India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

[Viv S]

CAS does not necessarly take place right near your airfield as shown in Lybia. And even if it was the case the longer you can loiter above the ennemy the longer you can provide CAS so the "persistence" factor is fully relevant.

CAS isn't likely to be called for more than 300km away from the closest airbase. Like I indicated before the IAF's threat scenario is very different from the what the Libyan campaign required (and even there the EF wasn't hampered by its supposedly inadequate range). Given that the flight time from take-off to weapons release would probably be 5-20 min (30min tops), there isn't a lot to be gained by loitering near area of operations in a CAS configuration.

The figures I gave for flying time come from discussion with rafale pilots two years ago at the paris airshow. A rafale with 3*2000L and AtG weapons have an endurance of about 3H in relatively good condition, while a clean aircraft of the Typhoon or rafale class have an endurance of around one hour. I assumed that with 6LGBs and no external fuel Typhoon endurance would be around "roughly" a bit less than an hour due to the added weight and drag. Those figure are just "notions" but still reflect the gap between the two aircrafts.

With about half the fuel load and no drag caused by drop tanks, the EF will probably have at least half of the Rafale's endurance in that configuration.

Regarding stealth you are untiteled to your own opinion. But you can't dismiss the result of the Brazilian air force evaluation nor you can dismiss the pilot comments who actually confronted the typhoon. All the rest is speculation. What is als true is that there is overall a wider consensus stating that the rafale is stealthier of the two even if I agree you can't bring this latest argument as a proof. At least the two first example comes from relaible sources. Note than on Keypublishing Pepe Rezende (Memeber of the Brazilian defense commitee and aviation specialist) confirmed the rafale was the stealthier aircraft.

You're missing the point. Can the difference between the RCS of the two aircraft be quantified on basis of these various testimonies? For example, one can tell with regard to the respective AESAs, roughly what the net power output would be, given that T/R modules on both aircraft are rated at 10-20W. How do you in turn tell say how much the RCS changes with a weapons load and with changing aspect to the emitter and receiver?

Now CFTs. Typhoon's one are not available in the sense that they are not developed. It is an option but the customer will have to pay for their development. Show me a recent press release talking about actual development works and integration testing...I can tell you that you won't find anything.

That depends on what stage the development is at. Integration trials will come after a working prototype has been built. But lets take your point and assume that India will have to take an active part in the development if the IAF thinks they are necessary... so how much are we talking about in $ terms, and what proportion do you suppose the Brits will fork up?

Besides typhoon's CFTs are more a constraint due to the lack of external fuel than a "bonus". I mean it is a mandatory aditionnal cost if the Typhoon wants to be more than just a defensive point fighter. And with CFT you are not as flexible than with drop tanks nor you will reach the 6000L of rafale external fuel...

The EF as a point defence fighter? You don't think you may be stretching it a little there?

Frankly you've turned one particular mission profile i.e flying with two cruise missiles to attack a target 1500km away, (a mission even the Rafale didn't have to perform during Operation Harmattan) into a glaring deficiency. Even during wartime, its only in very rare cases that a strike of that nature would be sanctioned and its the Su-30MKI that would be the preferred platform (three drop tanks will practically nullify the Rafale's RCS edge).

About The rafale vs Typhoon in BVR you are right to say it was also due to "passive detection" thanks to spectra. But it is incorrect to believe that spectra will not be able to pick up an AESA radar emmissions. Two reasons :

-The first one is that it already does it. it was experienced last year against USN SH block2 with APG-79. The event took place during the comemoration of the french aéronavale century at the base of Hyères near the mediteranean coast. USN SH were invited as a US carrier group was passing by. In parrallel to the commemoration events rafale M practised against SH block2 and according to DSI issue spectra managed to compensate the difference of radar range of bot aircrafts.

'Compensate difference of radar range'? What does that mean? Be explicit. Was it able to employ its touted active cancellation against the APG-79? Was it able to perform a ranging function using the AESA emissions for a MICA shot? Did the SH employ its AESA for EW? A vague reference to a training exercise isn't evidence.

-The second reason is that you have the wrong impression that spectra is a monolithic thing. It evolves constantly to tackle new threats. Here is an extract from an answer from Captain Romain a rafale pilot form the provence squadron :

Umm... so the SPECTRA will 'evolve' to cancel out LPI characteristics of AESA radars? Lemarckism? Can't we also carry that argument over to radars - in that LPI radars will also evolve to ensure that detection (outside its range) becomes even harder and tracking remains impossible?

Cne Romain:


The Rafale merges the informations coming from its sensors to give a very reliable and clear picture to the pilot. It's already a considerable advantage over previous-generation aircraft, including EF and Gripen. When the pilot decides to fire a air to air missile, the missile leaves the aircraft taking automatically into account all available informations.
When the radar is not used, the missile can use the OSF (a TV camera coupled with a laser rangefinder), the informations provided by another aircraft via the MIDS, a heat source detected by the OSF or a MICA IR, or finally a localization by SPECTRA. Faced with these sensors, stealth is useless and we know, thanks to our tests ,that our missiles are very effective in such context.

So air forces should now abandon their plans for stealth aircraft or stop flying with radars?

No offense intended to your pilot Arthuro, but seeing as France is one of the few first rate air forces that's not going to operate a steath aircraft in the near future, that statement seems quite a bit biased.

[arthuro]

CAS :

Like it or not persistence give you more options, you can provide CAS further, loiter for longer or be diverted to another area/mission. This is called operational flexibility.
Loitering over a CAS aera is essential, esspecially against some of the type of threats India is facing in the Kashmir when you can't predict when terrorists will attack. Persistence is a critical performance criteria and with 6000L of external fuel a rafale enjoys a significant edge here.

Considering that a clean Typhoon or rafale have a flying time of approximatively one hour you can safely bet that with 6LGBs and Ldp (not to mention AAM) typhoon persistence would be less than an hour due to the added drag and weight. Compare this to a 3H persistence for the rafale with its 6000L external fuel.

Stealth :

Nothing more to add. You are bound to your opinion. I bring an array of reliable clues including a technical evaluation result from Brasil and pilots comments. All these sources are consistent with each other. If you don't want to take them seriously it is your own right.

Typhoon CFT's :

They are not in development. It is a possibility if a customer requires it and pay for it. With money everything is possible so the "option" debate is somewhat useless as a company will be more than happy to provide anything if a customer is ready to pay the price. CFT development is timeconsuming and needs significant ressources because you have to re-right your FCS due to altering the center of gravity and open the flight domain with them. That is why industry alone will not develop CFTs.

Spectra :

Active mode is never used outside france (like other countries with their EW). Against the SH with its AESA apg-79 it was the passive mode who was able to lock SH's radar emmissions at long ranges. That's why DSI said it helped in compensating the radar range edge of SH AESA radar compared to rafale PESA. The same way it did against the Typhoon in UAE.

Radars are primarly here to support your weapons. For long range detection you would preferably rely on AWACS or other third party targeting or listen with the "big hears" (spectra). It is more discret and allow surprising tactics. That is rafale philosophy. IMO as we are getting to a more and more "connected" environment this makes sense. That doesn't mean I would not be happy with more radar range, just to say it is not everything.

[Singha]

what were the reasons why EF partners and france split up initially when they were together for a common eurofighter?

was it because france wanted it smallish and navalized too for its carriers ?

was it workshare and who would lead what aspects?

was it A2A emphasis vs A2G emphasis ?

EF had some kind of DASA prototype in testing with NASA looked like todays EF but painted white. Rafale I am not sure if they went it alone or use some F16XL type thing first?

[arthuro]

The reasons are two fold : technical and workshare;

France was looking for a multirole fighter with a naval capability to replace a wide range of fighter aircrafts in its inventory while other european countries were looking for an AtA fighter.

The other reason is the workshare and that was especially true for the engines. According to french aviation historian and journalist it was the main blocking issue. with a shared engine programm french authorties thought they would lose the know how of engine manufacturing in the medium term.

The combination of these issues led to exit the European program.

[Viv S]

CAS :

Like it or not persistence give you more options, you can provide CAS further, loiter for longer or be diverted to another area/mission. This is called operational flexibility.
Loitering over a CAS aera is essential, esspecially against some of the type of threats India is facing in the Kashmir when you can't predict when terrorists will attack. Persistence is a critical performance criteria and with 6000L of external fuel a rafale enjoys a significant edge here.

You've missed the point again altogether. I'll repeat myself. The flight time between take-off and weapons release is about 10min for a target cluster 200km away from base. Why would it remain airborne with three fuel tanks awaiting a CAS request from ground forces, when it could do so on the tarmac with the pilot strapped in?

Kashmir? Terrorist? I'll confess, that one went completely over my head. Are you proposing that the IAF continually have fighters airborne, in anticipation of a terrorist act somewhere in Kashmir?

Considering that a clean Typhoon or rafale have a flying time of approximatively one hour you can safely bet that with 6LGBs and Ldp (not to mention AAM) typhoon persistence would be less than an hour due to the added drag and weight. Compare this to a 3H persistence for the rafale with its 6000L external fuel.

I'll repeat myself. With HALF the fuel load and NO DRAG from drop tanks why would the EF/Rafale remain airborne only ONE-THIRD as long? If the Rafale can do 3 hours with drop tanks, the EF should be able to do at least 1.5 hours without them.

Stealth :

Nothing more to add. You are bound to your opinion. I bring an array of reliable clues including a technical evaluation result from Brasil and pilots comments. All these sources are consistent with each other. If you don't want to take them seriously it is your own right.

Not at all. I am taking them seriously. Unfortunately there are, as you describe them, 'clues', not indisputable figures. None of them state the extent of the difference, nor do they address the issue of what effect an external payload has on each aircraft's RCS.

Typhoon CFT's :

They are not in development. It is a possibility if a customer requires it and pay for it. With money everything is possible so the "option" debate is somewhat useless as a company will be more than happy to provide anything if a customer is ready to pay the price. CFT development is timeconsuming and needs significant ressources because you have to re-right your FCS due to altering the center of gravity and open the flight domain with them. That is why industry alone will not develop CFTs.

Roger. Now please elaborate. When you say 'time-consuming', how much time are you saying it will consume? And when you say 'significant resources', how much moolah are we talking?

I'm assuming when the RAF says its preparing its Tranche 3 aircraft to use CFTs, modifying the FCS software would be intrinsic to the effort.

Spectra :

Active mode is never used outside france (like other countries with their EW). Against the SH with its AESA apg-79 it was the passive mode who was able to lock SH's radar emmissions at long ranges. That's why DSI said it helped in compensating the radar range edge of SH AESA radar compared to rafale PESA. The same way it did against the Typhoon in UAE.

Does it explicitly say that the Rafale was able to lock on to the APG-79's emissions or are you assuming that was the case?

Radars are primarly here to support your weapons. For long range detection you would preferably rely on AWACS or other third party targeting or listen with the "big hears" (spectra). It is more discret and allow surprising tactics. That is rafale philosophy. IMO as we are getting to a more and more "connected" environment this makes sense. That doesn't mean I would not be happy with more radar range, just to say it is not everything.

I'd be happy with a microwave oven in the cockpit as well, but it wouldn't serve any practical purpose. What basically you're saying is that France has overcome a technological hurdle and made radars redundant for air to air combat. After all, if you're using the enemy's radar for your target designation as a matter of course, it gives the enemy no incentive to fly with one.

You see the reason for my skepticism?

[pragnya]

what were the reasons why EF partners and france split up initially when they were together for a common eurofighter?

carlo kopp's take - http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

[arthuro]

CAS :

You talk as if your CAS scenario is always the norm but that is of course not the case. Tactical situations are unpredictable and more external fuel give you more options to tackle a wider range of scenarios more effectively.

The combination of speed (compared to drone, helicopters) fire power and persistence is the magic three for CAS. That is especially true for irregular warfare like in Afghanistan. I would prefer to have a rafale covering me for almost three hours than a Typhoon for not even an hour. So yes combat persistence is a decisive factor for CAS, especially against terrorism when you can't predict where and when terrorist will attack. Speed allow a fighter jet to join quickly an aera of interest is ground troops requires it. It is on demand like in Afganistan. I would prefer to call an aircraft that can come quickly, with fire power and covering me as long as possible.

And of course range is a decisive factor in the strategic deep strike mission an aera where the rafale excel at.

stealth :

"clue" is more an euphemism as pilots could attest that typhoon radar signature is bigger when confronted against it. When you look at other sources you understand that it is pretty credible. Especially with a Brazilian Air force technical Evaluation report.

Typhoon CFTs :

Time and ressource consuming it is to develop. Of course I am not able to put precise numbers but significantly time and ressource consuming for industry (BAE and EADS) not to venture alone and waiting state funding from current operators or export customer. If it was that easy and cheap we would see Typhoon with Cfts for quite some years already or at least a "go alone" industry development.

Spectra :

Indeed it was explicit. When DSI said that spectra managed to compensate APG-79 bigger radar range as far as detection is concerned it is pretty clear. I concede that I don't know if "compensate" meant roughly equal detection range or if it was a rafale advantage.

About radar use or not it is not only France but the US which will restrict to the maximum F22 radar use in order to remain as discrete/stealth as possible. I repeat myself, more radar range is an asset but when you take the bigger picture of multi-sensor fusion, networked environment this advantage is less obvious. This kind of tactics is more and more widespread. Here is an official presentation of some of the networked tactics used with rafale.

During the 3rd day of the trade show, last wednesday April 14th, Dassault has presented the Rafale to the press.
One of the slide of the presentation released by Poder Aereo is explaining how the Rafale sensor fusion works. I think this slide is rather interesting as it might show how the Rafale is operating during BVR combats :

The first Rafale, using its radar, remains at long range and feeds the second Rafale (mica shooter) through the data link. The mica shooter get much closer (mica range) to the bandits, but in full passive mode, using the OSF and Spectra to identify the targets and improve the targeting data. When the missiles have been shot, the shotter brakes away, and let the first Rafale guide its missiles from a safe range...

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/04/ ... usion.html

[Viv S]

CAS :

You talk as if your CAS scenario is always the norm but that is of course not the case. Tactical situations are unpredictable and more external fuel give you more options to tackle a wider range of scenarios more effectively. The combination of speed (compared to drone, helicopters) fire power and persistence is the magic three for CAS. That is especially true for irregular warfare like in Afghanistan.

What I stated was indeed the norm. Fighters aren't going to hang around in the air pointlessly if they can transit into the area in a matter of minutes after take off.

And in the event they did want to a fighter to hang around pointlessly, the IAF is set to have 270 MKIs that do far more 'hanging around' than the Rafale.

I would prefer to have a rafale covering me for almost three hours than a Typhoon for not even an hour.

I'm still wondering how twice the fuel load and extra drag equals three times the endurance.

So yes combat persistence is a decisive factor for CAS, especially against terrorism when you can't predict where and when terrorist will attack.

I see. So if you don't know where the terrorists will strike, where exactly do you deploy these airborne assets?

Speed allow a fighter jet to join quickly an aera of interest is ground troops requires it. It is on demand like in Afganistan. I would prefer to call an aircraft that can come quickly, with fire power and covering me as long as possible.

I think you and I differ on how CAS works. Here I thought, when ground forces encounter strong opposition they put out a call to the air force, or alternatively the UAVs or other ground surveillance aircraft pick out available targets. The fighters are tasked with the mission - they fly out, acquire the targets, engage them, return to base and await their next briefing. But, the way you phrase it, it appears they engage the targets(?) and then just go into holding pattern that they can maintain for three hours.

And of course range is a decisive factor in the strategic deep strike mission an aera where the rafale excel at.

Well on the rare occasion when that's required, the IAF already has an aircraft that excels at it. Was designed for operations over the vast hinterland of Russia.

stealth :

"clue" is more an euphemism as pilots could attest that typhoon radar signature is bigger when confronted against it. When you look at other sources you understand that it is pretty credible. Especially with a Brazilian Air force technical Evaluation report.

I'd like to hear how much bigger. And more importantly how that varies with a weapons load.

Typhoon CFTs :

Time and ressource consuming it is to develop. Of course I am not able to put precise numbers but significantly time and ressource consuming for industry (BAE and EADS) not to venture alone and waiting state funding from current operators or export customer. If it was that easy and cheap we would see Typhoon with Cfts for quite some years already or at least a "go alone" industry development.

Trouble is, 'significant' doesn't mean anything. Or 'cheap' for that matter. £10 million pounds is significant to me, but may be very acceptable to the company. £30 million may be significant to the company but more than acceptable to the RAF. The industry doesn't have to 'go alone' if they don't think the availability of CFTs is crucial to their product's fortunes (unlike AESAs).

Spectra :

Indeed it was explicit. When DSI said that spectra managed to compensate APG-79 bigger radar range as far as detection is concerned it is pretty clear. I concede that I don't know if "compensate" meant roughly equal detection range or if it was a rafale advantage.

Did DSI say that Spectra managed to 'compensate APG-79's bigger radar range', OR that Rafales were able to 'lock onto the APG-79's emissions'?

About radar use or not it is not only France but the US which will restrict to the maximum F22 radar use in order to remain as discrete/stealth as possible. I repeat myself, more radar range is an asset but when you take the bigger picture of multi-sensor fusion, networked environment this advantage is less obvious.

How is it an advantage? Its a huge liability. The more you increase the radar's range, the farther off your enemy locks onto your aircraft. Ideally the aircraft should have no radar at all.

Assuming of course that what you claim is true.

This kind of tactics is more and more widespread. Here is an official presentation of some of the networked tactics used with rafale.

During the 3rd day of the trade show, last wednesday April 14th, Dassault has presented the Rafale to the press.
One of the slide of the presentation released by Poder Aereo is explaining how the Rafale sensor fusion works. I think this slide is rather interesting as it might show how the Rafale is operating during BVR combats :

The first Rafale, using its radar, remains at long range and feeds the second Rafale (mica shooter) through the data link. The mica shooter get much closer (mica range) to the bandits, but in full passive mode, using the OSF and Spectra to identify the targets and improve the targeting data. When the missiles have been shot, the shotter brakes away, and let the first Rafale guide its missiles from a safe range...

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/04/ ... usion.html

How is this unique to the Rafale? Having one aircraft designate the target from the distance while another acts as a shooter is pretty standard for most modern aircraft (including some older 3rd generation types).

[Rakesh]

A flying lemon
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/editoria ... -lemon-200

Selected quotes from the article...

Dr Carlo Kopp, an internationally renowned combat aviation specialist, deems the Typhoon, a non-stealthy, short-range (300 nautical miles) air defence/air dominance fighter optimised for transonic manoeuvres, more a “lemon” than a “demon”. Italian Air Force Chief Gen. Vincenzo Camporini, moreover, declared in 2008 that this plane was incapable of an “attack role in an economically sustainable manner”, in part because EADS has no AESA radar. It hopes to develop one with the infusion of Indian monies if Typhoon is selected. Realistically, India will not get the strike variant until well into the 2020s as the Royal Air Force and the German Luftwaffe, for starters, will have the first lien on it. In short, for over a third of its lifetime, the IAF will have to make do with the more limited air defence version which, in effect, is an avionics-wise souped-up, ergonomically improved, MiG-21! Moreover, to expect timely, coordinated, supply of spares and service support from 20-odd countries (including Croatia!) roped into the Eurofighter programme will be a compounded logistics and maintenance nightmare.

I am appalled that Bharat Karnad could label the Typhoon as an ergonomically improved MiG-21!

Rafale is a smaller, semi-stealth plane with slightly better un-refuelled range than the Typhoon but, equipped with the RBE-22A AESA radar, can undertake ground attack, including nuclear weapon delivery. Critically, it has finessed the algorithm (patented, incidentally, by an Indian scientist) for more effective fusion of data from numerous on-board and external sensors (such as satellite) better than the Eurofighter. Except, as late as 2009, Rafale was ruled operationally inadequate perhaps because it is less agile in “dogfighting” — a role the IAF brass remains enamoured with long after advanced tactical missiles have made close-quarter aerial battle history.

Where does Bharat get this one from?

[ramana]

To me this is more important:

Rafale is a smaller, semi-stealth plane with slightly better un-refuelled range than the Typhoon but, equipped with the RBE-22A AESA radar, can undertake ground attack, including nuclear weapon delivery. Critically, it has finessed the algorithm (patented, incidentally, by an Indian scientist) for more effective fusion of data from numerous on-board and external sensors (such as satellite) better than the Eurofighter. Except, as late as 2009, Rafale was ruled operationally inadequate perhaps because it is less agile in “dogfighting” — a role the IAF brass remains enamoured with long after advanced tactical missiles have made close-quarter aerial battle history.

Wow!!! The Indian scientist bit.

Also if you read further he is asking for a transformation of aircraft industry in India by way of the MMRCA deal.

Learning from the past, defence minister A.K. Antony had better instruct his negotiators to insist on only phased payments linked to time-bound delivery of aircraft and full transfer of technology (including source codes and flight control laws for all aspects of the aircraft), and on deterrent penalties that automatically kick in at the slightest infringement or violation of clauses deliberately tilted to favour India. Considering Delhi — prior to signing the deal — is in a position to arm-twist almost anything out of the supplier firms using the threat of walking out on the deal, the litmus test of a “successful” MMRCA transaction will be whether, by way of offsets, and notwithstanding the initial problems with absorbing advanced technology, the Indian defence industry has gained top-edge technological-industrial competence across the broad combat aviation front (rather than rights to mere licenced manufacture as in past deals).

[ramana]

Response from US ex-officials in Hindu

‘After MMRCA, stay the course on defence ties'

[Karan M]

ViVS,

"What I stated was indeed the norm. Fighters aren't going to hang around in the air pointlessly if they can transit into the area in a matter of minutes after take off. "

Actually in ops, they do, on call for CAS/BAI. Arthuro is correct (IMO) in that more fuel = more flexibility.

[srai]

...

Which leaves SEAD/DEAD missions - I hope no one really expects the Rafale to actually get within 15 km of an air defence radar while flying in an ultra-low uber-cool fashion (as a graphic on one the previous pages describes). That may work against the Crotale perhaps but not against ... say the Akash (let alone a S-300 class system). Against any decent networked air defence system with overlapping radar coverage, you need a dedicated ARM that can be employed from stand off ranges or cruise missiles coupled with good intelligence. None of which helps make the Rafale's case.

...

There are several major limitations with ground based air-defenses (even the long-ranged varieties):

[1] Terrain - Unless otherwise flat, terrain plays a major role in coverage. There are a lot of blind spots because of hills/mountains.




[2] Curvature of Earth & Meteorological Conditions - For low flying targets, the radars only have a range of around 20km.




[3] Engagement Profiles of Missiles - There are limitations on the profiles (speed, altitude, range) the missiles can engage a target in. For example, direct head-on engagement of subsonic high flying target may be 100km, but for a receding target flying low, the range may be 10km.






[4] SAM Coverage - SAM coverage is not 100%. They are more like bubbles of coverage. Depending on the terrain, area and strategic importance, coverage (overlapping, density, layered) will vary. Flight path could be adjusted accordingly to fly around these bubbles.





[5] SEAD Tactics - Also, add to this various tactics (and a range of weapons) that the attacking aircrafts can employ to defeat ground-based air-defences.




Basically, it's not a simple one plane flying in with just one type of weapon to defeat an entire ground-based air defenses. As pointed above, it requires a combination of aircrafts, tactics, countermeasures and weapons to defeat modern air-defenses.

[Rakesh]

Wow!!! The Indian scientist bit.

Also if you read further he is asking for a transformation of aircraft industry in India by way of the MMRCA deal.

Ramana, the sensor fusion aboard Katrina is among the best out there. But I never knew about the "Indian Scientist" bit....guess I overlooked it during reading

Whether Saint Anthony actually tells his negotiators to do just that remains to be seen. But we can hope.

[Viv S]

ViVS,

"What I stated was indeed the norm. Fighters aren't going to hang around in the air pointlessly if they can transit into the area in a matter of minutes after take off. "

Actually in ops, they do, on call for CAS/BAI. Arthuro is correct (IMO) in that more fuel = more flexibility.

What kind of ops are we talking about? Full scale battle or CIOps? And are you saying CAS aircraft are likely to spend enough time on station to necessitate three 2000L tanks?

[Viv S]

There are several major limitations with ground based air-defenses (even the long-ranged varieties):

[1] Terrain - Unless otherwise flat, terrain plays a major role in coverage. There are a lot of blind spots because of hills/mountains.

The assumption being the radar is in a valley or otherwise has an obstructed view of the aircraft's direction of approach. That would indicate either tough circumstances or poor planning on ground. If that's the case, well and good...

[2] Curvature of Earth & Meteorological Conditions - For low flying targets, the radars only have a range of around 20km.

Fair enough.

[3] Engagement Profiles of Missiles - There are limitations on the profiles (speed, altitude, range) the missiles can engage a target in. For example, direct head-on engagement of subsonic high flying target may be 100km, but for a receding target flying low, the range may be 10km.

100km head-on and 10km tail chase for the same system? The latter figure is quite optimistic. In any case, one assumes that with a flight time of a few seconds, the aircraft would find it hard to exit the missile's NEZ before launch.

[4] SAM Coverage - SAM coverage is not 100%. They are more like bubbles of coverage. Depending on the terrain, area and strategic importance, coverage (overlapping, density, layered) will vary. Flight path could be adjusted accordingly to fly around these bubbles.

For point defence systems perhaps.

[5] SEAD Tactics - Also, add to this various tactics (and a range of weapons) that the attacking aircrafts can employ to defeat ground-based air-defences.

Now this is the crux of the argument. What the graphic doesn't take into account is -

1. The low flying Rafale is comfortably in the MANPAD envelope.
2. Despite flying low, its still vulnerable to look-down/shoot-down capabilities of fighters performing CAP and AEW&C aircraft
3. Most importantly, the assumption is the SAMs are in the same vicinity as the radar, which is probably not the case.... the aircraft 'teasing' the radar will not be able to tell if they're out of the 'threat zone'.

Basically, it's not a simple one plane flying in with just one type of weapon to defeat an entire ground-based air defenses. As pointed above, it requires a combination of aircrafts, tactics, countermeasures and weapons to defeat modern air-defenses.

I am curious though, how does any of this preclude the EF from flying the same profile and employing the same tactics? Firing off a barrage of Brimstones at 15km or a Paveway IV/Nirbhay/<new standoff weapon> from the designating aircraft?

[Viv S]

Arthuro, quick question about your 'internal fuel = one hour of endurance'.

What altitude and speed are we talking here? Because looking at the range of the aircraft and a typical speed of about Mach 0.6-0.7, at high altitude the EF should have about 2-2.5 hours of endurance if not more.

[SaiK]

kudos there, but a pointer for babooze, that if we are provided with enough support, pay check, and facilities, we achieve too.

on that strategic karl inderf... article, it is all hyde-ology. repenting they lost another finesse trump handle for the future, where a big elephant can be made to dance.

[Rahul M]

srai sahab, plz check PM inbox.

[Singha]

China seems to have taken Carlo Kopps judgement seriously - for the big fight, you need a pack of big dogs - going for a massive force of Flanker sized ac and medium nos of J-10 while not having anything smaller size in development...their F7s etc will likely be replaced with J10x only.

[SaiK]

Interesting read about space war between china and India article off br main site. Gagan integration could be something to look for then.

[arthuro]

Vivs,

CAS :
With no offence intended I think you missed how CAS works. We had plenty of examples with iraq, afghanisan and Lybia.

In Urban warfare (iraq, lybia to some extent) or counter insurgency like in Afghanisatn you rarely have pre-plan targets as ennemy forces are very mobile and hard to spot not to mention the blue on blue strike risk. waiting for a Troop In Contact (TIC) when covering a ground operation or looking for opportunity tagets requires persistence over a battle field.

The longer the ground troops are covered the safer they are. Often you can be asked to be redeployed on an other area to assist another ground operation. Persistence is indeed a highly valuable asset and that is why in A-stan the F15E is the main CAS provider among the US asset.

The longer you can look for opportunity targets like in Lybia the more efficient you are. A rafale with 6000L of external fuel will have a significant edge.

Actually loitering over a perticular arera in the norm for CAS. speeds inherent to fast jets make them in a different category than drones. As far as endurence figures are concerned they were notions, I admit that without the flying profile it is hard to compare.

As far as deep strike mission is concerned I believe rafale will have some distinct advantage over the Mki like its smaller radar cross section or its better situation awarness due to its integrated multi-sensor fusion suite. Add spectra in EW mode and it is like the cherry on the cake (+long range stealth cruise missiles).


SEAD :

AASM and spectra combination as a proven SEAD record in Lybia. It might not be able to take down a S300 without risk but it can already take care of full range of SAAM sites missiles with a lauch range of around 60km with the 250Kg bomb core and 100Km+ with the 125Kg bomb core. That something the typhoon is incapable of, even in the low altitude profile attack mission as it can't remain hidden behind the terrain as the rafale when shooting. AASM allows to be fired in indirect trajectories due to its GPS/INS and booster.

Spectra :

Spectra was able to lock onto APG-79 at long ranges it was not used in active mode.

CFT's

It is expensive because you need to re-right some of the FCS codes due to the altering of the center of gravity. To do so you also have to open the flight envelop with CFTs and that is not possible without a significant campain of flight testing.

But it is more than that because for the Typhoon you also have to fund the AESA (pre-industry funded) and the AtG weapons integration. That is a significant investement compared to the rafale whose upgrades are state funded. So if you look at the bigger picture there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of devlopment to catch up with the rafale in terms of technology while the rafale is already preparing for its next big upgrades.

If you compare the key milstones reached by each program the difference is just striking. All rafale upgrades are ready and validated operationnaly while most of typhoon one are either not in development (CFT, Atg integration) or at a very early stage of testing without the funds to make something operational (AESA it is only industry pre-funded waiting for a state to pay for the rest).

[Jaeger]

Here's a little something to enjoy while flying around in circles...

Bird & Fortune on the Eurofighter

Enjoy.

[Swami L]

Hi all. Although Ive been a lurker for best part of 6 years, Ive finally decided to join these forums!

Real quick introduction - Im from the UK - born and bred, and although mum & dad are from India(Punjab) I am extremley passionate about my 'homeland'!! I had always had ambitions of being a pilot - for the RAF, but alas things didnt work out and here I am working as an Engineer. I have followed all things aviation, especially military, since the early 80's, with a special focus on the IAF.

Right, back on topic, this is a really special time in the IAF- with both the Typhoon & Rafale being shorlisted as final contenders. Ive read all these posts discussing discussing the pros and cons of each platform, and the conclusion so far is that there are no conclusions! And even when one gets selected, that selection will always be inferior to the other in some way.

Taking a step back, looking at the AF today, it is a complete mess. I understand Indias reasoning for sourcing lots of different types from different sources, but with india having the Su30, Mig29, Mig21, Mig27, Jaguar, and M2000 it must be a logistical nightmare full of inefficiencies. 6 key fighter types (and I may have missed some). To be efficient and cost effective, we MUST rationalise and take this down as much as possible - ideally 3 types. And I believe that 3 types is the way to go - Su30; Typhoon/Rafale; and Tejas. All to be multi-role capable in every mission (Air superiority / Ground attack) but each with a bias in a particular way.

Su30 is an outstanding interceptor - with great endurance, massive radar, and A2A missile carrying ability. It also lends itself to a great long-range strike aircraft. Absolutely worth investing in - in regards to upgrades and development.

The Tejas is a `jack of all trades` craft that should be adept in light strike missions and A2A roles, as well as CAS roles. Why on earth is it not being inducted into the IAF NOW??? Sure, it may not fulfill the high standards the IAF wants, but SURELY its a hell of a lot better that the MiG21s and MiG27s capability? Get them rolling, and work in a Mk2 variant alongside it.

This leaves a large hole which I believe can be filled with either the Typhoon or Rafale. Typhoon as a A2A bias and the Rafale with an A2G bias. Which one do I think is a better fit? I think the Rafale has the edge - its A2G abilities are better than any of our dedicated ground attack planes (Mig27, Jaguar) which is absolutely REMARKABLE in a multi-role fighter thats proving itself in the field in Libya. Sure, its slightly comprimised in the A2A arena compared to the Typhoon, but with a topline fighter like the Su30 its not really much of an issue. The Typhoon is considerably inferior and less mature in A2G, and as its original concept was pure air-superiority (unlike the Rafale which is a truly multi-role concept), the Typhoon will NEVER excel in this area. Here in the UK, experts are regretting the way the Typhoon turned out as it will never be able to exceed as a replacement of the Tornado - something that a Rafale concept could have done. The Typhoon was from the outset designed to surpress large numbers of Soviet planes attacking Europe - that threat has all but diminished..... BUT is our situation similar to the the Indo - China scenario? Could the Typhoon concept fit here?

Induct Rafales (200+), phase out Mig29s, Mig27s, M2000 (dont bother with costly upgrade), and I think these 3 types could represent a qualitative fighter base that is truly flexible & comparable to the best in the world.

[arun]

X Posted from the India-US Strategic News and Discussion thread.

Speaking of US think tankers in particular Stephen Cohen ……………..

Stephen Cohen and Constantino Xavier on the existence of fundamental constraint to further improvement in bilateral relations namely “India’s commitment to strategic autonomy“.

Argues that the “commitment to strategic autonomy” caused the US to lose lost out on the MMRCA deal.

Concludes by saying that “instead of lamenting, soul-searching or—on the opposite extreme—demonizing New Delhi for decisions that are unfavorable to American interests, Washington needs to give the relationship time to mature and recognize that India’s profound concern with securing its strategic autonomy and self-reliance will continue to play a constraining role”.

Read it all in the National Interest:

U.S.-India Relationship on the Rocks?

[Luxtor]

biggun,

Welcome to the BR Forum. I agree with your point about IAF needing to bring down their variety of aircraft. I would also agree that IAF keep SU-30MKI (maybe increase its numbers even more), get Rafale/Typhoon in large numbers, Induct Tejas in large enough numbers to be effective militarily and economically. But I would keep all of the Mirage 2000's and some newer upgraded Mig-29s in airforce reserve squadrons (create reserve sqaudrons since they don't exist). Mirage 2000s in IAF service are really great multirole aircraft and still has a lot of life left in them and it would be a waste to just get rid of them at this stage. Maybe India can create "air national guard" similar to the U.S. as a reserve fighting force.

[rajanb]

Welcome Biggun and Hi Luxtor

I do agree to what Biggun is saying and also add to that Luxtor's logic and I think we would definitely have a tremendously powerful IAF.

I have desisted from commenting earlier and have read the various posts with interest and a thirst to learn. We can definitely pick holes in both, the EF and Rafale. But it is upto IAF's doctrine, the discussions they might have had with both manufacturers which we will never be privy to, to decide which of the two to buy.

The MoD might (and probably have) another goal in mind: To ensure that the ToT strengthens our fledgling R&D and manufacturing capability in all aspects of military and civilian aircraft design and upto deployment.

Add to that the PAK-FA, and once we have the pipeline for induction open fully (rather than see our squadron strength depleting as it currently has and continues to do so), we should definitely look at the IAF fielding 45-50 squadrons, since the threat perception is changing and extending to our maritime borders with China's "String of Pearls" strategy.

Cheers

[Henrik]

arthuro:

two questions:

* From what non-French sources can I read that spectra was able to "lock onto" APG-79?

* What is stopping the EF from using HARM/ALARM to execute SEAD? When integrated of course.

[Juggi G]

Securing our Skies, Slowly

By G Parthasarathy

[arthuro]

Henrik,

It was reported in DSI about a year ago when rafale and SH block 2 practised against each other over the mediterannean sea. CAS exercises were also performed by SH in france to train french J-Tac prior to their afghan deployement. These exercises were held as the French aeronavale was commemorating its 100 year birthday. Several USN jets were invited for this occasion on the french navy base of Hyères. Here are some pictures of the event including SH. I don't recall reading it somewhere else.

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/legrandfor ... 0071_7.htm

http://www.notam.fr/NOTAM/100613-LFTH-Hyeres.html

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=113449

DSI is a high quality magazine which has an "academic" bias with indepth analysis and first tier military personnel interviewed from all over the globe.
http://www.dsi-presse.com/

As for ALARM everything is a matter of money. For the moment it is not even advertised for its proposed roadmap. So I don't believe you will see a typhoon performing SEAD anytime soon. Also it has not yet been demonstrated that DASS can geolocate with sufficient precision radar sources to perform SEAD in the way the Spectra/AASM combo works.

[Viv S]

Vivs,

CAS :
With no offence intended I think you missed how CAS works. We had plenty of examples with iraq, afghanisan and Lybia.

In Urban warfare (iraq, lybia to some extent) or counter insurgency like in Afghanisatn you rarely have pre-plan targets as ennemy forces are very mobile and hard to spot not to mention the blue on blue strike risk. waiting for a Troop In Contact (TIC) when covering a ground operation or looking for opportunity tagets requires persistence over a battle field.

The longer the ground troops are covered the safer they are. Often you can be asked to be redeployed on an other area to assist another ground operation. Persistence is indeed a highly valuable asset and that is why in A-stan the F15E is the main CAS provider among the US asset.

The longer you can look for opportunity targets like in Lybia the more efficient you are. A rafale with 6000L of external fuel will have a significant edge.

Why is why I specifically mentioned that the threats the IAF is facing are very different and much graver than the NATO forces in Afghanistan or Libya. Libya is a turkey shoot for the AdlA, since there are no air threats and the Rafales can afford to fly up and down the country looking for a target. The same applies to Afghanistan where the USMC Harriers excelled at CAS. That's why I pointed out that your assumption about Kashmir being akin to Iraq or Afghanistan was simply wrong. Mi-25s were used for air support during some operations in the 90s but none ever since.

The threats the IAF trains for, relate primarily to hot wars. The IAF's aircraft aren't going to be flying over Sindh looking for that odd exposed tank to blow away to kingdom come. Three hours of flying in or near hostile airspace with a depleted air-to-air munitions complement (2 Meteors + 2 MICA) isn't a huge advantage over flying two 1.5 hour sorties in areas where CAS has specifically been called for. If the objective is reconnaissance/surveillance, that can be performed much more efficiently by UAVs.

Actually loitering over a perticular arera in the norm for CAS. speeds inherent to fast jets make them in a different category than drones. As far as endurence figures are concerned they were notions, I admit that without the flying profile it is hard to compare.

Well you just take the range of aircraft and a reasonable figure for speed and compute them. The figure of one hour endurance is just plain wrong.

As far as deep strike mission is concerned I believe rafale will have some distinct advantage over the Mki like its smaller radar cross section or its better situation awarness due to its integrated multi-sensor fusion suite. Add spectra in EW mode and it is like the cherry on the cake (+long range stealth cruise missiles).

With 3 external fuel tanks and 2 cruise missiles, its loses its RCS edge to a very large extent. The MKI on the other hand can carry a much larger complement of R-77s, will have one of the most powerful AESA radars in service, and have the advantage of a dedicated WSO.

SEAD :

AASM and spectra combination as a proven SEAD record in Lybia. It might not be able to take down a S300 without risk but it can already take care of full range of SAAM sites missiles with a lauch range of around 60km with the 250Kg bomb core and 100Km+ with the 125Kg bomb core. That something the typhoon is incapable of, even in the low altitude profile attack mission as it can't remain hidden behind the terrain as the rafale when shooting. AASM allows to be fired in indirect trajectories due to its GPS/INS and booster.

So you're saying the EF cannot employ the same tactics because it uses the cheap Paveway-IV instead of the rocket assisted AASM. Well last when I checked the AASM was priced at €350,000 ($500,000) with Sagem claiming it would drop to €200,000 ($300,000) once the remainder of the planned order was placed by the French military. For the same or marginally higher price the EF will be able to employ the Nirbhay ALCM, or whichever standoff missile the IAF orders, without having to play tag, 15-20km from the radar site.

Spectra :

Spectra was able to lock onto APG-79 at long ranges it was not used in active mode.

Is this a quote you're posting or a your 'take' on the incident?

Are radars set to become obsolete then, if not a liability?

CFT's

It is expensive because you need to re-right some of the FCS codes due to the altering of the center of gravity. To do so you also have to open the flight envelop with CFTs and that is not possible without a significant campain of flight testing.

So lets hear it then. How long do you suppose the CFTs will take to be cleared for operations and what in your opinion will it cost the Indian taxpayer?

But it is more than that because for the Typhoon you also have to fund the AESA (pre-industry funded) and the AtG weapons integration. That is a significant investement compared to the rafale whose upgrades are state funded. So if you look at the bigger picture there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of devlopment to catch up with the rafale in terms of technology while the rafale is already preparing for its next big upgrades.

Is the issue one of time or money or both? And how long do you think it will be before the EF achieves... well for your benefit I'll call them 'Rafale-like' qualities? Because I see no reason why it shouldn't happen within the IAF's induction period (and undertaking that EF has given the Indian MoD).

What 'big upgrades' will be integrated on the Rafales delivered to the IAF in 2014 by Dassault or by HAL?

If you compare the key milstones reached by each program the difference is just striking. All rafale upgrades are ready and validated operationnaly while most of typhoon one are either not in development (CFT, Atg integration) or at a very early stage of testing without the funds to make something operational (AESA it is only industry pre-funded waiting for a state to pay for the rest).

Be specific here - are you saying that the EFs delivered to the IAF will not have an AESA, or not have PGMs? Are you claiming that Brimstones can be integrated into the Rafale but will not be integrated into the EF? Are you claiming that should the IAF order Storm Shadows or CFTs, it will not get aircraft configured for the same?

Because you'd be wrong on every one of those points. While the makers of the Rafale can certainly claim today that they integrated its munitions and AESA before the EF did, the only design advantage it brings to the table is two extra wet-points.

The EF comes with a far better offsets package, more involvement by Indian companies in the consortium and re-export rights. And unlike Dassault's Mirage upgrade, the cost of EF upgrades aren't going exploitative.

[Viv S]

Henrik,

It was reported in DSI about a year ago when rafale and SH block 2 practised against each other over the mediterannean sea. CAS exercises were also performed by SH in france to train french J-Tac prior to their afghan deployement. These exercises were held as the French aeronavale was commemorating its 100 year birthday. Several USN jets were invited for this occasion on the french navy base of Hyères. Here are some pictures of the event including SH. I don't recall reading it somewhere else.

You've described the exercise but have not posted a quote explicitly saying that Rafales were able to lock onto APG-79 emissions.

As for ALARM everything is a matter of money. For the moment it is not even advertised for its proposed roadmap. So I don't believe you will see a typhoon performing SEAD anytime soon. Also it has not yet been demonstrated that DASS can geolocate with sufficient precision radar sources to perform SEAD in the way the Spectra/AASM combo works.

Like always I'll ask - how much money? How many zeroes are we talking here?

Not demonstrated geolocation? You mean via six page spreads in glossy magazines?

[Henrik]

Henrik,

It was reported in DSI about a year ago when rafale and SH block 2 practised against each other over the mediterannean sea. CAS exercises were also performed by SH in france to train french J-Tac prior to their afghan deployement. These exercises were held as the French aeronavale was commemorating its 100 year birthday. Several USN jets were invited for this occasion on the french navy base of Hyères. Here are some pictures of the event including SH. I don't recall reading it somewhere else.

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/legrandfor ... 0071_7.htm

http://www.notam.fr/NOTAM/100613-LFTH-Hyeres.html

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=113449

DSI is a high quality magazine which has an "academic" bias with indepth analysis and first tier military personnel interviewed from all over the globe.
http://www.dsi-presse.com/

As for ALARM everything is a matter of money. For the moment it is not even advertised for its proposed roadmap. So I don't believe you will see a typhoon performing SEAD anytime soon. Also it has not yet been demonstrated that DASS can geolocate with sufficient precision radar sources to perform SEAD in the way the Spectra/AASM combo works.

But there's a damn near enormous difference between "locking onto" and "detecting". That's why I need you to clarify whether it "locked onto" or "detected the presence of APG-79".

[Singha]

does Rafale/M2K feature any matra LBG north of 1000lb. we have a older weapon called Matra "BGL" for m2k that looks like 1000lb. does it come in a more contemporary flavour now or french AF prefers to use AASM only these days ... dont they have anything cheaper like this BGL thing?

[SaiK]

^^^ hindu link

Equally, there is no cause for our worthy Communists, who never tire of espousing the cause of the Chinese, while turning a blind eye to Sino-Pakistan nuclear and military cooperation, to celebrate Mr. Anthony's decision on the MMRCA.

[Krishnakg]

Here's a little something to enjoy while flying around in circles...

Bird & Fortune on the Eurofighter

Enjoy.

Thank you Jaeger,
Absolutely Hilarious ! Incisive and rib tickling commentary on the EF !
Bird & Fortune on the Eurofighter

[SaiK]

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=14802
would be better if we buy new jets, and get the upgrade rights to be done by local expertise using manufacturer's help. so, we can get both going while we upgrade our knowledge and industrial base.

Let us see who of these two, could offer even better solution if it is put on table say 200 MMRCAs for $13B

[Singha]

pic of libyan navy patrol boat bombed by RAF tornadoes. presumably with brimstone missiles looking at the moderate amt of blast damage and destruction. pretty accurate critters though when aimed properly.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infoc ... R2MOHM.jpg

[Swami L]

Thanks Luxtor & Rajanb for a warm welcome to my first post!

I see the argument of keeping upgraded Mig29 and M2000 craft as opposed to reducing the fighter type down to 3. And its an interesting idea to keep these planes in a seperate reserve force much like the US Marines. I do think that we should avoid upgrading the M2000s and increasing the order for MMRCA AND Tejas (The Tejas is not far away from a M2000 class plane, but with a much more modern platform from a systems point of view) - I dont think the M2000 upgrade represents value for money.

I do not understand the politics of the whole Tejas saga - on paper it is a fantastic plane on par with current gen Gripen, and I have no doubts it performs as such, with a much more modern platform. It seems that it doesnt meet the IAF criteria - maybe this criteria doesnt reflect Tejas position in line with MMRCA? Maybe the IAF are looking for MMRCA performance form the Tejas? This plane is and should not be compared to that class of plane - it should be inducted quickly with the GE404-IN20 engine, and keep the Mk2 programme (GE414) running at full speed. Get rid of all the Mig21 and 27s quickly!

A 3 type fighter mix of Su30; EF/Rafale; Tejas looks to fulfill ALL the fighter requirements of the IAF. Indian govenrment shoud force this quickly. I do not understand why things are moving so slowly in India.

[arthuro]

CAS :

You are wrong to believe that the only threat India could face would be full scale wars. China and Pakistan being nuclear power this would result to mutual destruction which makes this situation very unlikely although you have to brace for every possibility. What is happening is that terrorist groups are being equipped and supported by rival powers like in the Cashmere region were Islamists are supported by Pakistan secret services. You can find other famous analogy like US vs USSR in Vietnam.

In this case which corresponds to reality “persistence” performance is fully relevant to deliver effective CAS.

Even if we follow your science fiction full scale war scenario the range advantage is a huge tactical advantage. You can fight from where the enemy would not expect or change your course if a SAM threat appears on your tactical display. As drop tanks are meant to be “dropped” if required in a combat situation you can quickly recover the full performance of your jet if needed. Something you can’t do with CFTs.

Whatever the scenario you chose more fuel give you more options thus more operational flexibility to tackle effectively a wider range of tactical situations.

Rafale advantage is obvious here; with 6000L of external fuel it retains a considerable advantage over the Typhoon. That’s not really the two extra wet points as you said as you will not see a rafale with 5 drop tanks, it is the ability to take 3*2000L external fuel tanks while carrying large AtG payload. With the typhoon it is either payload or fuel, with the rafale it is both. That makes the rafale a better multirole aircraft “by design”.

Deep strike:

That’s rafale area of excellence. The combination of situation awareness, low RCS, sophisticated EW suite, long range reach and advance AtG weapons makes it a highly capable aircraft in that role. The option to drop the fuel tanks is also an advantage over CFTs. With a dedicated WSO which can interlace mods with the pilot (simultaneous AtA and AtG tasks) it is the aircraft of choice for attacking distant threats in a challenging environment. These points are well developed on latest Dassault publication.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/filead ... 14_UK2.pdf

Spectra :

to answer you and the question from Henrik, the sentence in question stated that spectra helped to compensate the better radar range of the APG-79 against the RBE2 pesa and that SH and rafale did “jeux égals” (in French) which mean they were on par in theses BVR exercises. You can interpret “compensate” as you want in the end the AESA and latest AIM-120 model of the SH were not enough to gain any edge. As far as I am concerned I believe they managed to lock the emission as it would be the likeliest way to manage to be on par.

CFTs and other upgrades :

I don’t know exactly how much it will cost but it will be costly. If the current typhoon operator are unable to pay for it and the industry can’t go alone this is a clue that the price to develop and integrate them should not be overlooked. Certainly nothing unfeasible but when you add to that price the AESA development costs and the AtG weapons integration cost, the typhoon package will be very costly. The difference with the rafale program is that all these development are state funded so Thales or Dassault don’t need to bill these developments costs.

So either the rafale can remain in its current export configuration while remaining cheaper or they can decide to suggest new improvements to bring the rafale at the next level.

Offsets :

You have no clue of what Dassault commercial offer will look like (it is not even finalized) so your assertion that Typhoon consortium will be better on that is baseless although I admit that with EADS, BAE and Finmeccanica they should have an edge. That being said to be compliant you need to offset 50% of the price of the deal. If both manufacturers are compliant the L1 should win and that would mean the rafale.

As far as the mirage 2000 upgrade price is concerned I don’t see it as a liability. Firstly because if India eventually decides to sign the deal it means they are OK and they had the choice to go for an Israeli upgrade. Secondly buying the rafale would be a good way to amortize this upgrade cost as you can use the future mirage 2000 weapons (Mica, Damocles Ldp and others) on the rafale as well.

Also don’ forget that India is operating French jets for 50 years and the relationship and performance record of French jets is good in the IAF especially since the performance of the mirage 2000 in the Kargil war. In terms of serenity and permanence it would be less risky to go for the rafale than with an aircraft from a four nation consortium.