India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 23 Jul 2011 18:06

what i eventually meant was the importance of this deal to US may have been to strengthen its leverage over Pakistan while rejection of US birds may signify denial of this advantage to the US as india bears the price. I would disagree on Cohen's assesment that past US hostile beheviour leading to mistrust had any role to play in India's denial as this logic doesnt seem to be applicable on other platforms India buys from the US.

Kovy · Post by **Kovy** » 23 Jul 2011 18:56

SaiK wrote:It could add the restriction to IAF pilot's size and weight. I know they must be fit and agile, but not necessarily conforming to size and shape and height.

Kat is a no no for khan sized fighter pilots.

As the Rafale cockpit is much more roomy and comfortable than the Mirage 2000, there shouldn't be any size issue for IAF pilots.

With the 29° reclined seat, side sticks and arm supports, you feel as if you were in your vaforite armchair.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2011 19:23

Some very interesting notes from DTI Jul/Aug issue.

Thanks to the delay in developing the JSF,Boeing is trying to extend F-18 SH production for US client states who were earlier promised JSFs at affordable prices.SoKo,Oz,Japan are just some of the countries which are being targeted for the same.Now the upgraded SH will have conformal tanks,a low RCS underbelly weapons pod (carrying 4 AMRAAMs,or 1X 2000lb/2X 500lb bombs).An enhanced version of the GE 414 engine woul supposedly give "20%" more thrust,GE caimed new engine oderivatives,etc.,Quote:"unfortunately,India did not buy it" when evaluating the SH for the MMRCA deal! The lack of power at high alt.was therefore one very good reason why the IAF rejected the SH.This new version of the SH is yet to undergo wind tunnel tests to validate the re-design.However,since the client states of the US are so heavily tied up iwith interoperability qwiht the US military,it is unlikely that the Europeans will make the breakthrough and these states will be armtwisted to buy a US fighter,either the SH or F-15SE.japan might be sorely tempted to buy the EF with the promise of full TOT as a base for its own future 6th-gen fighter.

There appears to also be a spat between Boeing' chairman Chadwick and and Lockheed Martin about SH costs.Chadwick is recently quoted as saying that the JSF might become only a "niche fighter" ! The JSF woes and delay are so well knon that if Mrs.C ctualy offered it to us,she displayed a singular lack of knowledge about her own aircraft industryplu the views of the IAF too which publicly rejected the idea not to long ago when the idea was floated by pro-US entities to sabotage the signing of the landmark Indo-Russian FGFA deal.

Rafale:Some v. intersting reports about the Rafale in Libya.The Rafale F-3 avatar according to French pilot i a true "omnirole" fighter,where the tasks of recce,strike and air combat are all combined in one aircraft "simultaneously".This is the key,as the Rafale can suppoedly carry out al thse tasks in a single sortie without having to change clothes as it were.
Quote::"In air-to air combat it replaces the m-2000RDI and 2000-5.In air-to-ground attack i replaces the SEM,M-2000D and Mirage F-1.In deterrence it replaces the M-2000N.By 2015,only the Rafale and M-2000D will be in the French ervice and by 2030 only the rafal will will serve for 40-50 years (tall claim!)."Upgraes will begin in 2025.

Pilots are very happy in both Afghanistan and Libyan ops.The "observation,orientation,decision and action loop" in the cokpit is drastically rduced."Two Rafales are equal to 2 M 2000-5 and 4 M-2000 D aircraft with respect to payload.."
In Libya,"...we're omnirole.While your recce is working by itself,you're scanning the skies and sending pics to other aircraft.With one trigger pull you can hit 6 targets simultaneously,in all weather day or night."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jul 2011 20:44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbiSNAlv ... re=related
so all that we see in this old presentation, is not translatable to the existing capability yet?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 00:27

Kovy wrote:
SaiK wrote:It could add the restriction to IAF pilot's size and weight. I know they must be fit and agile, but not necessarily conforming to size and shape and height.
Kat is a no no for khan sized fighter pilots.
As the Rafale cockpit is much more roomy and comfortable than the Mirage 2000, there shouldn't be any size issue for IAF pilots.
With the 29° reclined seat, side sticks and arm supports, you feel as if you were in your vaforite armchair.

<Disclaimer>I have never sat in Rafale's cockpit, neither have I seen it in person</Disclaimer>
Apart from the fact that Rafale's cockpit is ROOMIER than the Mirage2K, if you see the pics of Shiv Aroor on the Rafale, he looks Comfy. Shiv is not exactly the lean & mean type. Short and Stocky is how we can characterize him. I also spoke to him about his couple of days ago after seeing the pics... he thinks Rafale's cockpit was pretty roomy. JMT.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jul 2011 01:50

VinodTK wrote:Why India Wouldn’t Buy American Fighter Jets
In an interview earlier this week with the U.S. National Bureau of Asian Research, U.S.-India defense expert Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, laid out some more provocative theories. India is “uneasy” about using U.S. planes on missions that could involve combat in Pakistan, he said, and “there may also be U.S. laws limiting the planes from carrying nuclear weapons.”

But the real reason U.S. hopes were spiked, Mr. Cohen said, was that India doesn’t think it can rely politically on Washington to supply planes over the long-term. “India would have given the order to a U.S. firm if it had been assured that the United States would back India politically thereafter,” Mr. Cohen said in the interview. “Since this guarantee was not available, and awarding a U.S. firm the contract would increase Washington’s ability to influence New Delhi, the United States was a not a good choice politically as a supplier.”

India has done some strategic deals with US based on certain issues but US has also not removed its support for ISI backed Indian Kashmir supporters as was seen with KAC. This is after India signed with US in 2005-2008. Now they expect there is political support to India when India is in conflict.
US plans for its regional future does not match with Indian relations with countries in middle east and Indian sub continent. US political support is required for military alliance and how can this be sustained.

F-35 Offer; The US must treat India as an equal partner on the world stage and not merely a lucrative market for weapon systems and outdated technologies - Air Marshal (Retd) B.K. Pandey

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2011 02:01

^Acharya ji, that is impossible for US to treat India as an equal partner on the world stage. That is like asking them to share the american pie. This is the forces issue, and r&d one, where the lag has created this situation. 50 years and on, the waste of time could be one factor to blame along with various other internal issues. Now, we can still focus and conquer, and don't have to be asking anyone for anything. All it needs is focus.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2011 02:08

And, anything India BUYS will be outdated. From any source - including Russians, just to be sure.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jul 2011 02:20

SaiK wrote:^Acharya ji, that is impossible for US to treat India as an equal partner on the world stage. That is like asking them to share the american pie. This is the forces issue, and r&d one, where the lag has created this situation. 50 years and on, the waste of time could be one factor to blame along with various other internal issues. Now, we can still focus and conquer, and don't have to be asking anyone for anything. All it needs is focus.

The other report earlier - last year or so - US analyst saying that by offering India these fighter planes US govt can then give more arms to Pakistan even if it against the public opinion. They need enough justification in the eyes of all the parties to continue the support for arms to Pakistan - arms not needed for fighting Taliban and Al Q
This is more of a show offer and not a serious offer and they want to test Indian decision making.

All these point to US strategic vision being not in line with Indian interest in the region.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2011 05:48

I guess, that is inherent and not openly acknowledged by our elites. It is hard for our ethos to say truth on the face value, especially if the interaction is outside our boundary controls. Within, we are total chaos.

So, it is a lost case.. no worries. The decisions only confirms these.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 24 Jul 2011 12:19

Hi, there is some info here on Rafale Design Optimization. Its a document from 1987.

http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale/pdf/Raf ... trator.pdf

Personally, I prefer the Eurofighter due to its superior A2A performance attributes in terms of better radar and probably better kinetic performance.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 24 Jul 2011 12:57

Guess Katrina will have to be a "Mahindra Verito" rather than being a "Renault Logan" if it has to win.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Jul 2011 13:24

G@nesh wrote:IMO MMRCA may have a greater impact on US Pak relations rather than Indo US relations. I feel the rejection of US birds have reduced the leverage US may have had over pak in dictating their foriegn policy as MMRCA can be perceived as an offensive platform where a sound relationship with US would be the key to keep india at bay this may be one reason why US was hell-bent upon securing the deal.

It has also very painfully brought home to the pakis that India is no vassal state.

Under the present and prevailing scenario this has got to hurt badly.

We are capable of dealing with the US on our own terms, something which the pakis have never ever done nor can they ever do.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 14:56

chetak wrote:It has also very painfully brought home to the pakis that India is no vassal state.

And the fact that Yevil Yindoos have rejected F-16 which is their "Pride Possession" has hurt them in dark tight places. Adding insult to Injury was the F-16IN is vastly superior to their Khataras and repainted Khataras.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 14:56

Drishyaman wrote:Guess Katrina will have to be a "Mahindra Verito" rather than being a "Renault Logan" if it has to win.

Care to explain, I am not aware of these brands

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 24 Jul 2011 15:12

Ha ha HA.

http://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british ... cises.html

Jaik · Post by **Jaik** » 24 Jul 2011 15:33

I went to the Southport Airshow in Lancashire this weekend.The crew of the Typhoon sounded pretty confident. As soon as they saw a few of us Indians( or should i say Injuns!), they made us feel very welcome, answered our questions etc.. Guess 10 Billion is a lot of wonga !Money talks! Never been made to feel more welcome than this. Felt really proud of our country and how we are slowly but surely moving up the ladder!

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 15:43

D Roy wrote:Ha ha HA.http://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british ... cises.html

I am surprised with this statement from the RAF chief, incidentally he was in Kalaikunda for ID2010. None of the Indian or international rags reporting the event drew such a conclusion then. Also Sukhois would have been able to detect and get a lock even before the EF2Ks considering its powerful Radar (unless SU30s where operating in a dumbed down mode). It is "bad business" for RAF to ridicule IAF's prize possession at this crucial juncture that too after more than a year of the exercise. Unless the whole article is DDM/Lifafa. Or the EF2Ks have been badly beaten by Katrina Kumaris in the MMRCA deal that the RAF cheif has gone on a rampage... doesn't make sense anyway I see it.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 15:45

Jaik wrote:I went to the Southport Airshow in Lancashire this weekend.The crew of the Typhoon sounded pretty confident. As soon as they saw a few of us Indians( or should i say Injuns!), they made us feel very welcome, answered our questions etc.. Guess 10 Billion is a lot of wonga !Money talks! Never been made to feel more welcome than this. Felt really proud of our country and how we are slowly but surely moving up the ladder!

Interesting... this is something I too felt sometime back with Lockheed people with C130J and C-5 Galaxy.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 24 Jul 2011 16:00

D Roy wrote:Ha ha HA.

http://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british ... cises.html

Worth quoting..

"Well, they lost," was Stephen Dalton's response when IANS asked how the Russia-developed India-manufactured Su-30MKI air superiority jets performed against the Royal Air Force's (RAF) Typhoons when they matched their wits during the joint exercises in recent years.

However, he was quick to add that the two aircraft are different in technologies, and that Typhoons are next generation, and hence there is no comparison. Dalton was interacting with IANS at the recently held Royal International Air Tattoo military air show at the RAF base here. The two aircraft were pitted against each other during 'Indradhanush' exercises in 2007 at Waddington in Britain and in 2010 at Kalaikunda in India.

Dalton also indicated that the IAF inventory of Sukhois, MiGs and Mirages are no match to the Typhoons.

"Nothing that India has got is anything anywhere near this (the Typhoon). I would say that absolutely. This airplane is phenomenally different in both performance and technology in anything they (IAF) got right now," he said.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 16:31

shukla wrote:
"Well, they lost," was Stephen Dalton's response...
"Nothing that India has got is anything anywhere near this (the Typhoon). I would say that absolutely. This airplane is phenomenally different in both performance and technology in anything they (IAF) got right now," he said.

If he was trying to impress Yindians and sell EF2K, he achieved the opposite. He has pissed off people within the IAF. I would wonder how many customers would be happy if your seller dissed you/your work/products to sell you his products.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 24 Jul 2011 18:02

Shrinivasan wrote:
Drishyaman wrote:Guess Katrina will have to be a "Mahindra Verito" rather than being a "Renault Logan" if it has to win.
Care to explain, I am not aware of these brands

http://www.zigwheels.com/news-features/ ... ito/8281/1

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 24 Jul 2011 18:23

Shrinivasan wrote:
Kovy wrote: As the Rafale cockpit is much more roomy and comfortable than the Mirage 2000, there shouldn't be any size issue for IAF pilots.
With the 29° reclined seat, side sticks and arm supports, you feel as if you were in your vaforite armchair.
<Disclaimer>I have never sat in Rafale's cockpit, neither have I seen it in person</Disclaimer>
Apart from the fact that Rafale's cockpit is ROOMIER than the Mirage2K, if you see the pics of Shiv Aroor on the Rafale, he looks Comfy. Shiv is not exactly the lean & mean type. Short and Stocky is how we can characterize him. I also spoke to him about his couple of days ago after seeing the pics... he thinks Rafale's cockpit was pretty roomy. JMT.

As we speak, just 5~10 mins ago, my Delhi Spotter friend Arpit's photo of Shiv's Flight just got screened & acptd on A.net:

Here's Shiv getting strapped-in > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1956590/L/

Taxing-out for departure > http://www.airliners.net/photo/1956436/L/

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 24 Jul 2011 21:57

koti wrote:What worries me is that the Dassault PR has been so far mum on these so called emergency landings.

SaiK wrote:So, did they say why those emergency landings happened?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1135012

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2011 23:02

nice dash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjjL-YogXv4

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jul 2011 23:20

G@nesh wrote:what i eventually meant was the importance of this deal to US may have been to strengthen its leverage over Pakistan while rejection of US birds may signify denial of this advantage to the US as india bears the price. I would disagree on Cohen's assesment that past US hostile beheviour leading to mistrust had any role to play in India's denial as this logic doesnt seem to be applicable on other platforms India buys from the US.

Pak focus is one the main factors for the offer from US in the MMRCA bid
They will have leverage in terms of access to Indian op bases and tuning the fighters and understanding the Indian op doctrines. US will be able to match the course and outcome of any conflict to their interest and that is the final objective of the engagement with India for the last 10 years.

Pakistan has to take what it gets and it does not have much choice. But India can increase its capability and create total dominance which will increase the demands inside Pakistan. This in turn will cost money for the US which cannot fund much any more. To control the funding of the Af Pak war and aid to Pakistan they need to create an equalizer which they can control.

Another need is to have joint US India foreign policy on Pakistan which has not be possible. With this sale they could slide into a diplomatic engagement with Pakistan along with India.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 02:34

Acharya wrote:Another need is to have joint US India foreign policy on Pakistan which has not be possible. With this sale they could slide into a diplomatic engagement with Pakistan along with India.

Acharya, Agree with all your other points except this... US can still slide into a Indo-Pak diplomatic engagement, Pak will want US to Intervene and India will not want it, US will end up taking Pak's side as they need Pak to fight the GWOT. (forget on which side

) they have been doing it before, will continue to do so. Their leverage with Pak is at its highest point (WRT India). Also minus the MMRCA deal, US is bound to feel it has less leverage over India and thus lean toward Pak.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 02:42

Vishal Jolapara wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:<Disclaimer>I have never sat in Rafale's cockpit, neither have I seen it in person</Disclaimer>
Apart from the fact that Rafale's cockpit is ROOMIER than the Mirage2K, if you see the pics of Shiv Aroor on the Rafale, he looks Comfy. Shiv is not exactly the lean & mean type. Short and Stocky is how we can characterize him. I also spoke to him about his couple of days ago after seeing the pics... he thinks Rafale's cockpit was pretty roomy. JMT.
As we speak, just 5~10 mins ago, my Delhi Spotter friend Arpit's photo of Shiv's Flight just got screened & acptd on A.net:

Rafale's cockpit is definitely roomy. Thanks to Vhishal I checked more pictures of Rafale in action and on the ground. Larger framed french (AdA and AeroNava) pilots are sitting comfortably, ergonomics is great... controls are laid out
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/_ ... oOwcZdDTfw
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__A2VG2LiIPk/T ... 886e_o.jpg
The cockpit is roomy for sure. one pooch, there are controls on both side of the pilot, would it be optimized for left handed and right handed pilots or it is the same controls all around?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jul 2011 02:57

not sure the rafale's dual side stick is programmable to suit IAF but both sides looks HOT.AS!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2011 03:00

Feeling lazy to google. How many of the 126 MMRCA are single seaters?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jul 2011 03:15

I don't think I have read about exact numbers.. however it should be directly driven by IAF doctrine.. wouldn't single seat more suitable for deep strike, more internal fuel, yadi yada, and would definitely combine with AWACS and refuelers for a deep strike mission.

Dual seat would be mostly for other strike missions? i may be wrong there.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2011 03:20

OK. Sorry, found it.

86 single, 40 dual.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jul 2011 03:20

cool, where did you find it?

ajay_hk · Post by **ajay_hk** » 25 Jul 2011 03:28

NRao saar... thats correct.

Source

India will acquire 126 aircraft—86 single-seat and 40 twin-seat configurations.

and

India plans to procure 18 aircraft in flyaway condition and produce 106 locally under license through technology transfer. Delivery starts within 36 months of contract signing and will be completed 48 months later.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 03:43

NRao wrote:OK. Sorry, found it. 86 single, 40 dual.

This ratio of 1:2 seems pretty high for IAF, traditionally they have bought 1:8 (in a squadron of 18 planes they'll have 2 dual seater / trainer and the rest 16 single seaters). Eventhough I have no reason to dis-beleive AWST or an alternate data point to prove it otherwise.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ia%20MMRCA I still consider this number suspect. What do gurus think?

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 25 Jul 2011 05:09

Acharya wrote:
G@nesh wrote:what i eventually meant was the importance of this deal to US may have been to strengthen its leverage over Pakistan while rejection of US birds may signify denial of this advantage to the US as india bears the price. I would disagree on Cohen's assesment that past US hostile beheviour leading to mistrust had any role to play in India's denial as this logic doesnt seem to be applicable on other platforms India buys from the US.
Pak focus is one the main factors for the offer from US in the MMRCA bid
They will have leverage in terms of access to Indian op bases and tuning the fighters and understanding the Indian op doctrines. US will be able to match the course and outcome of any conflict to their interest and that is the final objective of the engagement with India for the last 10 years.

well i would not presume US aims to gain leverage over india through MMRCA in terms of understanding op doctrines or changing the outcome of an conflict with india for some reasons. op doctrines may evolve or change in future combat scenario courtsey technological advancements, eventhough it certainly may add value to their knowledge repository but not worth being pursued as a critical objective unless war is at sight. Further any conflict between a superpower and an powerful economy is likely to destabilise the global economy which is increasingly being dependant on a global supply chain. US certainly wishes to pursue its economic interests with india for a long period to come.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2011 05:49

well i would not presume US aims to gain leverage over india through MMRCA in terms of understanding op doctrines or changing the outcome of an conflict with india for some reasons. op doctrines may evolve or change in future combat scenario courtsey technological advancements, eventhough it certainly may add value to their knowledge repository but not worth being pursued as a critical objective unless war is at sight. Further any conflict between a superpower and an powerful economy is likely destabilise the global economy which is increasingly being dependant on a global supply chain. US is likely to pursue its economic interests with india for a long period to come.

well stated.

Furthermore, what happens if the MMRCA is fielded for the most part against China - something that should favor the US? would the US actually assist India in enhancing Indian strategies?

In fact LM and Boeing had both stated that they would share their experiences if the IAF had selected their air crafts.

Just as a FYI, the full scope of the Indian MiG-21 is unknown to the Russians - this from an very senior IAF pilot.

There is always something that is not said.

All this notwithstanding bugs in the product.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 25 Jul 2011 06:14

NRao wrote:
well i would not presume US aims to gain leverage over india through MMRCA in terms of understanding op doctrines or changing the outcome of an conflict with india for some reasons. op doctrines may evolve or change in future combat scenario courtsey technological advancements, eventhough it certainly may add value to their knowledge repository but not worth being pursued as a critical objective unless war is at sight. Further any conflict between a superpower and an powerful economy is likely destabilise the global economy which is increasingly being dependant on a global supply chain. US is likely to pursue its economic interests with india for a long period to come.
well stated.

Furthermore, what happens if the MMRCA is fielded for the most part against China - something that should favor the US? would the US actually assist India in enhancing Indian strategies?

In fact LM and Boeing had both stated that they would share their experiences if the IAF had selected their air crafts.

Just as a FYI, the full scope of the Indian MiG-21 is unknown to the Russians - this from an very senior IAF pilot.

There is always something that is not said.

All this notwithstanding bugs in the product.

Rao sir, very true. The bottom line is India being too big to let fail for the Global economy and pakistan being too radical to let succeed

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jul 2011 06:32

Shrinivasan wrote:Rafale's cockpit is definitely roomy. Thanks to Vhishal I checked more pictures of Rafale in action and on the ground. Larger framed french (AdA and AeroNava) pilots are sitting comfortably, ergonomics is great... controls are laid out
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/_ ... oOwcZdDTfw
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__A2VG2LiIPk/T ... 886e_o.jpg
The cockpit is roomy for sure. one pooch, there are controls on both side of the pilot, would it be optimized for left handed and right handed pilots or it is the same controls all around?

I think you need to see this video and then determine if the Rafale is as "roomy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLsk6OFAWoY

SaiK wrote:not sure the rafale's dual side stick is programmable to suit IAF but both sides looks HOT.AS!

Intrigued...can you please elaborate?

SaiK wrote:I don't think I have read about exact numbers.. however it should be directly driven by IAF doctrine.. wouldn't single seat more suitable for deep strike, more internal fuel, yadi yada, and would definitely combine with AWACS and refuelers for a deep strike mission.

Dual seat would be mostly for other strike missions? i may be wrong there.

It is the opposite actually. Internal fuel is a secondary issue with in-flight refuelling. For a deep strike mission of any kind (including nuclear...i.e. Mirage 2000N of the French Air Force) you will definitely need a dual seater. The IAF does like the twin seater concept and I would not discount the 40 "dual seater" aircraft...the final number could be even higher.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 07:37

Rakesh wrote:I think you need to see this video and then determine if the Rafale is as "roomy".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLsk6OFAWoY

Rakesh, I didn't understand what he was saying, but are you sure this is not a Parody... He settled in with a grimace and then moved the seat all the way forward to a cramped posn. He could have moved back to a comfortable posn as (from pics) there seems to be good amount of leg space in 1 and 2 seaters. Or is this an older model? If the cockpit is so small would the IAF had selected it? I dunno.
Anyone who has seen the Rafale up-close-and-personal might want to comment!