India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 04 Jul 2011 17:30

Storm Shadow missile
http://ifile.it/lg9a53c/shadow.zip

Rafale M
http://ifile.it/ax3ce0r/rf.zip

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jul 2011 19:15

^^No use for us.. any new missile must be able to interface with other GPS systems like GAGAN and Glonass. And, that feature of uploading a picture of target to the missile is little weird.. so, it is really possible to redirect the missile with a different picture. [picture jamming eh!]

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 05 Jul 2011 16:55

Rafale is already 25 Years Old

Rafale First Flight 25th Anniversary

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jul 2011 17:06

Can Rafale court AESA side lobe panels on those beefy nose sides?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jul 2011 21:10

^ that is precisely the intention. IIRC, Rafale roadmap aims for cheeky arrays, CFTs, 9 ton engines AND more stealth features.

CM

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2011 21:24

^^^

Conformal AESA, for the Rafale, is a $1 Billion and about 5-10 yearish away.

FYI, conformal AESA from Thales:

Activating AESA

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jul 2011 21:53

So, is the current or the one that was bid for IAF carries them or is it a chew my pocket upgrade package?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jul 2011 07:31

Yes, the cheeky arrays would be later, but I'd expect a large part of the funding to come from Fra since it plans to use the Rafale for a good 30 years more. But that is for the MLU circa 2020. The rest could be available circa 2014.

CM

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2011 07:41

When the final prices are sent in,the Fin.Min. will as usual throw its cards into the ring.As many uniformed top brass are saying,the M-2000 upgrade costs should be compared with the acquisition costs per unit of some of the contenders (more speak of the Gripen),where we could get a brand new aircraft,better capabilities, with twice the lifespan for the cost of upgrading the M-2000s.When we did a cost-effective "Limited Upgrade of Sea Harriers" (LUSH),why can't the same be done with the M-2000 and extra 4++ aircraft procured for the IAF?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 06 Jul 2011 08:03

New CAPTOR Radars to Equip Typhoon Fighters

The development of this radar system will begin this month and it's set to reach operational status in four years time.
:
These new CAPTOR radars boast no less than 1,425 TRMs (Transmit and Receive Modules) and, once fitted to the Typhoons, will enhance the range of their AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) and speed up the airborne target/threat detection and pursuit processes, at cheaper cost.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 06 Jul 2011 08:37

Eurofighter Eyes HARM Missile For Typhoon

Eurofighter Eyes HARM Missile For Typhoon
Jul 5, 2011
By Robert Wall
LONDON

The Eurofighter consortium is taking steps to prepare integration of the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation (Harm) missile on the Typhoon fighter.

The preliminary work will help support Typhoon’s export campaign in India, which has expressed interest in the suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) weapon.

Typhoon is competing against the Dassault Aviation Rafale to win India’s Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft program.

If the program goes forward, India would likely be the first country to employ Harm from the Typhoon.

The anti-radar missile would likely be carried on the outer wing-stations.

The existing electronic support measures system on Typhoon would likely support the targeting of Harm, although it may require some upgrades, program officials note. Eventually, the targeting accuracy could reach the same level now provided by the Tornado ECRs, versions of the interdiction aircraft Germany and Italy use for SEAD roles, Eurofighter officials say.

Also in development is a more extensive upgrade of the Reccelite reconnaissance pod for Typhoon. The Eurofighter consortium already showcased basic functionality of Reccelite for the Swiss fighter competition, although at the time a more basic integration was used with the reconnaissance system controlled via laser-designator pod functionality. Now, a fuller integration is being sought.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jul 2011 08:55

1425 t/rs.. is a killer man! imagine the next gen GaN wala then..

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Jul 2011 09:44

Philip wrote:When the final prices are sent in,the Fin.Min. will as usual throw its cards into the ring.As many uniformed top brass are saying,the M-2000 upgrade costs should be compared with the acquisition costs per unit of some of the contenders (more speak of the Gripen),where we could get a brand new aircraft,better capabilities, with twice the lifespan for the cost of upgrading the M-2000s.When we did a cost-effective "Limited Upgrade of Sea Harriers" (LUSH),why can't the same be done with the M-2000 and extra 4++ aircraft procured for the IAF?

Maybe sweden can make an offer now which we can't refuse. I mean take our m2ks for 15 million each and sell Gripen NG for around 50 million as replacement.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 06 Jul 2011 10:56

Regarding EF, I have a few questions. With a seller-buyer relationship, we can claim 50% of production cost as offsets, but as a partner in EF consortium will they offer 50% production cost as offsets plus partnership or just a share in EF that has uncertain future orders. Second, will India needs to share any of its technologies and hardware that had been funded 100% by India, but with a foreign collaborator (say Israel, UK or France) with rest of EF consortium.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2011 11:54

Do we not already have Russian equivalents of HARM in service with our SU-30MKIs? Could not these also be used by whichever MMRCA is chosen? One analyst not too long ago in conversation with me ,wonderedhow we managed being the operators of the largest number of anti-ship missiles in the world!

We still use the Styx SS-N-2Ds on Tarantulas and some Khukris ,anti-ship Urans and Klubs,sub-launched variants of Klub,Exocet (Scorpenes) and perhaps Uran also,air-launched versions of Uran,Harpoon (P-8s) ,Kh-31s,etc, not to mention Brahmos in all three avatars and Dhanush! Add to that huge list is Nirbhay,K-15 et al .all set to make their entry too. The good old Sea Eagle has been reportedly pensioned off,so what equips our maritime Jaguars now?

The latest export variant offered is the Kh-58UShKE, which is slightly shorter than the Kh-58E, uses shorter span wings, and has a range of up to 245 km. It is equipped with a new wideband seeker design capable of acquiring emitters operating between 1.2 and 11 GHz, and can also home on CW (continuous wave) emitters in one band.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jul 2011 12:09

the russian harm type pods and missiles are imo not combat proven like the israeli and american solns - atleast these have taken down medium scale threats like syria, serbia, egypt, iraq in the past.

the Growler system is surely not for sale and the USAF even guards its F-16CJ closely (none of the NATO munna's have it) and based them in germany for desired nato missions.

so the best meat is not on menu - options are choice of 2nd tier american / vs russian system....in due course we will develop our own growler based around the Astra and new scanning hw.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jul 2011 12:15

The commercial bids are being opened in August? Any news?

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 06 Jul 2011 14:36

Just saw this nice shot of Rafale over Afghanistan on Armee de l'air's photostream and thought i'd share it

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jul 2011 16:35

Shrinivasan wrote:
Gurneesh wrote:If 60 planes for Korea will cost 8.9 bill USD, then how come 124 for india will only cost 11 - 12 bill ??
Economy of scale!!!

It's all in the details that determines the final price. The basic fly-away price is just the starting price point. From there onwards, every detail needs to be negotiated i.e. license production (how much locally vs how much sourced), TOT (which parts - different prices for different tech), integration of indigenous parts (EW, avionics, etc), lifecycle support (how much, how many years, what parts) etc. As you can see the final price of each individual planes will come differently based on what is on the plate.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jul 2011 17:46

Singha wrote:....in due course we will develop our own growler based around the Astra and new scanning hw.

Tejas Mk2-Garj it shall be then.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jul 2011 19:44

SaiK wrote:
Singha wrote:....in due course we will develop our own growler based around the Astra and new scanning hw.
Tejas Mk2-Garj it shall be then.

Won't LCA MK2 be a small platform with limited power for a Growler type package?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Jul 2011 04:50

Eurofighters, F-15s and Japan

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Jul 2011 02:03

US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake dismissed speculation on the MMRCA issue following media reports last month that American defence supplier Lockheed Martin may hope to rejoin the race by offering its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Answering a question from Business Standard during a media interaction, on whether the US believed there was still a window open for an American company to re-enter the MMRCA bid, Blake said, “No, we are not looking…not pressuring the Indian government to try and reopen the bid. We would welcome, and US companies would welcome the opportunity if they decide to reopen the bid for their own reasons.”

The Indian government has also said its selection process was irreversible. Blake said the US was looking past the MMRCA deal to “other huge opportunities” in defence sales to India, pointing to $30-billion worth of potential defence contracts, to be awarded by India over the next few years.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... or/442116/

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Jul 2011 13:39

Liam Fox promotes Eurofighter Typhoon for IAF
DailyIndia

On Friday, Dr. Fox met Defence Minister A K Antony and National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon. "In today's world of multi-layered security and economic interdependence the UK and India are looking for relationships that are built on partnership and respect, not one-off transactions," said Fox.

Fox also promoted the Eurofighter Typhoon as the decision on which aircraft is to form the country's MMRCA contract approaches. "The Eurofighter Typhoon not only provides India with cutting-edge operational capability, but also unmatched potential for an enduring strategic partnership in developing future defence technology," he said.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 10 Jul 2011 09:38

shukla wrote:Liam Fox promotes Eurofighter Typhoon for IAF
"The Eurofighter Typhoon not only provides India with cutting-edge operational capability, but also unmatched potential for an enduring strategic partnership in developing future defence technology,"

Key for Rafale or Eurofighter grabbing the MMRCA can be summed up in ONE WORD - offsets

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 10 Jul 2011 12:20

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/07/co ... wrong.html
By Admiral Arun Prakash

The IAF is now guaranteed a versatile, highly-agile and potent - albeit expensive - fourth generation combat aircraft in its inventory which can dominate the regional skies for the foreseeable future. Having flown both the F/A-18 and the Rafale, I can say that while the former would certainly have met all the IAF requirements competently and economically, the breathtaking performance of the latter leaves one in no doubt that it is a “generation-next” machine. The Eurofighter Typhoon, by all accounts, is equally impressive.
...
For far too long, have Indian defence PSUs claimed “transfer of technology” when they were only assembling components received from abroad using “screwdriver technology”. For the MMRCA offsets to be beneficial to India, they must be selectively chosen to fill known gaps in key technologies or provide high-end production-engineering skills lacking in our aerospace industry today. The USA had conveyed a distinct message that selection of either American candidate would open a cornucopia of technology to India – including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Europeans must be reminded of this and prevailed upon to follow a similar paradigm.
...
It is a moot question that if numbers are indeed so critical for the IAF, then why have the cheaper MMRCA options been discarded? Given that all six aircraft seem to have qualified in the flight-trials and technical evaluation processes, the line-up, in ascending order of price, shown in parenthesis, is as follows: MiG-35 ($ 45 m), F-16 ($60 m), F/A-18 ($60.5 m), Gripen ($82.2 m), Rafale ($ 85.5 m) and Typhoon ($124 m). The IAF could have, for example, added 400 Super Hornets to its inventory for the price of 200 Typhoons, and resolved many of its problems.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jul 2011 12:23

SaiK wrote:
Singha wrote:....in due course we will develop our own growler based around the Astra and new scanning hw.
Tejas Mk2-Garj it shall be then.

Best bet for a growler type is the MKI. Massive space = massive sensors, pods, jammers, Massive engines= massive power for said equipment - pure brute approach.

CM

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 10 Jul 2011 13:10

Cain Marko wrote:
SaiK wrote:Tejas Mk2-Garj it shall be then.
Best bet for a growler type is the MKI. Massive space = massive sensors, pods, jammers, Massive engines= massive power for said equipment - pure brute approach. CM

Agree with you 100%, This is what i wrote in the LCA Dhaga...

Ameer-Khan Wild Weasels are based on fairly larger platform...F-100s, F-105s, F4s, F16 Block50 and eventually F-35. LCA in its current avatar (or even MkII) does not have enough power / size to perform the task... We can probably use some of our older SU30 frames (intitial 18 ones) for this purpose as they'll have the needed power.

Let us leverage the original SU30s (or earlier model SU30MKs) for the desi wild-weasel. good number of hardpoints, capacity to carry humungous payload, mid air refuelling and long range...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jul 2011 13:28

^ my guess is that the IAF is not unaware of the Su's potential. THey must've been working on this aspect for some time. I recall vaguely about statements made by those in the know that the Rambha was packed full of "electronics" and has no more space. I used to wonder - wtf? wot electronics? It just has one Bars on it, where is the MAWS, no internal jammer either (wasn't the 8222 carried externally?). But then with time and plenty of BR, a level of maturity has set in (I hope) - the IAF boys probly have a lot of stuff in/out the MKI that would make it rather effective in a number of roles - from recon to EW and CAP. We'll probly hear of a sqd dedicated to such roles when we are old and ripe!

CM.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 11 Jul 2011 12:40

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=COM

The problem is that a dominant force like the U.S. is used to dictating deal terms: Here is what we can offer, take it or leave it. The struggles over technology access to the F-35 among key allies, especially the United Kingdom, amply illustrate the U.S. posture, its lack of flexibility, and how an industrial and political giant can use its strategic leverage to make sales even when the customer finds the terms less than ideal.

One of the reasons for the current Sputnik shock is that India is not truly a client of the United States yet. It has a lot of independence and flexibility. And it seems India is not afraid to reject a deal it does not like.

Great to see some good, levelheaded analysis.

rohankumaon · Post by **rohankumaon** » 11 Jul 2011 15:51

Really good analysis.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jul 2011 16:55

CM, the only problem is the right to own MKI, and tweak it. We have no idea what agreement we have with the Russians on it. On the LCA, we have all rights to change, modify and enhance.

Sure, unless we have advanced our material science and produce better t/rs (AlGaN or some similar devices), that does the job 10 times better, we can't think LCA platform for growling roles.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jul 2011 22:40

sohels wrote:http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/07/co ... wrong.html
By Admiral Arun Prakash

In similar fashion every foreign aircraft that the IAF acquires, will place the Service at the mercy of another nation for 30-40 years thereafter. The denial of a tiny aircraft component can ground fleets, and we should be in no doubt that our dependence for spares, product-support and weapons on sources as diverse as Russia, UK, France, Israel and South Africa constitutes a crippling strategic vulnerability. We may soon be adding Italy, Spain and Germany to this list.

On the other hand, Mazagon Docks went on to build four more Leanders before Indian naval architects stepped in to re-design the hull and add weapons and sensors to produce three different classes of warships. Today, the navy’s perspective plans rely heavily on the regular delivery of frigates, destroyers, amphibious ships and submarines by carefully nurtured Indian shipyards. A nuclear submarine was launched in 2010, and an indigenous aircraft-carrier will follow in 2015.

While the good Admiral is making a good point on rationalisation of IAF fleet and reduction in the numbers and types of aircraft in IAF fleet is as such a noble cause and something even i agree with greatly.

He seems to give the impression that IN does such rationalisation of fleet and produces indigenous ships at MDL , Truth be told he is spreading half truth and is taking an opportunity to slander his sister service.

Truth be told most of IN ships have equipment integrated from Italy,Canada,Israel , Russia ,India, US , Ukraine ....... , each and every IN navy ship will have component either directly imported or lic manufactured locally from these manufacturer which gets into these ship , IN ships does not have much rationalisation or is limited to components from one or two countries and most of the components on basis of cost account for major percentage of the cost of ships , NDB designs and system integrates it while MDL builds the hull and integrates all major foreign component.

So the Admiral is really not in a great position to lecture IAF on fleet and type rationalisation by citing IN builders navy as an example when most of the built in stuff of the builders navy are not indigenous systems but imported or lic manufactured one.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Jul 2011 23:14

Austin: The question is are these components sourced because the technology for the same does not exist or is it more cost/logistics that drives the import of these components. Also, what percentage of these become in sourced over time would be an important benchmark to consider, as indigenization is not an all or nothing game, it evolves.

He is taking a shot at the IN too on the foreign dependence front, so would not call this article biased. At least, I did not get that message.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 11 Jul 2011 23:39

Austin wrote:He seems to give the impression that IN does such rationalisation of fleet and produces indigenous ships at MDL , Truth be told he is spreading half truth and is taking an opportunity to slander his sister service.

Truth be told most of IN ships have equipment integrated from Italy,Canada,Israel , Russia ,India, US , Ukraine ....... , each and every IN navy ship will have component either directly imported or lic manufactured locally from these manufacturer

He doesn't deny integration of foreign components by the IN, but what the IAF is doing is BUYING a foreign plane, ditto by IA for deals like T-90. Even with my limited knowledge it is apparent that
1) IN is doing a great job of integrating foreign components better,
2) Is building domestic expertise in integration and in some cases domestic industry has been able to provide replacement products.
3) IN doesn't import whole ships, has been been most involved with the product development lifecycle compared to other services. Manages shipyard by deputing Rear-Admiral ranked officers.
Is the IN perfect, NO but they are light-years ahead of IA and IAF (the good admiral also does not claim IN is perfect). a decent analysis, fit to be applauded, more so taken cognizance of and draw lessons from.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Jul 2011 09:29

ShauryaT wrote:Austin: The question is are these components sourced because the technology for the same does not exist or is it more cost/logistics that drives the import of these components.

Most of the components are not made here barring sonars and ESM systems , some components are lic manuf here like LM2500 engine of US ,couple of navigation and FC radar from Russia but a major chunk is directly imported , kirloskar makes some lic engine for ships.

As an eg consider the latest IN frigate from MDL the P-17 , guns from Italy ,missiles from Russia,Israel , IMPS from canada , radars from Israel and Russia , ESM india , sonars Warship technology quotes Russian sonar but could be Indian as well , CIWS russian/israel , SAM Russian , CMS Indo-Russian development , engine LM2500 a lic produce US engine.

Pick up any Indian navy ships you would find a great percentage of foreign component , Adm Prakash mentioned more than 70 % in one of his older article.

With such varied component from so many different countries , its hard to see what incentive if any are there for local developers to develop such components locally other then lic produce it by some PSU which is nothing but screwdriver technology as Adm Prakash puts it.

Strangely there are hardly any navies that integrates US.Russian,European,Israel and Indian components on their warship , at best it would be all European/US or all Russian components , Indian Navy is world best system integrator but that really does not help indigenous cause

Also, what percentage of these become in sourced over time would be an important benchmark to consiider, as indigenization is not an all or nothing game, it evolves.

Well they just replace old component from Western or Russian supplier with newer one depending on the generation of ships we talk , the old Godvari ships had mostly Russian,Italian system the new P-17 has many systems from many countries , i just gave you a glimpse of few which is obvious.

He is taking a shot at the IN too on the foreign dependence front, so would not call this article biased. At least, I did not get that message.

I never said he was biased , his article is very well intentioned and should be something IAF should aim for as rationalisation is the key to many things and could bring in savings in long run , its just that he is economical with truth by claiming IN ships from MDL are more indigenous , each IN ships has more components and systems from many countries compared to any single IAF fighter type would have.

Its just the old saying people who live in glass houses should not throw stone at others is very valid argument when it comes to Naval ships.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Jul 2011 09:41

Shrinivasan wrote:1) IN is doing a great job of integrating foreign components better

Agreed IN is worlds best system integrator , but how does world best system integrator helps indiginous cause ?

2) Is building domestic expertise in integration and in some cases domestic industry has been able to provide replacement products.

Unfortunately the replacement products are just few and far in between , Hull mounted Sonar is one key area which we replaced , BEL made CMS from JV but these are just few examples , most components till date are imported , you can do an auditing of IN ships and you can find out the truth.

Unfortunately there is not much incentive for local developers to develop an indiginous solution at best they lic manuf it , IN aims for best of what is available from global market and its a moving target, so the next class of warship will have the next set of best component available from global market at that point in time , very little time and incentive to indiginous systems.

3) IN doesn't import whole ships, has been been most involved with the product development lifecycle compared to other services. Manages shipyard by deputing Rear-Admiral ranked officers.
Is the IN perfect, NO but they are light-years ahead of IA and IAF (the good admiral also does not claim IN is perfect). a decent analysis, fit to be applauded, more so taken cognizance of and draw lessons from.

Unfortunately due to the delay that MDL does it would be cheaper to import then build at Indian yards , but the hull of the ships does not make up for majority of cost but expensive electronics , weapon system and electronic does which majorly are imported and/or lic manuf by BEL.

NDB designs the ships with assistance from West or Eastern design bureau and then integrates all major components from these countries.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 12 Jul 2011 09:51

Austin wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:1) IN is doing a great job of integrating foreign components better
Agreed IN is worlds best system integrator , but how does world best system integrator helps indiginous cause ?

Because often parts from one source can be replaced without too much hassle by parts from another source. No one manufactures every nut and bolt in a piece of advanced machinery. It is the making of the major complex parts, and the integration of the parts into the whole, that is the key ability.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Jul 2011 10:25

UBanerjee wrote: Because often parts from one source can be replaced without too much hassle by parts from another source. No one manufactures every nut and bolt in a piece of advanced machinery. It is the making of the major complex parts, and the integration of the parts into the whole, that is the key ability.

IN integrates systems as is received from the OEM they do not integrates parts , so they would integrate a Canadian IMPS with US engine and other components of ships and would make these components work in a seamless manner. The OEM makes all the parts components for these systems.

In a very simple explaination you dont make parts of the computers you buy , you simply purchase the cpu,mobo,ram and other components and integrate them , the greater the diversity of the supplier for indian navy the greater is the logistics overhead in procuring,integrating and maintaining it and these components keeps changing depending on the class of ships you purchase and when these were made.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 12 Jul 2011 10:29

To be frank it is not hard to imagine that the indigenous content of IN ships is less than that of license manufactured foreign origin arms like the MKIs or T-90s and that of Indian designed LCA and Arjun. So does the IN really deserve more credit?