India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 27 May 2011 14:18

On his part, Mr. Longuet sought to impress that in the MMRCA deal, the French have a unique distinction. “We have one single speaking partner [Dassault] instead of four partners [European firms from Italy, Germany, Spain and U.K.]…” he said.

The French Minister underscored that the French companies have a long association with the Indian defence industry and the loyal relationship is based on three points, one, that the equipment will always be available, two, there would no restrictions on its use, and third, as technology evolves, the equipment is upgrade[d].

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 053809.ece

In an expected swipe at the Eurofighter consortium, the French Defence Minister said, "We are one country, and we have enjoyed a relationship since 1953. Dealing with one country you know well, I imagine, is better than dealing with four countries. It is just simpler."

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/05/we ... s-for.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 May 2011 15:28

biggun wrote:........

username changed to Swami L.

coming to your point about commonality, I think you are missing a few points.

# IAF is short on sqn numbers right now, it can't afford to retire or put into storage active squadrons !!

# mig-29 and M2k are aircraft that IAF and its pilots are very familiar with. any new aircraft will take at least a couple of years to come up to speed and more to be perfected to match IAF doctrine.

# the savings on commonality are exaggerated in some ways. it depends on the context. in IAF's case there is very little overall gains to be had from retiring either of those types. you are thinking this from the POV of a smaller and shrinking air force like RAF. there is a minimum number of airframes above which the marginal cost of maintaining an additional airframe becomes near constant, IOW maintaining an air force of 25 mig-29 and 25 M2k might be much costlier/airframe than an airforce composed entirely of one type but beyond a certain number, say 50 of each type, the difference won't be all that much. The IAF has been doing this for about 50 years now, that too on a shoestring budget and they have become quite good at it. while this wide selection of types isn't ideal, it doesn't break the bank either. IAF has a sophisticated inventory and spares management system across the country that keeps track of every little thing.

# one of the disadvantages of a single type based AF is that the entire AF(or a significant part for 2 or 3 types based AF) risks being grounded in case of a mishap. this is a point that a force like IAF, which has to deal with real threats round the year, can't ignore.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 27 May 2011 16:32

A different perspective of the MMRCA competition :

[...] French industrial sources do confirm this perspective, the essential argument in this regard is that "the British are infinitely more experienced than anyone in the identification of points of influence and corruption, or to corrupt bureaucrats in the Indian bureaucracy to achieve a result. " This "expertise" Britain is at least confirmed by the number, according to these same sources, the British BAE (who works for the Typhoon, according to this peculiar situation reported above) would be "between 30 and 40" in India, this MMRCA market, while Dassault would have a permanent delegate.

http://www.dedefensa.org/article-l_inde ... _2011.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 May 2011 16:37

Well I think the French DGSE is as capable of influencing and corrupting people who matter as much as MI6 is , so there is no point complaining or pointing fingers.

Swami L · Post by **Swami L** » 27 May 2011 16:39

Hi Rahul.

You make some very valid points. Although I understand the craft that the IAF has, I dont have much knowledge into how it operates, and I understand that the numbers of Mig29s and M2000s the IAF has make commonality costs much less of an issue (as opposed to smaller numbers). One area that an impact may be made is in pilot training, availability, and development (and all the costs associated with that) -- I still feel that a minimalistic fighter type is the best way as you have a much more simplified pilot pool.

When I talk of getting rid of Mig29s and M2000s - I mean that they are progressively removed from the IAF inventory as the EF/Rafale actually get inducted, or perhaps hold onto them until we have enough EF/Rafales in squadron service, and as far as I know MMRCA (and to some extent the Tejas) are more effective platforms that either the M29 or M2000. The question for me is that is it viable (or cost effective) to spend so much to upgrade the M2000s? The Mig29 upgrade has I believe already been signed off.

manum · Post by **manum** » 27 May 2011 17:32

Swami L wrote:Hi Rahul.

You make some very valid points. Although I understand the craft that the IAF has, I dont have much knowledge into how it operates, and I understand that the numbers of Mig29s and M2000s the IAF has make commonality costs much less of an issue (as opposed to smaller numbers). One area that an impact may be made is in pilot training, availability, and development (and all the costs associated with that) -- I still feel that a minimalistic fighter type is the best way as you have a much more simplified pilot pool.

When I talk of getting rid of Mig29s and M2000s - I mean that they are progressively removed from the IAF inventory as the EF/Rafale actually get inducted, or perhaps hold onto them until we have enough EF/Rafales in squadron service, and as far as I know MMRCA (and to some extent the Tejas) are more effective platforms that either the M29 or M2000. The question for me is that is it viable (or cost effective) to spend so much to upgrade the M2000s? The Mig29 upgrade has I believe already been signed off.

Minimalism is natural if its naturally achieved with time...i.e. build your own fighters...so till then minimalism with best results is quiet not possible...Mirage has proven role with IAF, and I don't think it will be worth it to replace it with Rafale, if cost is so much of issue, don't upgrade them and let them die a natural death, or replace them when you feel you are comfortable to do that prematurely like Germans did with Mig29's and many more...

IAF is best judge in this case...

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 27 May 2011 17:36

Austin wrote:Well I think the French DGSE is as capable of influencing and corrupting people who matter as much as MI6 is , so there is no point complaining or pointing fingers.

Having worked with the Brits and the French so closely for so long, I think they are both quite prone to accusing others of impropriety than taking a look at themselves. This 'quality' is not so visible in some of the other Europeans such as Germans and Swedes.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 May 2011 21:16

arthuro wrote: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.

You're confusing a 'hot war' with 'total war'. Just because the region is nuclearized doesn't mean its time to retire conventional forces. Nuclear weapons are a option of last resort and the Indian military trains for 'war under a nuclear overhang'. I would suggest you try reading up on the Indian Army's 'Cold Start' doctrine. While the degree to which the IAF subscribes to it remains to be seen, you'll find it insightful with regard to the operational philosophy of the country's defence planners.

And I would advise against comparing Kashmir to Vietnam. I suggest you come visit Kashmir, make a holiday out of it, and then tell me how much close air support by fast jets, the 'war' there was lacking in.

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.

The EF is not a point defence fighter despite your repeated claims to the same. 1.5 hours of endurance on internal fuel is hardly small enough to be scoffed at. Since you're repeating yourself regarding the drop tanks being jettisonable, I'll repeat myself about the advantages of CFTs - lower RCS, better aerodynamic performance, greater number of available hard-points, better operational range and so on. We can carry on in circles if you like, but fact remains that CFTs wouldn't have been developed if drop tanks were a sufficient solution.

BTW conventional war in South Asia is now science fiction?

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”.

The EF can be configured to carry 2 fuel tanks, 2 ASRAAMs/Iris-Ts, 4 Meteors and a combination of 4 Pv-IV / 2 Pv-IV+6 Brim / 12 Brim. So again its not a question of only fuel or only munitions.

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.

Its interesting that on one hand you dismiss the possibility of conventional war in the region (as science fiction no less) and on the other hand claim the IAF has a strong requirement for an (obviously China specific) deep strike aircraft. Also like I said before the IAF already has superior options in the rare case a deep strike is called for (in a science fictional war with China), in the Su-30MKI and the (1000km ranged) Nirbhay.

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.

So that's your interpretation of the article not a reproduction of the article's text. I suppose I'll take that with a pinch of salt and for now shelf the idea that the 'Age of Radars' (so to speak) is over.

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.

I'm not looking for a pre-audited financial quote. Just a general idea of what 'costly' means. Lets hear a figure that you think is costly but possible.

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.

The difference in the cost of a HAL manufactured EF and Rafale isn't going to be high. As a matter of fact, thanks to higher volumes and surfeit production capacity, components imported for the EF builds are likely to be a good bit cheaper.

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.

Huh? First you say that the EF's offer being better is completely baseless and then follow that up by saying it has the edge.

Coming to the second part, nowhere is it written that the Rafale's offer is L1. Also the MoD will examine all aspects of the deal include the value of ToT available, quality of industrial participation and possible future expenditure (such as that on upgrades).

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.

You've missed the point entirely regarding the Mirage-2000. When upgrades to the Rafale will be required, the French companies will have an inordinate amount of leverage over the IAF/MoD. The Mirage upgrade is only evidence to whether they can expect grace in the situation or for that monopoly to be exploited to the hilt.

While the MoD took the safer option with Dassault instead of an experimental approach via Rafael and Elta, they were always far from satisfied with the French terms.

According to senior IAF sources, Dassault has refused to reduce its quota of Rs 10,000 crore ($2.1 billion) for extending the service life of the IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet by fitting new radars and avionics. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) considers this price — Rs 196 crore ($41 million) per aircraft — unacceptably high, given that the airframes and engines will not be changed.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 54/373419/

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 May 2011 21:26

arthuro wrote:A different perspective of the MMRCA competition :

[...] French industrial sources do confirm this perspective, the essential argument in this regard is that "the British are infinitely more experienced than anyone in the identification of points of influence and corruption, or to corrupt bureaucrats in the Indian bureaucracy to achieve a result. " This "expertise" Britain is at least confirmed by the number, according to these same sources, the British BAE (who works for the Typhoon, according to this peculiar situation reported above) would be "between 30 and 40" in India, this MMRCA market, while Dassault would have a permanent delegate.
http://www.dedefensa.org/article-l_inde ... _2011.html

Raising a question mark over the validity of the selection process and the integrity of the IAF/MoD evaluation team, are we? And here I though with the elimination of the American companies, a point had been made. I guess the MI-6 showed the CIA up, and are now set to give the same treatment to the DGSE.

Come to think about it, our discussion on the MRCA thread had mostly been about the technical capabilities of the competitors. Perhaps we should have been comparing the capabilities of the respective intelligence agencies as well.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 May 2011 21:31

Austin wrote:Well I think the French DGSE is as capable of influencing and corrupting people who matter as much as MI6 is , so there is no point complaining or pointing fingers.

What rubbish. Don't exaggerate.

You can take heart from the squeaky clean purchases made by our beloved neighbor to the west.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 27 May 2011 22:16

Why are we discussing about the role of respective intelligence agencies in the MMRCA contest? Isn't it a known fact that this has happened earlier too? Anyone remember the DGSE snooping on PMO in the 80s or the delaying of the AJT finalization due to unfavourable plants about some of the officers by both the contenders? So why the surprise that even the MMRCA will be a playground for these agencies.

No wonder the IAF chief was talking about this threat just before the downselect was announced. It is part & parcel of any defence deal. We have to pull up our socks and make sure things stay on track as much as possible.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 May 2011 01:15

I would have to agree there with EADS, where they have done a great job in dealing with many countries (though similar doctrines) and bringing up super fighter a/c for their forces. I guess, for the politics and setup, they are pricey indeed. Now, we have no idea what actually they would re-evaluate their product values and appraise themselves for a longer standing relationship with a most important strategic nation on the planet. So, it does not appear that everything here is up for grabs, and India would silently accept and nod to all politically motivated decisions.

Well, as time progresses we shall see and the fear of air chief though may be real, but currently only misguided parties can lead up to that level. Americans are cleverly disappointed expecting more sales in the future, and they are keeping a little subdued profile expecting larger orders in the near future. Now, all that they have to do, is cut down on rhetoric values of legalities, and work with DRDO labs, on sub component projects that we could tie up on shared IP rights and legal bindings. Strategy has to start from component levels to mature to great heights.

It would be really silly, if EADS would not down size their expensive Eu units, and start moving down to high performing lower expensive factories in India, where they can enjoy dual benefits right now. France, otoh, does extremely good on these, except on niche aspects, and finally end up in a tussle on price war.

I guess, this struggle is going to be really brutal and painful in the coming months, to really know who and what of this deal., if it should happen without any hindrance.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 28 May 2011 04:39

CAS :

Hot wars ? are you the new self-proclamed expert in giving the next war temperature ?
You can play with words or invent your own war scenario as much as you want but it remains that the rafale will allow more options and more flexibility as it can carry significantly more fuel while carrying heavy loads. That is true for CAS or any other AtG missions be it irregular, hot or total warfare whatever the temperature of your scenario. What happen if the nearer airfield is disabled and you should fly from greater distance ? What happen if you need to provide CAS for ground troop against terrorists ? etc you can make a huge list of situations were more range or persistence is an asset. The bigger Typhoon external fuel range from 0L to 2000L depending of the AtG configuration while you can always have 6000L of external fuel for the rafale. You are pontificating over the IAF doctrine but haven't come with a single worthy argument. It is nice to know some author to "look" knowledgeable but you will need more than that to bring some valuable points.

CFT and drop tanks :

Both have their assets and liabilities and CFTs are a possible option for the rafale and the typhoon if required. But for the case of the typhoon it is more a constraint to perform the minimum range with AtG loads while with the rafale the CFTs would be chosen if really needed as you have sufficient external fuel with drop tanks. Again the rafale is a more flexible platform due to a better payload layout. Typhoon limited range makes it unsuitable for deep strikes and not an optimal platform for CAS. With typhoon it is fuel or munitions when compared to the rafale. In your example the rafale can carry 3 time more external fuel (!!) and two more bombs(!). For a laugh look at the cruise missile configuration...The typhoon can only carry a single 1000L drop tank !! That is 6 time less than the Rafale !

spectra :

You are purposely caricaturing my arguments in an attempt to discredit my point. I never said the age of radar was over nor that an aircraft doesn't need a good radar range, just that the situation is more complex with modern RWR and other optronic sensors not to mention net-worked environment. You are over-simplistic in the way air-dominace works.

upgrades and costs :

Typhoon is late in its development compared to the rafale. To catch up industry must invest for the necessary upgrades and as a private run firms, they will have to bill these development cost in a way or another if they still want to make a profit. By the way According to Avia News , the last Dassault offer in Switzerland was 22 Rafale (version 3F-04T) for $ 4.5 billion francs. Eurofighter (version DA7 +) offered 18 Typhoon for 5.8 billions francs. The rafale manufacturing process is also much more efficient with a single assembly line an no industrial non-sense like manufacturing each wing in a different country. Workers alternate works between falcon jets and and rafale assembly line to gain in productivity and share costs.

mirage upgrade :

What you are missing is the reputation of the mirage 2000 in the IAF and the good customer/supplier relationship with Dassault. As you could notice this special relationship is the main argument used by french defense minister and the rafale will help amortize this investment on the mirage 2000. They had the choice to go for an israeli upgrade or expressing dissatisfaction by not shortlisting the rafale. The fact that the contract is near an agreement mean that both side are happy with the conditions. It will help rafale chances by creating synergies and money saving as the weapons are common.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 28 May 2011 06:11

arthuro wrote:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 053809.ece

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/05/we ... s-for.html

look at the pictures of dhoti ~~shivering~~ smiling sdre and the suit boot frenchie in the above 2 urls

GeorgeM · Post by **GeorgeM** » 28 May 2011 07:21

Guys please refrain from personal attacks. You guys are sharing some interesting info from all sides, but please keep it professional. No need to throw mud please. It lowers the interest to read thru the forum posts. Thank you

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2011 07:29

the 2 x CFT and 3 x drop tanks + internal make the rafale a flying fuel tank. I have never seen such a smallish a/c carry so much fuel. one could probably take off from bangalore, strike kraachi with standoff weapons and fly back without any tanker support.

if the idea is deep strike using cruise missiles (proposed desi SAC), this seems like a better option than MKI to me because of less radar sig (it can use the drop tanks on way out and use internal + CFT on way back), better sensor fusion and defensive aids, better passive sensors, AASM, Apache, Scalp ....

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 May 2011 17:26

Don't believe lagarde when she says that France won't sell anything to Pak. Its BS. Its because PRC has edged France out of the market by offering better credit terms etc. France was hoping that India may also buy more french if they sell less to Pak. France are still trying to sell some subs to KSA/Pak.

JF-17s will have french avionics and other systems possibly.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 May 2011 18:04

Commercial bids for fighter plane contract to be opened next week
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/co ... k/796339/0

Indian Air Force (IAF) officials are believed to be rooting for the Rafale, which could come across as the lowest bidder owing to its low lifecycle cost. However, Eurofighter’s offer to set up a production line in India could give it some leverage.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 May 2011 18:05

New weapons for the Rafale
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/05/ ... afale.html

DGA (French defense procurement agency) and CEAM (French air force experimentation and trials center) is currently finishing the integration of the 2000 lb class GBU-24 laser guided bomb on the Rafale. The prefered hardpoints for this GBU are the center line fuselage and mid wing points. This massive bomb, already operational on Mirage 2000 D/N, will be complemented at a later stage by the 2000 lb versions of the AASM.

Also in the pipeline are the "limited effect weapons" intended to be used close to urban areas. Several options are studied by the DGA:
- GBU with inert bodies which are already in use in Libya. This solution is seen as too heavy and costly though.

- Brimstones missile made by MBDA UK. This small laser guided missilecarried in large number by RAF Tornadoes, has proved to be very effective in Libya. The DGA is seriously considered its integration on the Rafale (2 weeks ago, a French delegation visited MDBA UK to discuss the matter).

- Laser guided rockets that are being developed by Thales and would be carried on the Rafale 3rd wing hadpoint.

- LGTR (Laser Guided Training Round) are also studied.

Last eye candy for today is the "Meteor" Air-defense loadout with mica on the 3rd wing hardpoint. This is a long expected configuration and the first one to use the 8 wing pylons:
- 4 meteor
- 2 Mica EM
- 2 Mica IR
- 3 RPL701 - 1250L tanks

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 May 2011 19:04

I am sure IAF would ask for M88-4 version, considering the T:W ratios, prorated figures as they are pressurizing LCA team to deliver on higher thrusts (if the selected one ought to be kat).

I hope there is no over loading of issues with MMRCA coming from the recent tussle on price with turbomeca on the shakti engines. It is a necessary evil I agree though.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 May 2011 01:42

one of the possible rafale configuration (4 meteor and 4 micas in EM and IR variant).

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4029 ... 061236.jpg

Admin Note: Please do not post large images in threads. Not everyone has fast internet connections.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 May 2011 02:16

Price row prompts HAL to look elsewhere for chopper engine

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 May 2011 03:33

arthuro wrote:CAS :

Hot wars ? are you the new self-proclamed expert in giving the next war temperature ?

Don't take my word for it. Ask around on the forum. See if planning for the end of conventional warfare finds many takers.

You can play with words or invent your own war scenario as much as you want but it remains that the rafale will allow more options and more flexibility as it can carry significantly more fuel while carrying heavy loads. That is true for CAS or any other AtG missions be it irregular, hot or total warfare whatever the temperature of your scenario. What happen if the nearer airfield is disabled and you should fly from greater distance ?

The IAF has bases all along the countries borders and if all the airbases in a region have been disabled, providing constant CAS will the least of the IAF concerns. But for argument's sake if we assume that's case, then the EF can still fly with 2 fuel tanks, and a combination of 4 Paveways and upto 12 Brimstones, or alternatively utilize air to air refueling while equipped with 6 Paveways/18 Brimstones.

What happen if you need to provide CAS for ground troop against terrorists ?

I've informed before you're completely mistaken about the situation on ground, be it Kashmir or the Indian North-East and you're drawing uninformed parallels with Libya and Afghanistan. Again, don't take my word for it, ask around, or go through the archives on the forum.

The only time IAF's fast jets have ever been used in a domestic operation was in Mizoram in 1966, which is still a sore point amongst many Mizos today. The IAF chief is on record saying that he opposed the use of air power in such operations - and this was just with regard to attack helicopters not fighter aircraft.

The bigger Typhoon external fuel range from 0L to 2000L depending of the AtG configuration while you can always have 6000L of external fuel for the rafale.

Extra fuel comes at the cost of the air-to-air missile complement, extra drag and higher RCS. And it comes into play only when the aircraft's range is insufficient which is not the case with the EF.

Frankly one could keep saying the same thing about the Su-30MKI as well. Why were fuel tanks never integrated when they could have provided additional flexibility?

You are pontificating over the IAF doctrine but haven't come with a single worthy argument. It is nice to know some author to "look" knowledgeable but you will need more than that to bring some valuable points.

Every thing I've stated regarding the IAF's doctrine is public knowledge. Most folks on the forum are well aware these facts.

CFT and drop tanks :

Both have their assets and liabilities and CFTs are a possible option for the rafale and the typhoon if required. But for the case of the typhoon it is more a constraint to perform the minimum range with AtG loads while with the rafale the CFTs would be chosen if really needed as you have sufficient external fuel with drop tanks. Again the rafale is a more flexible platform due to a better payload layout. Typhoon limited range makes it unsuitable for deep strikes and not an optimal platform for CAS.

What do you mean by if 'really needed'? Lets see here what target do you suppose would require drop tanks and 2300L of CFT fuel, all in addition to the 5800L of fuel carried internally by the Rafale.

Since you've described the EF's range as 'limited', what in your opinion is 'ideal' range? Given the IAF's operational scenario, look up the map of the region, and then tell me precisely what target will the Rafale be able to strike that the EF will not.

With typhoon it is fuel or munitions when compared to the rafale. In your example the rafale can carry 3 time more external fuel (!!) and two more bombs(!). For a laugh look at the cruise missile configuration...The typhoon can only carry a single 1000L drop tank !! That is 6 time less than the Rafale !

So, in short the Rafale's 'superior' ground attack capability comes down to carrying two more bombs when laden with fuel, while the EF is 'forced' to carry air-to-air missiles on those hard-points. I'm glad that's cleared up for the thread's viewers.

And you're right I do look at the cruise missile configuration for laughs. By defining at the outset, that 'each aircraft must carry at least two cruise missiles' (why?), you've already decided that the IAF's objectives mirror that of the AdlA. Why for example is a 800-1000km ranged Nirbhay launched from a MKI not a safer and preferable option than to have an expensive aircraft ingress deep in enemy territory, well covered by AEW&C aircraft and possibly AESA equipped Flankers.

spectra :

You are purposely caricaturing my arguments in an attempt to discredit my point. I never said the age of radar was over nor that an aircraft doesn't need a good radar range, just that the situation is more complex with modern RWR and other optronic sensors not to mention net-worked environment. You are over-simplistic in the way air-dominace works.

I apologize if you felt my response was a caricature of your assertion. My point was simple - the SPECTRA cannot lock onto the APG-79 (regardless of optronics and networking) and will not be able to lock onto the Captor-E. If it were possible, radars would become a liability and therefore obsolete.

upgrades and costs :

Typhoon is late in its development compared to the rafale. To catch up industry must invest for the necessary upgrades and as a private run firms, they will have to bill these development cost in a way or another if they still want to make a profit. By the way According to Avia News , the last Dassault offer in Switzerland was 22 Rafale (version 3F-04T) for $ 4.5 billion francs. Eurofighter (version DA7 +) offered 18 Typhoon for 5.8 billions francs. The rafale manufacturing process is also much more efficient with a single assembly line an no industrial non-sense like manufacturing each wing in a different country. Workers alternate works between falcon jets and and rafale assembly line to gain in productivity and share costs.

How does an off-the-shelf delivery to Switzerland equate to a HAL produced aircraft? After all HAL workers are not going to be alternating between Falcon jet and Rafale assembly lines. Its only the first 18 aircraft, where any supposed efficiency in production will come into play.

Also, I'm still awaiting a reply regarding the costs of the upgrades you think are critical, and what proportional the UK and Germany can be expected to pick up.

mirage upgrade :

What you are missing is the reputation of the mirage 2000 in the IAF and the good customer/supplier relationship with Dassault. As you could notice this special relationship is the main argument used by french defense minister and the rafale will help amortize this investment on the mirage 2000.

Reputation compared to whom? The IAF/MoD is cognizant of the fact while Dassault's quality and support has been far better than the Russians, its not necessarily any better than what Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Saab or BAE would have provided.

They had the choice to go for an israeli upgrade or expressing dissatisfaction by not shortlisting the rafale. The fact that the contract is near an agreement mean that both side are happy with the conditions. It will help rafale chances by creating synergies and money saving as the weapons are common.

The Israeli firms have never attempted a full upgrade of a Mirage-2000 before. The technical feasibility of that remains questionable, and the MoD is not given to gambling money or time. A contract close to being signed doesn't not mean both sides are happy with it particularly since the service in question was monopolistic by nature.

The upgrades to the MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 were mooted together, yet while the MiG-29 upgrade was signed over three years ago and scheduled to complete by 2013, the Mirage-2000 upgrade is yet to be signed. That speaks volumes about how happy the IAF and MoD are about the deal.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 May 2011 03:50

Singha wrote:the 2 x CFT and 3 x drop tanks + internal make the rafale a flying fuel tank. I have never seen such a smallish a/c carry so much fuel. one could probably take off from bangalore, strike kraachi with standoff weapons and fly back without any tanker support.

if the idea is deep strike using cruise missiles (proposed desi SAC), this seems like a better option than MKI to me because of less radar sig (it can use the drop tanks on way out and use internal + CFT on way back), better sensor fusion and defensive aids, better passive sensors, AASM, Apache, Scalp ....

An even better option is the Nirbhay - ranged at a 1000km, 1ton warhead and probably a lot a cheaper than the Scalp-EG/Storm Shadow.

Drop tanks + CFT + internal tanks means 7-11 tons of fuel, near MTOW with munitions, and a very significant RCS gain. Also, 'better passive sensors' and 'better defensive aids' is so far just a claim.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 May 2011 04:53

I agree in the sense, a deep strike is highly risky without supporting AWACS and refuelers. Passive sensors, with active targeting relayed from AWACs is ideal.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 May 2011 06:28

there is only one problem - the nirbay is 10 yrs away from entering service and almost certainly going to be SLCM as priority#1 , followed perhaps by a GLCM and then lastly a ALCM .... and only the Su30 might be able to carry it on centerline pylon...not exactly a happy situation if you want to have a deep strike weapon for every fighter. and it also will not be cheap for sure.

in situation which do not need a 1000km range but vital and hard targets nevertheles, a stealthy 300km weapon capable of being launched by every a/c in IAF is a good thing to have. crystal maze mk2 could be it, as we do not have a known domestic pgm for it.

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 29 May 2011 07:02

arthuro wrote:one of the possible rafale configuration (4 meteor and 4 micas in EM and IR variant).

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4029 ... 061236.jpg

Admin Note: Please do not post large images in threads. Not everyone has fast internet connections.

just looking at the configuration makes me wonder why mica EM on the outboard pylons when you have meteor??isnt meteor cleared to be carried on those pylons??(assuming this is a possible future config as arthuro said)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 May 2011 07:24

shyamd wrote:Don't believe lagarde when she says that France won't sell anything to Pak. Its BS. Its because PRC has edged France out of the market by offering better credit terms etc. France was hoping that India may also buy more french if they sell less to Pak. France are still trying to sell some subs to KSA/Pak.

JF-17s will have french avionics and other systems possibly.

Agreed , French are masters of making money from both parties . Right now French are making the right noise that would please India and improve its chances to win the deal ( to be fair any one would do it ) but once French Wins the deal , you would see they would be back in Pakistan scouting for potential deal.

But thats the nature of the game , French or any country is out there to make money from arms deal.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 May 2011 07:36

Singha wrote:there is only one problem - the nirbay is 10 yrs away from entering service and almost certainly going to be SLCM as priority#1 , followed perhaps by a GLCM and then lastly a ALCM ....

The air-launched Nirbhay might be years away from the service. A ground based alternative on the other hand will start being flight tested next year. I see no reason why it can't be inducted into the military by 2015 if all goes well.

A ship launched variant will in my opinion probably be the last to be developed. The Indian Navy already has a LACM in the Klub and unlike the USN doesn't have pressing need to strike targets deep inland. Also technically speaking its going to be more complex than the ground launched variant.

and only the Su30 might be able to carry it on centerline pylon...not exactly a happy situation if you want to have a deep strike weapon for every fighter. and it also will not be cheap for sure

.

Its already got a range of 1000km, which is more than sufficient for all but symbolic/civilian targets. Sure an air launched variant my allow it to strike 1500km into enemy territory but is that a pressing requirement as things stand?

Regarding the cost - the Scalp-EG is reportedly priced at a bit over $1 million a pop. While the Nirbhay may be expensive compared to glide bombs and rocket assisted PGMs, I'd think it wouldn't be unfair to venture that it would cost less than the Scalp/Storm Shadow.

in situation which do not need a 1000km range but vital and hard targets nevertheles, a stealthy 300km weapon capable of being launched by every a/c in IAF is a good thing to have. crystal maze mk2 could be it, as we do not have a known domestic pgm for it.

The IAF has released an RFI seeking a long range standoff weapon, so that should take care of this requirement.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 May 2011 13:49

CAS and AtG :

Because you are unable to come with « valuable » arguments you are asking others to give you legitimacy or caricaturing my arguments like sating I am forecasting the end of conventional warfare. Conventional state to state warfare is less likely due to the nuclear detterence but that doesn't mean you should not brace for every possibility.

Even in an Indian conventional warfare range and persistence is a very valuable asset, you can fight from unexpected directions, be re-tasked if needed which is a more and more common practice in a networked environment as you need the ability to adapt in near real time to the change of tactical situation. You can also change your course if a SAM threat materializes without fearing to run out of fuel. Rafale ability to carry more fuel externally while carrying heavy loads of AtG makes it a more flexible/valuable asset than the typhoon. It can adapt to a wider range of tactical scenarios. The Typhoon needs to trade off range for AtG stores while the rafale can have both including up to 6 AAMs.

Also we should not forget that the rafale/AASM combo is way more capable than the Typhoon/PavewayIV one. In a conventional warfare enemy ground forces will likely be protected by tactical short and medium range SAM when maneuvering. A 6 AASM salvo will take care of a tank column in one pass at safe distance of around 60Km while the typhoon will be at considerable risk with its PavewayIV or even brimstones if ever they are integrated. For less defended targets the rafale as also the option to take pavewayIV or brimstones. Again more options and more flexibility for the rafale. The Typhoon will be only able to operate AtG missions when the SAM threat is low as it lacks stand off weapons of the AASM category and you will not use cruise missiles in quantities.

Irregular warfare:

With the growing number of terrorist activities and the threat from those groups from being manipulated in an indirect conflict it would be foolish not to consider irregular type of warfare. Situation Indian forces already encounter in the cashmere region. When did the last indian BVR shot occured ? if you follow the historical logic then you would eliminate many needs which is again foolish. You can't predict the exact type of war you are going to fight and better have the more flexible asset (rafale) to tacke more effectively futur threats.

Deep strike and cruise missiles configuration:

That is where the typhoon is lacking. It will only carry a single 1000L drop tank and the rafale 3*2000L. The rafale can carry one or two missiles depending on the mission, but the Typhoon can’t as asymmetrical configuration is not cleared. Rafale deep strike ability will allow it to strike some strategic facilities from where you don’t expect. The SCALP cruise missile is stealth and thanks to its 3D geo-reference of the target can penetrate through a window or any weak point of a hardened buried target with the exact desired angle.

Spectra:

Yes spectra can lock onto radar emissions at long ranges. That’s how rafale performed SEAD with AASM in Lybia (proven) and that’s how it scored 7-1 against the Typhoon in BVR and that’s more likely than not the way it managed to the rafale to be on par with the SH block2 during last year BVR exercise. That’s rafale special “demonstrated” feature and yes that change the balance as you can lock on enemy’s radar emission before he has a lock. In fact the F22 has the same feature with its ALRQ-94 EW suite. With constant hardware upgrades it will remain capable of locking onto newer radar emissions as well. It is a matter of processing.

Upgrades:

Typhoon is several years late in its development and need considerable investments to become on par at a technological level. As the industry is bearing a huge part of this development effort it is not a rocket science concept to understand that they will have to bill these developments in a way or another. First information leaked in the Indian press indicate the rafale as the lowest bidder as expected.

If the mirage upgrade was such a fiasco why shortlisting the rafale? Now that the deal is near signed it will be wiser to go for the rafale to amortize the mirage investment. The rafale being cheaper than the typhoon it seems that the overall economy should be substantial negating an hypothetic overpriced upgrade. Also supplier/customer relationship as been good an loyal between Dassault and India. You could argue that it could have been the same with other suppliers but how could you know? Perhaps worst also…It is the actual relationship experience over the year that create confidence.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 May 2011 16:55

The advantage of Rafale is that this is a single country you have to deal with and French has been a reliable partner even during sanctions era.

The only issue with French equipment is that it is costly and they really have no qualms about selling stuff to Pakistan or China as long as they get paid for , but to be fair to them their higher cost would be offset by greater reliability and technology advantage of their equipment , i think the positive M2K experience is a big plus for them.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 May 2011 17:27

One of the purposes of the MMRCA was to make India self sufficient in most respects.

The true indicator of maturity in self sufficiency would the AMCA. IF such discussions still persist when the AMCA is coming on line then to a very great extent India would have failed in many respects. Uncle, thankfully, is out of the picture. It would be huge travesty if any of the MMRCA countries casts a shadow on the progress of the AMCA.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 29 May 2011 17:30

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 May 2011 17:31

How are you valuing the cost? and it is very difficult to say it is higher or lower. for example if russkie planes keeps going back to shop having high mtbf, then how do you value that? We need two similar a/cs to compare costs. So, though EADS vs Snecma is in near comparison however, EADS has more overheads than Snecma, and at the same time they get compensated by requirements aspect various participating and commited air forces. Now, only if EADS has started operationalizing Ef earlier than Rafale, then we could be able to compare more reasonably.

The data can be misleading for both Rf and Ef. So, we need to do a divide and rule to compare real cost. We need to take one main component, I guess AESA radar is ideal because it is a later arrival for both of these planes and untested or not operationalized yet. Compare the cost between these two AESA radar component, feature, performance, mtbf(estimate), etc. to get the least error value.

--

ps, x-post quote from aviation thread:-

karan_mc wrote:
A flying lemon
http://idrw.org/?p=2155#more-2155

The MMRCA is a rubbish acquisition. The defence ministry followed up the questionable decision with a singular display of lack of negotiating savvy. With the MiG-35 option on the table, India could have played the Europeans off against the Russians to secure the best terms, even if ultimately for Rafale/Typhoon. Instead, there’s the appalling record of defence ministry officials and service officers repeatedly muffing deals, worse, acting as patsies for, or playing footsy with, the supplier states, resulting in treasury-emptying contracts that have fetched the country little in return.

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).

Bharat Karnad is professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 May 2011 18:30

Juggi G,

This typhoon weapon chart is completely false. Be it in terms of possible load out combinations or in terms of weapons integrated.

This is a fantasy work from from a fan boy imagination.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 May 2011 19:56

I have been reading the posts by Arthuro & VivS and now I am confused!

Should we go for Katrina or Typhoon? As much as the IAF loves Katrina, the GoI makes the final call. I think Vayu Sena will try to convince the government that they need an aircraft that best merges with the current setup and that would likely be the Rafale. But the offset agreements that the EADS will be offering, would be too good to pass up for India. I think Muppalla's prediction will turn out to be true in the end...Typhoon will win this competition.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 May 2011 19:59

Rakesh ji! reverse swing!

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 29 May 2011 20:03

Arthuro has convinced that Rafale is a better choice.

rohankumaon · Post by **rohankumaon** » 29 May 2011 20:31

The discussion between Arthuro and Viv S was fabulous. Both of them sticking to their guns and in turn making valid points. Personally, I want the aircraft that brings the best package in terms of price, technical know how, weapons and better upgrades. While we may argue that in 2020 we would have upgraded MKI and FGFA so air to air role is well covered and then we need a better air to ground platform. This is definitely one point of view. But what if we have to fight war on both front and as Karan mentioned earlier, we are in desperate need of air superiority fighter, then Typhoon fits the bill well. In 2020, IMHO, deep strike mission would be carried by FGFA owning to stealth, internal weapon buy, better kinematic performance and so on. If typhoon can provide air superiority then MKI can also provide ground support, this is assuming that Typhoon will not be better air to ground platform., which may not be the case in 2020.

Eventually, these two are really winners with focus on different area of operation that is not to say the least that these beauties lag in other capabilities. In long term, technology know how gained from any of these two would be great for Indian aircraft industry and AMCA.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 May 2011 21:15

My only grouse with Typhoon is it has major inputs from munna#1 i.e. UK , the latter is quick to show it's true colors when Unkil steps on it's tail . We have seen it with sea-kings in the past. French on the contrary have been pretty autonomous with regards to the way they go about their arms business. Also dealing with a bunch of countries is going to be a PITA for in any future conflict chances of any one of them buckling under Unkil's pressure and denying the critical spares is very high.