India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 08 Jun 2011 20:13

I appreciate Mr. Tellis taking the time to respond to BR's concerns and grievances. There are some assertations of Mr. Tellis that I disagree. However there is one point that I agree with and that is, the GoI, fails to take everything in account. For example, we have like 7 to 10 different types of weapon platforms flying with IAF, creating a logistical nightmare. I do not see any White Paper policy that spells out the strategic needs coupled with tactical needs as other nations do. If there was one, I don't see the MoD following that doctrine or policy. Sure there is need for flexibility and there is nothing wrong with going off the beaten path once or twice. But often, I have seen MoD going off the beaten path too many times. It doesn't even stop with the planes. What about the artillery? Tanks? The only institution that I have seen staying close to its vision is the Indian Navy. It has a doctrine which calls for indigenization of its ships and systems, net operatibility between its ships and planes, and expansion to a true blue water navy.

I don't see any of that with IAF or IA in a coherent and consistent fashion. That is because maybe they have not consider the price of getting those weapon systems they desire and how to factor the cost in their war fighting plans.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2011 20:17

+1 to Bharadwaj.

even the simple matter of getting away from the scene quickly after detecting enemy inbound missiles needs fast supersonic performance and agility, and god forbid if it comes to close in evasion from wvr missiles or SAMs, again the faster, more agile and fast accelerating plane as the better chance to escape and burn the missile out.

if sensors and missiles were everything for bvr, why did they spend so much on making the F22 the fastest and meanest plane out there, with huge engines (for its size), huge wing area, big control surfaces, TVC and superb acceleration and a 65000ft ceiling that leaves the F16 in the dust. likewise would have been much easier for Russia to roll out a J20ski and call it the Pakfa

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 08 Jun 2011 20:37

there has been a huge eurofighter controversy in the british parliament. They cost almost as much as the f22. they have been dubbed as only 'marginally useful'. I now think that it was a bad decision to reject the super hornets. for 10.5 billion dollars we could have got close to 10 squadrons. even england is rethinking about buying eurofighters.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... _analysis/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15 ... k_the_pac/

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 08 Jun 2011 20:54

What Dr. Tellis is telling us, in his criticism of the selection process of the MMRCA, is that the MoD has excluded itself from choosing an a/c with the best bang for the buck.

What the IAF and MoD are doing that they ensure we get the Biggest Bang for the buck.

His vision is tunneled in thinking that only the buck and "strategic" interests count. Whereas the best vision, which we seem to be following, and I am happy about is, we get the best. We definitely have to factor in, an almost failing state on our western borders, and a very greedy dragon on our north and east, not to mention our coastling which needs attention.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jun 2011 21:11

the reason the eurofighter is marginally useful for the RAF is that the RAF is no longer expecting to be defending western european skies from swarms of russian attack aircraft but instead it is required to loiter over afghan battlefields and drop PGM's on talibs on call from squaddies under fire

the IAF on the other hand will definitely be up against a large opposing airforce across the Himalayas

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jun 2011 21:44

>> In essence Tellis is consoling the US strategic community that it wasn't other factors (which are more important to them) but the technical factors that precluded the choice of the teens.

you know, I got the feeling tellis was protecting (so to speak) India from possible repercussions if the idea got hold in washington that India had deliberately cut the americans off the deal. a tech shortcoming might be a H&D blow but it is still considered fairplay, a political decision won't have.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Jun 2011 21:48

Rahul M wrote:>> In essence Tellis is consoling the US strategic community that it wasn't other factors (which are more important to them) but the technical factors that precluded the choice of the teens.

you know, I got the feeling tellis was protecting (so to speak) India from possible repercussions if the idea got hold in washington that India had deliberately cut the americans off the deal. a tech shortcoming might be a H&D blow but it is still considered fairplay, a political decision won't have.

Exactly the point. Before Tellis, there was real rumbling and it was seen as a rebuff. AT's authoritative is specifically intended to nip that in the bud.

manum · Post by **manum** » 08 Jun 2011 21:57

you mean to say, Tellis has so much of hold that, his few pages report or view point, will cause some kind of repercussion or favours...while loosing a multi billion $ deal directly doesn't has, as hard hitting it can be...

you mean to say if the potential of loosing this deal, due to reasons were actually subject of fabrication and could be fabricated any way...and those authorities with those planes didn't have any perspective if they fair well enough or not...Its very dangerous situation, specially with nation of enormity of USA...then definitely they can not be trusted about what they would do next or we are giving Tellis too much of importance...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jun 2011 22:05

manum, they fund the thinktankers for a reason, to give them inputs that would help decide policy. while people like tellis are not policymakers, they do have a lot of influence on policy. especially those the policymakers listen to. tellis is one of them. his star has been rising for sometime now.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2011 22:43

..and what is the target distance are we talking about here wrt the BVR engagement?

---

so, lobby the think tank, and get your objectives met.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 08 Jun 2011 22:55

i dont think this deal would have a major impact for indo-us relationship. for starters indo us relationship was lot more talk than work. lot more exchange of pleasantries than true cooperation. Besides the figure of 10 billion dollars is nothing considering the size of the 2 economies. Without doubt eurofighter is a better aircraft than 18. But if u look @ the cost benefit analysis it costs 120 million dollars a piece. even mkis are cheaper.(but surely superior to eurofighter) as mkis are versatile and can serve as air superiority and ground attack. no paki plane can mess with the super flanker in bvr or wvr. superhornets cost 55 million a piece. if we have more money to spend why not buy twice the numer of hornets? surely 200 hornets can defeat 100 eurofighters if all other variables are same. The priority for IAF would be to replace mig 27/ jags . We need a decent fighter-bomber. And we need to restore our depleting numbers. tHE SUPERHORNETS PROVIDe good ground attack capability. they have decent air to air capability. for eurofighter to have decent a2g bae will need to do some jugaad. at the cost jugaad is not an option.

for air defence we have the best air superiority fighter in the world. (mkis). In tejas we should find an able interceptor. besides with air defence missile systems and awacs i doubt we ll get into too many pig fights . i mean what have they got after all ? 50 odd upgraded solas . vintage mirage 3 and 4s . and bandars which are simply pathetic.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 08 Jun 2011 22:59

err gakakkad. What about the chinis?

We could have gone for replacing the fighter bombers and added more Su30MKI's. Would that be enough against the chinis?

manum · Post by **manum** » 08 Jun 2011 23:10

I've enough of this...size of economies...

Gakakkad, do you own anything that costs too much of money and through which you earn...lets say like a printing press, a plastic chair mould (which costs lakhs of rupee)...or a toy making facility, or any material...forget a fighter...and forget R&D, I am talking about plain production...
if chair stop selling, if printing orders stop coming...whole facility, mould, infrastructure will go to waste, even if you are a millionaire or have other businesses also...idea is to expand or sustain and not shrink...
This is I am telling in USA perspective...one loop hole and moral starts shrinking and so whole thing that is holding it down...this is why this argument of peanuts in the largeness is not valid...a small dent on economy which has matured and not showing any sign of intervention can be lethal and only cause major leak...

This is why this deal was so important for USA perspective...so why its important to France and Germany..though they both are doing well economically...

Yes, many strategies are there technically, and IAF did a good job so Mr. tellis said after hinting, saying otherwise...because it re-instates the trust in institution of the country irrespective of loosing the deal and it sets a good example for many future dealings to be done...

rest as many arguments are there...I am sure at this point of time, no blabber about capability would help a fighter win specially from manufacturer...now all the economic calculations will be made...and it is a stage where any blunder can be stopped and new grounds can be prepared...as we have already chosen two best of the league and last of 4th gen fighter...

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 08 Jun 2011 23:23

I have compiled a list of US think tanks and their response to the shortlist of Typhoon and Rafael

AEI (American Enterprise Institute) - No comment
Aspen Institute - No Comment
Brookings Institute - No Comment
Carnegie Endowment - Many comments by Ashley J. Tellis. Some of them are still worthy of being read
Cato Institute - No Comments
Center for a New American Security - No Comments
Center for Advanced Defense Studies - No Comments
Center for Defense Information/World Security Institute - No Comments
Center for Strategic and International Studies - Some Comments. Disappointed with result but moving on is the main theme
Council on Foreign Relations - says skeptics will rise on the fore-front.
Foreign Policy Research Institute - no comments
Heritage Foundation - no comments
Hudson Institute - no comments
Institute for Policy Studies - no comments
National Center for Policy Analysis - no comments
National Security Network - no comments
Pew Research Center - no comment
RAND - no comment
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars - no comment

What is surprising, among the list of think tanks is the silence of some of the bigges, The heritage foundation, Brookings, Rand and so on. Especially Rand which has such a rich history of publications. And only one think tank had some sort of negative comment, "Council of Foreign Relations". This is also if one believes that India and US are co-joined in the 21st century. Just as US-Western Europe were co-joined in the 20th century. If one is a realistic then even the comments by "Council of Foreign Relations" are nothing but a reiteration of the truth.

What I would love to find out is the chinese reactions of India's shortlisting.

manum · Post by **manum** » 08 Jun 2011 23:43

Chinese won't react to anything...and the reason will in some of their Confucius quotes...of not speaking rather than speaking obvious crap...but by not saying they spend too much energy and money on crap planes...if they would have spoken they might have saved making crap plane...and could have been drawn on in some form of argument, which is good sometimes than silently mutilating inside.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2011 23:48

x-Post by Rudradev

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1097324

6) Of these five, Reidel, Tellis and Markey are the ones most often consulted by State Dept. regarding US-India policy.

Ashley Tellis is the most pro-India of them all. I must stress here, that my source told me that Ashley Tellis has done more for positive US policy on India than all the other State Dept. people combined. Whether or not you agree that the Nuclear Deal was a good thing for India, it must be recognized that Ashley Tellis was instrumental in getting it formulated and passed, and that he did this out of the most sincere personal conviction that the Nuclear Deal was a good thing for India.

In short, Ashley Tellis is as much a true son of India as a US-citizen working for the US government can possibly be. Regardless of what we think of the Nuclear Deal, he must be recognized and honoured for this. And the fact that State Dept. continues to consult him is a good sign for India.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Jun 2011 00:13

The MMRCA, Once More

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Jun 2011 01:46

Would have to agree with Rudra, Ramana, Rahul et al - Yes, Tellis is smoothing out ruffled feathers - useful considering that we don't want the relationship to take a downward turn. The quck followup purchase of C17s will certainly help in this sense. Some damage control is necessary - can 't be helped. Expect more $$$s to go to US MIC.

I wouldn't be suprised if a certain purchase or two went in favor of the Russkis as well although I do believe they were mollified earlier with the massive Pakfa deal in the longterm and the purchase of additional fulcrums in the short run. No surprise then that they didn't turn of up for AI 11 - they knew that the fulcrum was out. No wonder further that they are not causing such a hue/cry. Still, being Roosies, that naval exercise not going through makes one wonder - some lollipop might be around the corner.

Don't think Sweden's going to get anything - too small to be worried about and all those erieyes to Pak don't help one bit!

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Jun 2011 01:50

Re. Rafale Vs. Tiffy debate. One thing that does favor the Tiffy (and this would certainly be on the minds of concerned folks) is the ability of EADS/BAE to quickly pass along some phoons for IAF. The Rafale/French turnaround time is rather slow - be it brand new Rafales or even the M2K upgrade. In terms of urgency, the Tiffy sure has a leg up imho.

Perhaps a sqd direct from RAF may come along early for training/familiarization (ala Su-30K) to be upgraded in time to T3 status.

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2011 02:50

jee.. sweeden~!, if sweeden was in throwing away the rest (by l1), then think about how many mr. tellis we would be creating - 2 from Europe itself., and Russkies will join.

This way, we have handled better with pak-fa and C17 taking care of the butter required for many of those high profile representatives sitting in Delhi.

Now, all these are again politically [meaning half lies] correct... especially the one CM saab said:-

damage control

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Jun 2011 03:30

Y. Kanan wrote: I don't particularly care why the US has been showering Pakistan with free military aid for the past 60 years (and especially during the last 10). I only care that they do.

I on the other hand am not too concerned about power-plays that took place during the Cold War, and how the US used and discarded Pakistan over the years while disbursing aid to dictators freely. Nor am too concerned about giving Russia a lot of leverage today, based on subsidized arms exports during the 70s and 80s.

What looks like "blundering through conflicts" to you has actually been a series of incredibly money-making opportunities for the US military-industrial complex and all the various civilian-sector companies that benefit from said wars. This has always been the primary driver of America's wars, and the reason they invent enemies out of thin air (Serbia? Libya?) from time to time, when a new war is needed.

And why would the military-industrial complex that apparently runs the country want to prevent the rise of India. After all, stronger adversaries for the US means more moolah for the fellows selling it weapons.

Not even close to a valid comparison. Selling weapons is not the same as giving them away. When you sell weapons, the other guy still has to pay for them. This is why we don't get particularly annoyed with the French when they sell weapons to Pak. We're justifiably angry at the US because they are giving Pakistan tens of billions to build nukes and acquire conventional weapons to be used against us. The Chinese have been doing much the same thing (only with less generosity than the Americans). There is a key distinction between giving free aid and selling something. The former is an act of direct hostility; the latter is just business.

Surely you don't think that military aid has been free?

Just because they haven't paid in cold cash doesn't mean they haven't paid. CIA spooks running around the country (some may even say 'running the country'), drones attacks taking place with complete abandon (taking off from within Pakistan no less), US special forces popping in and out humiliating the entire armed forces, an offshoot from the Afghan militancy killing 30,000 people and seeking to establish an emirate - is price they've paid in sovereignty. A price that India for example would never have accepted. If recent disclosures by PAF personnel are to be believed, even their shiny new Block 50/52s come with plenty of strings including restrictions on use against India. Also it has to be said Pakistan has a certain leverage over the US as well - most of ISAF's supplies are routed via Karachi.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Jun 2011 03:55

Viv S wrote: Surely you don't think that military aid has been free?

Just because they haven't paid in cold cash doesn't mean they haven't paid. CIA spooks running around the country (some may even say 'running the country'), drones attacks taking place with complete abandon (taking off from within Pakistan no less), US special forces popping in and out humiliating the entire armed forces, an offshoot from the Afghan militancy killing 30,000 people and seeking to establish an emirate - is price they've paid in sovereignty. A price that India for example would never have accepted. If recent disclosures by PAF personnel are to be believed, even their shiny new Block 50/52s come with plenty of strings including restrictions on use against India. Also it has to be said Pakistan has a certain leverage over the US as well - most of ISAF's supplies are routed via Karachi.

So how does this affect their capability against India? So pakis are humiliated, and paid in sovereignity, so what's new? they have been doing it from the time they became independent. Now, if the pakis were forced to pay through their nose for their shiny new arms, when their country is going down, that is a price they should be forced to pay. The pakis will gladly bend over for anyone if they are willing to give them alms, especially ones to be used against India.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Jun 2011 04:30

putnanja wrote:So how does this affect their capability against India? So pakis are humiliated, and paid in sovereignity, so what's new? they have been doing it from the time they became independent. Now, if the pakis were forced to pay through their nose for their shiny new arms, when their country is going down, that is a price they should be forced to pay. The pakis will gladly bend over for anyone if they are willing to give them alms, especially ones to be used against India.

Its not about humiliating them, point is the US is extracting a price to achieve its own aims vis-a-vis Afghanistan and the Taliban. They could for example have demanded $X billion from Pakistani coffers as full price for ordered equipment, and then returned $(X-dX) back as rent charges for secure supply lines and freedom to carry out covert operations. It would still not change the overall dynamic.

US aid exists because it (rightly or wrongly) believes it necessary to its Afghan campaign. It could pull out from Afghanistan and abandon Pakistan to its own devices and Kabul to the Taliban, but I doubt that decision would be welcomed in India, especially in light of new inroads made by India in Afghanistan (which now include the private sector).

In any case we're getting off topic here, we could take this to a more appropriate thread if you like.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 09 Jun 2011 04:54

putnanja wrote: So how does this affect their capability against India?

Really? Having to fight a massive self-war while losing large elements of your jihadi human weaponry, doesn't affect their capability against India?

I think that's a much steeper price than what China is paying Russia for its massive armed forces

paramyog · Post by **paramyog** » 09 Jun 2011 12:15

Eurofighter..I m game 4 it..
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter- ... games.html

I wish Dassault had some stuff similar for Rafale..!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Jun 2011 12:25

gakakkad wrote:there has been a huge eurofighter controversy in the british parliament. They cost almost as much as the f22. they have been dubbed as only 'marginally useful'. I now think that it was a bad decision to reject the super hornets. for 10.5 billion dollars we could have got close to 10 squadrons. even england is rethinking about buying eurofighters.

The US is the undisputed leader in avionics and sensors and radars. Only the french come equal or better than them with the avionics and sensors on the Rafale.

But the airframes that the US has are just not good enough for India's requirements, what to do.

The F-15 is too big and heavy,
The FA-18 gasps for breath in high altitude. The IAF wants to deter China across the Himalayas not invade the Maldives for godssake!
The F-16 is too heavy, a bit underpowered, too near retirement, and a bit too unmaneuverable in its latest avatar.

But these guys all pack the best radars, weapons, and sensors in existence.

The IAF had no choice but to get the airframe that does what they need it to do, and then hope that the Europeans can come up with the avionics and radars that are as close to the American ones.

It was a tough choice, no aircraft was perfect.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Jun 2011 12:38

If India had chosen US fighters, the Americans would have loved us, but not respected us.

Now they respect us.

We will win the love with other deals.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 09 Jun 2011 12:52

Rahul M wrote:>> In essence Tellis is consoling the US strategic community that it wasn't other factors (which are more important to them) but the technical factors that precluded the choice of the teens.

you know, I got the feeling tellis was protecting (so to speak) India from possible repercussions if the idea got hold in washington that India had deliberately cut the americans off the deal. a tech shortcoming might be a H&D blow but it is still considered fairplay, a political decision won't have.

But isn't that what happened? The american planes were rejected by the IAF on technical grounds. If it was rejected by MoD it would have been on political grounds.

With the already massive deals with the americans and a lot more in the pipeline only someone out of touch with reality would think that MoD would ever agree to cutting the americans off politically.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jun 2011 13:05

it is what happened but tellis' authoritative article removes lots of doubts and counter arguments.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Jun 2011 13:26

saik - sweden is getting a coastal surveillance system order IIRC from a few months ago

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Jun 2011 13:47

Gagan wrote:If India had chosen US fighters, the Americans would have loved us, but not respected us.

Now they respect us.

We will win the love with other deals.

This is how the chinese operate.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Jun 2011 13:54

Saab not giving up hope....

Saab keeps watch on Indian fighter contest
FlightGlobal

Saab has not given up hope of winning the Indian air force's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest, despite having failed to make the service's shortlist when it narrowed the field to two European models early last month. "We were not selected - at least not yet," said Saab chief executive Håkan Buskhe. Attributing New Delhi's "rather surprising decision" to concerns over the developmental status of his company's Gripen NG, he said "what we can do is give them our explanation if we feel they have misjudged something".

Speaking in London in late May, Buskhe said: "We have a list of things that they have some questions about, and we have been looking at those." India narrowed its MMRCA contest to the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon, effectively eliminating the Gripen NG, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-16 and RSK MiG-35 from the $10 billion-plus, 126-aircraft deal. But with extended bids from the remaining contenders valid only until late December, Saab has decided to maintain a presence in support of the campaign in India. "We will wait and see," said Buskhe.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Jun 2011 15:35

they are waiting for typhoon to go bust and play spoiler with dassault
and at the same time, keep their hand in for the other competitions

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Jun 2011 17:30

The MMRCA has resulted in every skeleton in Typhoon's closet being brought out and paraded in full view.

I wonder if the Rafale has a few in its closet? We already know that her nose is too sharp and some were complaining that she could do with more power.
Dassault has responded by saying that they'll increase intake dia by 1.5 cm or something, and that additional arrays (On the sides?) are being planned.

If only Rafale had improved in these areas.
If only the F-18s airframe didn't suck.

Then the IAF would have been spoilt for choice.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Jun 2011 17:43

Gagan wrote:
If only Rafale had improved in these areas.
If only the F-18s airframe didn't suck.

Then the IAF would have been spoilt for choice.

True. What the IAF needed was an aircraft with the:

Payload and Range of the Rafale
Power and maneuverability of the Typhoon
Radar, avionics and weapons of the F-18.

Unobtanium unfortunately.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2011 17:51

common... saab can be really smacked by uncle.

if we really want to deal with saab, then do it like we do with Israel. no open tender.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 09 Jun 2011 18:44

shukla wrote:Saab not giving up hope....

Saab keeps watch on Indian fighter contest
FlightGlobal

They figured that if they keep up pressure they may get something out of it like everyone else. GoI is spreading the deals around and maybe they get MRA deal for IN/CG.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Jun 2011 19:17

I have a feeling that other manufacturers are not yet out because India wants to keep the terms and price pressure.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 09 Jun 2011 19:33

manum wrote:I've enough of this...size of economies...

Gakakkad, do you own anything that costs too much of money and through which you earn...lets say like a printing press, a plastic chair mould (which costs lakhs of rupee)...or a toy making facility, or any material...forget a fighter...and forget R&D, I am talking about plain production...
if chair stop selling, if printing orders stop coming...whole facility, mould, infrastructure will go to waste, even if you are a millionaire or have other businesses also...idea is to expand or sustain and not shrink...
This is I am telling in USA perspective...one loop hole and moral starts shrinking and so whole thing that is holding it down...this is why this argument of peanuts in the largeness is not valid...a small dent on economy which has matured and not showing any sign of intervention can be lethal and only cause major leak...

This is why this deal was so important for USA perspective...so why its important to France and Germany..though they both are doing well economically...

Yes, many strategies are there technically, and IAF did a good job so Mr. tellis said after hinting, saying otherwise...because it re-instates the trust in institution of the country irrespective of loosing the deal and it sets a good example for many future dealings to be done...

rest as many arguments are there...I am sure at this point of time, no blabber about capability would help a fighter win specially from manufacturer...now all the economic calculations will be made...and it is a stage where any blunder can be stopped and new grounds can be prepared...as we have already chosen two best of the league and last of 4th gen fighter...

I understand your perspective well. The US govt will go to any extent possible to support their military industrial complex. Especially considering the size of the order. Not many airforces need so many aircrafts and have such strict performance requirements. Indeed it would also be a matter of honor for the involved companies able to meet the IAF's USER requirements. I also agree that eurofighter and rafael are the best medium sized MRCA s in the business. I also accept the fact that airframe and aerodynamics are most important because we can add sensors and radars of US quality in the european fighters. French and israelis make quality products in this field. Indeed many electronics in MKIS were not even available to russia. The money is very important for france and the euro consortium. BAE systems is actually considering quitting the fighter business and concentrating on civil aviation. No other airforce in the world can afford 126 JETS of the cost in a single order.(of course i am not counting the USAF). Dassault is too finding the going tough. This are indeed tough times. They surely miss the cold war era. These military industrial people.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jun 2011 19:40

France zeroes in on lightweight weapon for Rafale
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... afale.html

Recent attention has focused on the MBDA dual-mode seeker-equipped Brimstone missile, which has been used by UK Royal Air Force Panavia Tornado GR4 strike aircraft during NATO's Unified Protector campaign to safeguard Libyan civilians from attack by forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi.

"Brimstone is a solution, but it's not the only option," said Stéphane Reb, the DGA's Rafale programme manager. Other candidates could include guided rockets or a weapon in the class of Lockheed Martin's small contained-area precision energetic load bomb, or Scalpel, said industry sources. Meetings about a possible acquisition were held in late May, and a selection decision could come soon.

This is Scalpel...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... index.html