. As one of the partners, we would have a equal say in scoping future tranches. If a partner wishes to withdraw in future, India has the money to buy off the designs and schematics. And an EF built and assembled here is definitely going to be cheaper for all.

EF is more costly, more risky. But also more potential, and power to vote.

paramyog · Post by **paramyog** » 10 May 2011 15:22

^^^^
This IND-igen-I-s-A-tion of Eurofighter would mean smthn like the real Katrina. Brit mom & Indian Kashmiri dad.
So what we'll eventually have is an IND-eURO-Fighter. But then the question is are we going to do an MKI here the way we did it with Su-30. The word is "भारतीयकरण" for भारतीय वायुसेना..
And then Rafale is almost a full package where there is little scope for application of any JUGAAD Tech the way we did with Mirage-2K (and the French were pretty much upset sayin y did v CHEDOfy it by fitting it with Israeli LGBs.!!)
I m wondering how much of a worthwhile JUGAAD Tech contribution, would HAL &/or DRDO would do to the European ladies with some degree of Satisfaction..!
Some emissions from the रक्षा मंत्रालय suggest a marginal tilt in favour of the EF for its better performance at Ladakhi Air space. With a similar deal for नौसेना underway, the boys in white had already given their unofficial preference for the Naval version of the Rafale.
So if a balancing act is actually underway, the EF for the AF and Rafale for the INS is a possible scenario.
Last heard, EF GmBH have been working overtime with hired Cost management consultants to reduce the pricing at par with Rafale with a disclaimer similar to the one on liqour bottles sold in Delhi and India.
(Made in India, for sale in and to India only..!!)

Will · Post by **Will** » 10 May 2011 16:16

As far as politics goes the EF has an advantage which could turn out to be a disadvantage.Italy being a part of the EF program is a double edged sword. It could work in the EF favour or the GOI could back away from the EF for this very reason not wanting to create a controversy.(Everyone informed knows why)

nits · Post by **nits** » 10 May 2011 16:36

Kailash wrote:This is in sharp contract with EF which is being downsized/abandoned in place of F-35s. The A2G still needs work, AESA has more scope, navalizing it is something we can contribute towards. As one of the partners, we would have a equal say in scoping future tranches. If a partner wishes to withdraw in future, India has the money to buy off the designs and schematics. And an EF built and assembled here is definitely going to be cheaper for all.

EF is more costly, more risky. But also more potential, and power to vote.

The primary reason why we are buying aircraft is no to learn Aircraft making or devlope\update our skills... that is something we are already doing in LCA, AMCA and to some extent in FGFA...

Also in EF we need to deal with 4 Countries which can be a messy business; plus they all have there internal and global politics... so not a good situation to be in... and as you said when the Home country itself is not intrested to take there pet project ahead... what difference will India particpation make to a larger extent....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 16:41

you Will not think like that .. this is not based on baboodom, but entirely based on IAF selection and you know very well they had some 600 odd criteria on which they measured it.

If Ef qualifies, and if Ef ready to compromise on the price with some heavy discount on the basis of profit sharing, then why not consider on that business angle rather relating to some con angrez conspiracy theory. This is very easy in our media, hence we should have a peaceful price negotiation to begin now, without such conspiracies.