India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Jun 2011 14:29

I think the one big difference is between how the western (read USAF) sees the combat aircraft and how IAF see it - at least in short to medium term.

The way Singha has described the amirkhan's a/c best explains their philosophy - the a/c is part of a larger system and it is this larger system which dominates the battlefield against an adversary and not the aircraft alone. Though, given the huge technical advantage of uncle, the a/c are not mere pushovers.

In case of IAF, while we're moving into the overall system domination domain with induction of AWACS, C4ISR and other stuff yet, we need our prime combat aircrafts to be able to be stand alone against the best of the adversary. And we need to be able to get the maximum out of it. IMO, the analogy betweer RAF in Battle of Britain and IAF is apt here; the PLAAF is the Luftwaffe which will through at us large hordes of attack and their cover aircraft and we need to keep the skies clear of this adversary. Fighter aircraft, as the proverbial Knight with requisite skills, is needed to tackle is horde and be able to fight on stand-alone basis.

Will · Post by **Will** » 04 Jun 2011 14:46

Cosmo_R wrote:Any open source corroboration? I'd be interested.Cosmo, I am bit confused with your post. Are you asking for open sources corroboration that a SH-lite was on offer? Also the link you posted....what is that for?
Yes. All during the run up, Jeff Kohler and & Co were talking SH-Block II + EPE Engine etc. So, I'd be curious to know if that was not the case from an open/independent source. It's true, then it's clear why they lost.

The link is simply a google search for 'Lockheed Martin offers f-35 to India'. They actually did and even offered to do a trade-in for the F-16IN to bridge the gap in the time line.

Just be glad that the Amriki aircraft didnt make the shortlist.Who in their right mind would want to buy an aircraft which has not just strings but Stones attached too

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2011 14:51

not just fighter a/c - our strike a/c also cannot depend on a pre- barrage of HARM/JASSM to open a route, nor specialized platforms like growler/F-16CJ to fly with and guard against SAM sites or JSTARS/globalhawk sweeps to tell them of locations of hostile nodes.

like the rafale they have to be able to sneak in alone and get out, and guide lesser a/c like M2k or Jags flying alonside just as the rafale's are helping the m2k in libya.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jun 2011 18:42

When the prices of the two survivors is known -and they will be very high,at least $70-80m apiece,our Fin.Ministry might very well baulk at the cost and ask for a review.We know how it did so when the Scorpene deal almost fell through because of high addl. costs.Two factors will affect numbers of MMRCAs procured,the progress of the FGFA and the LCA MK-2.If both these aircraft arrive around their projected timeframes ,then a superior stealth aircraft and a low-cost desi developed multi-role fighter will prove to be more attactive to acquire rather than expensive MMRCAswhich will also have competition from advanced/upgraded Flankers.The Q still remains how we are going to acquire these planned acquisitions and enhance dramatically the fleet stregth of the IAF to meet the combined Sino-Pak challenge before fleet levels reach alarming lows innviting mischief from our enemies.

PS:The Japanse future stealth fighter requirements to incorporate 6th-gen tech should be examined ,perhaps helping establish the norms for the AMCA.The incorporation of some type of direct-energy weapon,etc. is most interesting and whether the tech acquired from MMRCA can help in acquiring/developing such tech.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jun 2011 18:50

well, if we are not correcting based on empirical data, then we should stop complaining... fin min must have nodded to IAF's plan ahead of time. This is not a small deal for them to play ping pong, and get off without being responsible and answer to the security question IAF is asking for decades. Just show them the budget balance, and the returns IAF made in many years, should keep their mouth shut for 100s of years.

A dependable a/c rather a depending on an a/c is actually the right choice, per what I read here. It would be also important to look future, in what IAF doctrine is shaping into for the next 40years, that way the things may look a little bit more clearer. who knows?

Don · Post by **Don** » 04 Jun 2011 20:18

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... nical.html

Tellis: US fighters lost MMRCA contract due to technical faults

By Stephen Trimble

Both US bids for a major Indian Air Force fighter contract lost because of technical faults - not US export control policies or corruption in New Dehli, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholar Ashley Tellis said in an interview.

The former American diplomat in New Dehli arrived at his conclusions after a three-week trip to India that included meetings with top Indian government, military and industry officials. The IAF selected the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon as finalists for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA).

By excluding the Boeing F/A-18E/F and the Lockheed Martin F-16 - as well as the Saab Gripen and MiG-35 - the Indian government angered Washington DC, as well as set off a wave of speculation that the decision was based on concerns in New Dehli about overly restrictive US export policies.

But Tellis believes that interpretation of the MMRCA downselect is incorrect, while providing the most detailed assessment of the factors that led to the final decision.

According to Tellis' sources in the IAF, the F-16IN bid received low marks in the technical evaluation for a slow turn rate and poorer handling performance due to the addition of conformal fuel tanks.

Those deficiencies made the F-16IN less competitive in dogfights against older F-16 Block 50s, which are operated by Pakistan.

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was the US government's best shot to win the contract, but it was also hampered in the Indian evaluation by poor manoeuvrability compared to the European fighters, Tellis said.

Boeing's bid proposed to improve the Super Hornet's power by introducing the General Electric F414 enhanced performance engine (EPE), with 20% higher thrust.

But the Indian evaluators refused to credit the EPE because it is a developmental item, Tellis said. This contrasted with India's acceptance of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar technology by the European bidders despite its developmental status.

"They just gambled on the fact that they were going to get an AESA by the time the airplane was going to enter the force," Tellis said.

The decision also reflected the IAF's preference for an aircraft with strong dogfighting performance over a combat style emphasising beyond visual range engagements using long-range sensors, Tellis said.

Indian officials expressed no concerns about the US government's export policies, which would have required heavy monitoring by US officials if certain sensors and avionics systems were included in Boeing's or Lockheed's bid, Tellis said.

"What they would have done in this case was demand that the vendor [substitute] equipment that did not have [monitoring] constraints," Tellis said. India had agreed to a similar arrangement with the acquisition of the Boeing P-8A Poseidon.

Despite the initial reaction by Washington officials, both sides are cooling off since the announcement, he added.

"The damage was certainly serious," Tellis said. "But both sides have understood how this outcome came out and both sides have made efforts to get beyond it. The US is going to win many more competitions in India."

manum · Post by **manum** » 04 Jun 2011 20:28

Philip wrote:When the prices of the two survivors is known -and they will be very high,at least $70-80m apiece,our Fin.Ministry might very well baulk at the cost and ask for a review.We know how it did so when the Scorpene deal almost fell through because of high addl. costs.Two factors will affect numbers of MMRCAs procured,the progress of the FGFA and the LCA MK-2.If both these aircraft arrive around their projected timeframes ,then a superior stealth aircraft and a low-cost desi developed multi-role fighter will prove to be more attactive to acquire rather than expensive MMRCAswhich will also have competition from advanced/upgraded Flankers.The Q still remains how we are going to acquire these planned acquisitions and enhance dramatically the fleet stregth of the IAF to meet the combined Sino-Pak challenge before fleet levels reach alarming lows innviting mischief from our enemies.

PS:The Japanse future stealth fighter requirements to incorporate 6th-gen tech should be examined ,perhaps helping establish the norms for the AMCA.The incorporation of some type of direct-energy weapon,etc. is most interesting and whether the tech acquired from MMRCA can help in acquiring/developing such tech.

hi, didnt see you for long!...

but anyways....MMRCA might prove cheaper if we get a bargain of production base in India with developing technologies together, MMRCA should not be seen in perspective of Russians, or we'll never be move ahead...specially MKI's...

best bet to is get the production installed in India as soon as possible while taking delivery of 18 units...the current negotiations will prove to be decisive, how much of the production will shift to India and it'll be on India to produce how much in required time duration....and it'll be a cost calculation basis...for ex.

if particular unit has capacity of producing 20 fighters in a year maximum, with x amount of work force, creating a expenditure of Rs. X/unit...
now we have an option of jacking up this balance and create a tuning of appropriate cost, and this calculation can be done on how it'll be cheapest and fastest to produce in deadlines...while keeping everyone's interest in total...

this option we have more with EF because EF is not in balance of material calculation, workforce calculation, transport, tooling and R&D calculation...with a consolidated order for few years to create a secure calculation of least amount and best bet...This India offers...
one way I am telling, India can put a great offer (maybe has put) to EF and get EF a best deal it can break for itself...with a constant input in R&D and making it an MKI...
I am seeing it in isolation of LCA MK-2 and Russian collaborations...there is a lot of economics which is associated with deal, and with EF this possibility is immense if we reach a consensus...
this is why Rafale is cheaper and it can not get any cheaper but EF will get cheaper later on...as much is capability is concerned EF will only get better...

added later...

After reading again I am not sure I made myself sufficiently clear...
but I am saying lets two wings are made somewhere, some suit is done somewhere else, assembling is happening in Germany, while UK is doing the tooling...lets say
if these countries can offer us the complete production of the aircraft, outsourcing the manufacturing, while I am not expecting the complete technology transfer...they can keep the R&D base centralized in Europe, it'll do well...now if EU countries are thinking India will be a +1 in already few of them...and they'll snatch few percentage from everyone else and give it to us, they'll under-utilizing what India can offer, and in the end make the plane costlier and cause it to become a paper weight in later course...

so India must force it to them...and put them its own cost calculation and say if you agree on this, we'll take it...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2011 20:34

in my opinion its better to have a superb airframe for a particular role and mate it to a engine that does enough, than have a airframe thats not particularly suited and attempt to "bull it around the corners" with a extra powerful engine that will generally need more fuel, which in turn means more or bigger fuel tanks, means limitations of weight/safety if bounced by interceptors and forced to drop tanks...the F18 seems to fall in this second category as a a2a platform , the F16 was not until block40, but from block50 onward once the CFTs & huge thick spine came in and it developed all sorts of fatty bulges it fell into same bucket...hence the reliance on bvr shots , superior radar and ew and depending on AWACS to detect and reject confrontations which would be unfavourable.

I am afraid the upg Mig29 with the hunchback might also join the fatpack.

fly high, fly clean, fly fast should be the motto.

manum · Post by **manum** » 04 Jun 2011 20:42

Singha...
I understand it totally, but we have entered into L1 phase, here all that will matter is economics and its extremely crucial...If Rafale
ll make sense in economical way...nothing'll stop it join IAF...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2011 20:45

mashallah, rafale it shall be. ameen.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jun 2011 22:43

?????

[OT]
AMCA is expected, per the Gods of AMCA, to be better than any 5th Gen today!!!! True. Google for thyself!!! Then how is a mortal MMRCA going to help? Japan? What Japan? Which Japan? Me think the AMCA (or is it now NFGA?) team needs some breathing room. Outside of an engine the rest should be doable.

Will leave the light on .................
[/OT]

Just BTW, Dassault reveals future Rafale developments

A 2001 Rafale:

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Miscdet/3972.html

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 04 Jun 2011 22:50

Some times I feel BRF has too many hobby aerodynamicists, amateur Radar engineers, armchair tacticians and of course wannabe fighter pilots that they fail to appreciate the fact that the high-wing loading, slow turning, big, fat, ugly etcetera SH and Shola have been fighting real battles and winning them(Being battle proven is simply priceless). While the others go around bragging about who pawned whom in exercises. But then some will get an orgasm only when their organ is pulled at 9g but not 7.5g.

manum · Post by **manum** » 04 Jun 2011 23:12

abhik wrote:Some times I feel BRF has too many hobby aerodynamicists, amateur Radar engineers, armchair tacticians and of course wannabe fighter pilots that they fail to appreciate the fact that the high-wing loading, slow turning, big, fat, ugly etcetera SH and Shola have been fighting real battles and winning them(Being battle proven is simply priceless). While the others go around bragging about who pawned whom in exercises. But then some will get an orgasm only when their organ is pulled at 9g but not 7.5g.

go tell it to IAF, MOD, which booted them out of the competition on MMRCA...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Jun 2011 23:27

rohitvats wrote:I think the one big difference is between how the western (read USAF) sees the combat aircraft and how IAF see it - at least in short to medium term.

The way Singha has described the amirkhan's a/c best explains their philosophy - the a/c is part of a larger system and it is this larger system which dominates the battlefield against an adversary and not the aircraft alone. Though, given the huge technical advantage of uncle, the a/c are not mere pushovers.

In case of IAF, while we're moving into the overall system domination domain with induction of AWACS, C4ISR and other stuff yet, we need our prime combat aircrafts to be able to be stand alone against the best of the adversary. And we need to be able to get the maximum out of it. IMO, the analogy betweer RAF in Battle of Britain and IAF is apt here; the PLAAF is the Luftwaffe which will through at us large hordes of attack and their cover aircraft and we need to keep the skies clear of this adversary. Fighter aircraft, as the proverbial Knight with requisite skills, is needed to tackle is horde and be able to fight on stand-alone basis.

Well put Rohit. I had made a similar point in a discussion with GWelch years ago - the IAF unlike the US, will need its MRCA as ballgame openers in the initial part of the war. As such, especially with the kind of investment expected, only the twin engined E'canards qualify. Betwixt the two, the obvious option seems to be the Rafale for a variety of reasons:

1) It is going to be the staple for the Adla in the foreseeable future meaning a proper evolutionary path is on the cards. THis has been clear from the fact that Fra is ahead in introducing capabilities to the platform. Whether it be LDPs, CFTs or AESA, the Rafale has it done earlier. The EF consortium otoh, still seems to be arguing.

2) The bird serves as a great go between the M2k and the AMCA. Commonality with both platforms can be possible - in terms of engine components and weapons.

3) The Rafale also provides certain unique and rather exotic capabilities such as the MICA IIR/OSF combo. Adds to the options available to the IAF in terms of tactics. Definitely a more complete platform. There are other advantages as well, but no need to make the post too long.

However, I have a feeling that a LOT depends upon the M2k upg deal, and the very fact that it has taken soooo long to figure it out (not to mention it's "coincidental" timing with the MRCA decision) further spurs such a speculation. The M2K deal will weigh heaviliy upon the Rafale's fortunes in India.

Has the deal been signed yet? IF it is signed at that exhorbitant price ($ 2.5 billion), the door may be shut for the Rafale. If it has not yet been signed, the Rafale has a solid chance - so read the stars imho: a combo deal that includes a decision on the M2K along with the Rafale's victory is likely.

CM

manum · Post by **manum** » 04 Jun 2011 23:35

What about...MOD taking one thing at a time...selecting the close best in technical evaluation and then selecting the winner in cost calculation...that is it, M2K being a separate deal, which France tried to connect with MMRCA, but actually having no consequences on the decision finally...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Jun 2011 23:50

While there is seemingly reason to believe that A2A performance is the primary criterion for the IAF decision, I would not completely agree. I believe the IAF is looking for a truly multirole jet - a bird that can lug tons of steel and yet be nimble enough to do the dirty in A2A combat. The EF with its much bigger radar, it might be argued, has an edge in A2A; but this is not necessarily convincing as the Rafale offers advantages of its own (Mica IIR for ex.). Not to mention that in every war game so far, it has seemingly topped the tiffy.

A2G, there is little doubt that the Rafale is superior - no room for argument here. IOWs, it is 50:50 in the A2A game but 60:40 in favor of the Rafale, A2A.

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2011 00:02

What if EADS offers to upgrade M2K, and with the help of transferring upgrade tech to our lab boys? and gets this wrapped up for $12.5b ? possible?

But, they have to prove themselves on other params - A2G, SEAD, AESA, and other slew of things.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Jun 2011 00:08

abhik wrote:Some times I feel BRF has too many hobby aerodynamicists, amateur Radar engineers, armchair tacticians and of course wannabe fighter pilots that they fail to appreciate the fact that the high-wing loading, slow turning, big, fat, ugly etcetera SH and Shola have been fighting real battles and winning them(Being battle proven is simply priceless). While the others go around bragging about who pawned whom in exercises. But then some will get an orgasm only when their organ is pulled at 9g but not 7.5g.

Good sir, which category do you belong to? In case you find the discussion not to your exalted standards, you are welcome to leave us lesser mortals to our amteurish ways.

That aside, which combats do you refer to? Which battle has the F-16 or F/A-18 won? GW-1 or GW-2? Or enforcing NFZ over Bosnia or Iraq?

What you forget is the fact that it is the American dominance in all aspects air warfare - of which these a/c are just one part - which have won the wars over the years. It was F-117 which was the ace card in opening scenes of GW-1 and rest followed. Take away all the stuff in the electromagentic domain and suddenly, the F-16 or F/A-18 SH are like all other kids on the block. The Wild Weasel or Growler or Raven along with AWCS and various E-series EW/ECM aircraft are all examples uncles dominance in all aspects of air-warfare. And inspite of this - it will still send in couple of hundred LACM to knock-out the main C3I and AD nodes.

Now, take all these support equipment away and pitch an F1-6IN and FA/-18SH against Eurocanards and see the fun. The one a/c which can stand on its own in USAF inventory is the F-15 Eagle - an out and out fighter with enough muscles to lug around A2G ammo to take out a small town.

Like I said earlier in my post, we're moving towards getting there with various aspects of air-warfare but till we are there, we will need an a/c which can stand on its own and fight its way-in and out. While I'm not good at these things about combat a/c, whatever I've read over last version of this thread, Eurocanards hold all the aces - save for uncles leap in AESA tech - in this regard.
That is why I think someone is IAF remarked that if USA wanted to win MMRCA tender, they should have sent in F-35 - which from our perspective, would have been a game changer.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Jun 2011 00:52

Cain Marko wrote:1) It is going to be the staple for the Adla in the foreseeable future meaning a proper evolutionary path is on the cards. THis has been clear from the fact that Fra is ahead in introducing capabilities to the platform. Whether it be LDPs, CFTs or AESA, the Rafale has it done earlier. The EF consortium otoh, still seems to be arguing.

The Rafale's first flight was 8 years before the EF. It entered service 4 years before the EF. It will get an AESA operational 2.5 years before the EF. Point is, by say 2017-18, when over half of the deliveries to the IAF have been completed (one hopes!) - both will be 'equally' developed fighters, with AESAs on both aircraft having matured and CFTs integrated on the EF (and possibly the Rafale).

Also, the AESA was flight tested on the EF before the Rafale (2007) - they had a working unit that they could have productionalized as far back as 2009 (fixed not the swashplate variant). LDPs too were first integrated on the EF - Litening III in 2007. Dummy CFTs have been flight tested on the Rafale but they are still in the development stage.

2) The bird serves as a great go between the M2k and the AMCA. Commonality with both platforms can be possible - in terms of engine components and weapons.

Its questionable how much of that is possible. The Kaveri will ostensibly evolve into more than a Snecma/GRTE hybrid, 12-15 years from now when the AMCA is in flight testing. Other than the MICA and possibly minor support features, there isn't a lot of commonality intended between the IAF's upgraded Mirages and the Rafale.

3) The Rafale also provides certain unique and rather exotic capabilities such as the MICA IIR/OSF combo. Adds to the options available to the IAF in terms of tactics. Definitely a more complete platform. There are other advantages as well, but no need to make the post too long.

The Astra fortunately or unfortunately falls bang in the MICA/Derby class, between the Iris-T/ASRAAM/R-73 and the RVV-SD/Meteor.

I have my doubts about employing an IR seeker equipped missile at BVR ranges. I would guess as of now the AdlA uses the MICA-IR in lieu of the Magic-II. Perhaps we'll start seeing dual mode variants of the Meteor after upgrades.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 05 Jun 2011 02:04

Some corrections :
1) rafale first flew with an aesa in 2004
2) rafale prototype flew three years before the typhoon prototype 1991 vs 1994 if i recall well
3) mica ir is cleared in bvr mode since the f3 standard in 2008 (Fox three mode)
4) nothing indicate that CFT are part of the indian offer for the typhoon.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jun 2011 03:52

Viv S:

I believe Arthuro's post does a good job in response to your comments. About the Rafale and the AMCA/M2K comonality issue: logistically, some commonality is better than none. And there is reason to believe that there will be a LOT of commonality at least in terms of weapons bet the Rafale and M2k. Perhaps even in EW gear. As far as the AMCA goes, if the Kaveri does have a Snecma M88 core, there should be something in common in engine components as well, esp. with Dassault's willingness to integrate the Kaveri in the Rafale.

As little as this might seem, it is still more than the EF-2000 which does not offer commonality with any current/prospective IAF bird. The Rafale is a better fit imho, but then

CM

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Jun 2011 04:34

arthuro wrote:Some corrections :
1) rafale first flew with an aesa in 2004
2) rafale prototype flew three years before the typhoon prototype 1991 vs 1994 if i recall well

I stand corrected on the first. Regarding the second, the ACX was a lot lot closer to the Rafale than the P.110, so one may argue that the Rafale had a significant headstart on the EF.

3) mica ir is cleared in bvr mode since the f3 standard in 2008 (Fox three mode)

Its ranged at upto 60km so its obviously BVR capable. The point was regarding the efficacy of IR/IIR at BVR ranges. The Israelis didn't equip the Derby with an IR seeker despite the fact that the remainder of the potent Python family was. The same goes for the US and other Europeans - an IR variant of the AMRAAM or Meteor can be produced by mating it with seekers from the Aim-9X/Iris-T, yet they've opted not to do so. The Astra too can get a IR seeker - either domestically developed or imported (maybe even from MBDA).

4) nothing indicate that CFT are part of the indian offer for the typhoon.

There is nothing to indicate its unavailable should the IAF be interested.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 05 Jun 2011 04:40

Cain Marko wrote:Not to mention that in every war game so far, it has seemingly topped the tiffy.

That's wrong. During visits to Laage AFB in northern Germany Rafale didn't come out on top. But as in any DACT, we don't know the ROE's. Just that Rafale pilots admitted the Eurofighter had advantages due to it's more powerful engines. *shrugs*
I think both aircraft would make the IAF happy. It's now about L1, tech transfer and so on. Rafale seems to be the technological better solution, but Dassault produces atm 11 aircraft a year. BAe Warton alone produces 25 Eurofighters a year. Quick induction (which seems to be a major concern for MMRCA) could be at risk with Dassault as industrial partner.
Btw all of Rafales' superiority in a2g missions is rather questionable, if IAF doesn't order AASM but prefers different a2g munitions.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Jun 2011 05:23

Cain Marko wrote:Viv S:

I believe Arthuro's post does a good job in response to your comments. About the Rafale and the AMCA/M2K comonality issue: logistically, some commonality is better than none. And there is reason to believe that there will be a LOT of commonality at least in terms of weapons bet the Rafale and M2k. erhaps even in EW gear.

If I'm not mistaken the IAF's Jaguars are to be equipped with ASRAAMs and the Litening-III will be shared with the Tejas, Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar.

Regarding the Mirage-2000 - AFAIK the Damocles, Spectra, AASMs or Exocets are not part of the upgrade deal. As a matter of fact, given their cost one may question if the IAF would go for it even parceled with the Rafale.

P As far as the AMCA goes, if the Kaveri does have a Snecma M88 core, there should be something in common in engine components as well, esp. with Dassault's willingness to integrate the Kaveri in the Rafale.

I wouldn't bet on what the Kaveri is going to be composed of in 2025. If the F135 and Saturn 127 are any indication, a designation of Kaveri Mk2 might be more appropriate if its to power the AMCA.

As little as this might seem, it is still more than the EF-2000 which does not offer commonality with any current/prospective IAF bird. The Rafale is a better fit imho, but then

When weighed against the industrial offsets and participation in development, its a better bet IMO.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jun 2011 07:16

I posted an article in the international aviation thread last night about raytheon testing a system which allows a C130 to launch "dozens" of smart 500km range drones cum jammers which can mimic the rcs and flight profiles of any NATO fighter. not that khan didnt have drones earlier but I guess fighters tasked with SEAD launched them. now using C130 they can truly saturate the inbound track and mix it up with real fighters. and theres also manned platforms like F16CJ, Growlers in the mix, plus RC135 EW , B52 mods for standoff jamming....and the usual showers of cruise missiles.

within this overall ecosystem, and armed with the best of missiles/EW/radar/E3 Sentry backup the F16 and F18 will do great as they have done so far.

but thin out the support system to say 20% of what usaf has (and even thats a costly stretch for us) and only the F15 and F22 stand up and do some serious damage on their own merit. the F15SK/K/SE is truly a formidable platform in all respects.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 05 Jun 2011 13:08

Italian Eurofighter Toofaan goes Vertical > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1930847/L/

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 05 Jun 2011 14:06

Philip wrote:If both these aircraft arrive around their projected timeframes ,then a superior stealth aircraft and a low-cost desi developed multi-role fighter will prove to be more attactive to acquire rather than expensive MMRCAswhich will also have competition from advanced/upgraded Flankers.The Q still remains how we are going to acquire these planned acquisitions and enhance dramatically the fleet stregth of the IAF to meet the combined Sino-Pak challenge before fleet levels reach alarming lows innviting mischief....

Flankers have been ordered reordered and they are being supplied on schedule. Inspite of these superpotent flankers IAF decided to go for MediumMRCA. Maybe they have other reasons, just a rafale carrying double its own weight, burning much less fuel or even more long lasting life of certain parts. May have been the cause of this tender. For example if MediumMRCA burns less fuel and its tyres need to be changed every 60 landings compared to sukhoi's 12 landings would be a huge saving for IAF bills over next 40 years.

This time MoD wiser from Sukhoi tyre/parts trouble may add a clause that even smaller parts like tyres will be manufactured in desh or imported from somewhere else in case of short supply.

Due to its brilliant use of composites rafale can carry huge payload, this itself may assist in putting those composites on AMCA and Tejas II to enhance payload capabilities.

Nope I am ready to bet that Finance Ministry won't object for this purchase, it is going to happen..............

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Jun 2011 14:13

Cain Marko wrote:Well put Rohit. I had made a similar point in a discussion with GWelch years ago - the IAF unlike the US, will need its MRCA as ballgame openers in the initial part of the war.

No, you misunderstood my position.

The SH is absolutely superior for the missions India would want EVEN WITHOUT all the support infrastructure (AWACS, Growler, etc.) The issue is that it is easy to get blinded by 'sexy' kinematics, which are less and less important, and ignore the total package including the avionics. A few degrees better turn rate or a slightly better climb rate isn't going to make nearly as much difference as a better radar and better jammer.

You can argue that avionics can be upgraded while the base kinetic performance cannot (excepting engine upgrades of course), but the reality is that the Euro-canards will ALWAYS be behind in avionics and thus will ALWAYS be the inferior plane for the mission, even if they do turn a little bit sharper.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 05 Jun 2011 14:36

Rakesh wrote:Please stick to the discussion on Rafale & Typhoon only. Nothing else.

Sick of Fat panting teens being discussed here again and again. Just posting the first post of this thread to remind fellow posters...........

"let's just stick to Rafale & Typhoon"

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 05 Jun 2011 16:20

Manish_Sharma wrote: Flankers have been ordered reordered and they are being supplied on schedule. Inspite of these superpotent flankers IAF decided to go for MediumMRCA. Maybe they have other reasons, just a rafale carrying double its own weight, burning much less fuel or even more long lasting life of certain parts. May have been the cause of this tender. For example if MediumMRCA burns less fuel and its tyres need to be changed every 60 landings compared to sukhoi's 12 landings would be a huge saving for IAF bills over next 40 years.

This time MoD wiser from Sukhoi tyre/parts trouble may add a clause that even smaller parts like tyres will be manufactured in desh or imported from somewhere else in case of short supply.

Due to its brilliant use of composites rafale can carry huge payload, this itself may assist in putting those composites on AMCA and Tejas II to enhance payload capabilities.

Nope I am ready to bet that Finance Ministry won't object for this purchase, it is going to happen..............

See, people think a lot over here

. MMRCA was floated because of massive decline in IAF's air to air capability with retirements/ obsolesce of once dreaded MiG's. Nothing more.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Jun 2011 16:38

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Well put Rohit. I had made a similar point in a discussion with GWelch years ago - the IAF unlike the US, will need its MRCA as ballgame openers in the initial part of the war.
No, you misunderstood my position.

The SH is absolutely superior for the missions India would want EVEN WITHOUT all the support infrastructure (AWACS, Growler, etc.) The issue is that it is easy to get blinded by 'sexy' kinematics, which are less and less important, and ignore the total package including the avionics. A few degrees better turn rate or a slightly better climb rate isn't going to make nearly as much difference as a better radar and better jammer.

You can argue that avionics can be upgraded while the base kinetic performance cannot (excepting engine upgrades of course), but the reality is that the Euro-canards will ALWAYS be behind in avionics and thus will ALWAYS be the inferior plane for the mission, even if they do turn a little bit sharper.

+1
Also apart from the avionics, what most people seem to ignore is how few weapons(esp PGMs) the Euro-canards are actually qualified to use esp. when compared to the American fighters. And that most of the weapons it is integrated with are American. So suggesting that the Rafale is as effective as the teens in A2G is far from the truth.
Now I'm no fan of the teens, but not recognizing that there is a gap between what the Euro-canards can actually do Vs. what the teens have proven in the some of the most crucial areas will be a huge mistake.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2011 18:17

So, .. the game changer (in the actual sense) should be A2G, radar, sensors and weapons package, that the teens have already done it hence proven. Now regarding superiority is a question of the package itself, from what was offered and not what was shown in the US gulf war or other demonstrations/offer.

We are correlating with high significance of an offer that we have no clue yet why the teens did not make it up. Leaving politics aside, there are yet no indication or leaked information for us to base what would have been the reason for rejection.

Ashwini · Post by **Ashwini** » 05 Jun 2011 20:56

Will wrote:Just be glad that the Amriki aircraft didnt make the shortlist.Who in their right mind would want to buy an aircraft which has not just strings but Stones attached too

Vishal Jolapara wrote:Italian Eurofighter Toofaan goes Vertical > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1930847/L/

Superb indeed! The morning blue skies further accentuate its beauty.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Jun 2011 21:24

abhik wrote:+1
Also apart from the avionics, what most people seem to ignore is how few weapons (esp PGMs) the Euro-canards are actually qualified to use esp. when compared to the American fighters. And that most of the weapons it is integrated with are American. So suggesting that the Rafale is as effective as the teens in A2G is far from the truth. Now I'm no fan of the teens, but not recognizing that there is a gap between what the Euro-canards can actually do Vs. what the teens have proven in the some of the most crucial areas will be a huge mistake.

What the Euro Canards are capable of doing more than meets our needs, without end use monitoring. Enough Said.

It is amazing how people who are NOT in the air force know better about her needs than the men & women that serve.

And about the superiority of American equipment, if memory serves me right...the US supplied (and still does) Pagalstan with many "superior" Amreeki aircraft...but yet the IAF still managed to deny them air superiority or dominate the air space over India in all previous wars.

The Amreekis admit - even with the mighty F-Solah Block 50/52 - that Pagalstan will at most be able to keep the IAF at bay for at most a week. But regardless, the IAF needs to be real scared because the superior avionics of the F-Solah will ultimately defeat the Euro-Canards in an air war. Really worrisome indeed

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 05 Jun 2011 22:29

Ashwini wrote:
Vishal Jolapara wrote:Italian Eurofighter Toofaan goes Vertical > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1930847/L/
Superb indeed! The morning blue skies further accentuate its beauty.

Thanks, just that this was the Afternoon display

New upload, Beautiful Kesari Katrina > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1931286/L/

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 05 Jun 2011 22:45

Duels In The Sky

By Bill Sweetman

Duels In The Sky
Jun 5, 2011
By Bill Sweetman
Washington

India’s decision to eliminate all but two contenders for its Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirement was a blow to Boeing and Saab, the companies in the losing group who had reason to hold out most hope in the competition (see p. 21). For the survivors, Eurofighter (Typhoon) and Dassault (Rafale), it means a bruising duel to win the contract and—for the winner—a major challenge to fulfill it.

Indian officials say the winners scored highest on technical grounds, which is not surprising. Typhoon and Rafale are larger and more powerful than Saab’s Gripen. The former is better at high altitude and the latter excels in payload and range. The European fighters also have a more contemporary aerodynamic design than Boeing’s Super Hornet.

But a word of caution—what is being offered in both cases is not what is coming off the production line today. Boeing’s Super Hornet proposal seems to have been close to the in-production F/A-18E/F Block 2, with the exception of General Electric’s Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) version of the F414. Gripen NG rests on a development program that is well underway.

Whether Rafale or Typhoon is selected, the program will aim to achieve several things simultaneously, including co-developing improvements such as an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and Meteor air-to-air missile (AAM) integration; dealing with obsolescence issues that are inevitable in long development cycles; transfering technology and launching joint indigenous production; and transplanting a complex all-digital aircraft into the Indian air force, all on a tight timescale.

If Rafale wins, and is also successful in Brazil, Dassault and its partners—Safran and Thales—will be doing much the same thing, 9,000 mi. from India.

Good luck with that. The Indian customer, however, may take the view that the burden of risk will fall on the contractor—and ultimately its domestic government stakeholder, which is unlikely to want to see problems erupt into public finger-pointing.

Boeing and Saab, meanwhile, can take comfort in depicting the Indian decision as something less than an outright repudiation of their approach to fighter design and the market. Boeing can present it as a choice to not rely on the U.S. for a principal weapon system, and Saab can point out that either finalist represents a move to closer ties with the major powers of Europe.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2011 23:23

Juggi G wrote:Duels In The Sky

By Bill Sweetman

It is much larger article. However, a data point:

Rafale works, but is being built at such slow rates that costs are high. To increase rates would be to starve other national programs of resources. Typhoon’s production and upgrade program has been successively delayed and restructured as the sponsoring nations have wrangled over how much should be spent on each step, and when.

Fun times ahead. Considering that the Russians are also in a similar category, the FGFA may not be the bird we all dreamt of. Of course, Russia is busy reorganizing I am told.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2011 23:40

Russians have no reaons to get annoyed for losing out to Eu crafts. They have pakfa, mki and mig upgrades to focus on... besides, increasing rates and prices every time they review their programs.

It is all fault of India's self reliance programs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2011 23:52

The issue, IMVVHO, is how solvent are all these players? Solvent enough to make "it" happen, just solvent enough to keep themselves afloat, or go down by themselves, or take India with them?

I have never had too much hope WRT FGFA. I still do not. My doubts have increased with the behavior of the Russian Navy. That India has funded only the design phase, of the FGFA, IMHO says a lot.

Similarly I am not very confident about the solvency of the EF partners nor of France. Tech wise they are great. Rest ............. Dunno.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Jun 2011 00:20

GeorgeWelch wrote:the reality is that the Euro-canards will ALWAYS be behind in avionics and thus will ALWAYS be the inferior plane for the mission, even if they do turn a little bit sharper.

Two big claims in cap letters here. Please substantiate these assertions.