India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 26 Jul 2011 17:00

Acharya wrote:
Ganesh_S wrote:
I did hint this implicitly early on
Also what kind of US interest's in pakistan would be in threat for them to respond in favour of pakistan ?
Your question is also answered.
importance of this deal to US may have been to strengthen its leverage over Pakistan

By whom ? and in what context do you think that leverage would be nessacary ? The point is its important to reach on a right conclusion with a right analysis rather than a right conclusion with a wrong analysis. There is a perceivable difference.

manum · Post by **manum** » 26 Jul 2011 17:04

but why we would like to see where this relationship is heading...the moment we realize we seem to like each other or not...I guess its a cultural baggage where one straightaway asks "will you marry me" and other says "we are just friends with added advantage"...

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 26 Jul 2011 17:06

Shrinivasan wrote:
Kartik wrote:It is the actual number as given by Boeing, which makes it quite reliable. the IAF started believing in the value of twin seaters after it inducted the MKI.
Boeing? where did Boeing come into play in MMRCA? did you mean Dassault?

What sort of question is this shrinivasan ? kindly explain

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 26 Jul 2011 17:25

Package, not just bid price, to decide $10.4-bn dogfight winner
Financial Express

It may be noted that according to industry insiders, Rafale had quoted a price of $85 million per aircraft and Eurofighter $100 million per piece in flyaway condition in the recent Brazilian competition. For the Indian Air Force (IAF), the Rafale and Eurofighter quote is anybody’s guess, but according to the the industry the machines should cost anywhere between $75 million and $80 million per aircraft in flyaway condition.

The IAF will arrive at a final cost for the two aircraft based on various other factors like the lifecycle cost, maintenance cost, transfer of technology and cost of spare parts. Also, 50% of the total cost of the deal has to be invested in the Indian industry under the offsets obligation.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Jul 2011 17:47

shukla wrote:Package, not just bid price, to decide $10.4-bn dogfight winner
Financial Express

It may be noted that according to industry insiders, Rafale had quoted a price of $85 million per aircraft and Eurofighter $100 million per piece in flyaway condition in the recent Brazilian competition. For the Indian Air Force (IAF), the Rafale and Eurofighter quote is anybody’s guess, but according to the the industry the machines should cost anywhere between $75 million and $80 million per aircraft in flyaway condition.

The IAF will arrive at a final cost for the two aircraft based on various other factors like the lifecycle cost, maintenance cost, transfer of technology and cost of spare parts. Also, 50% of the total cost of the deal has to be invested in the Indian industry under the offsets obligation.

Does this imply that L1 will be based on an assumed X years of life cycle? Therefore, taking into account costs over X years?

And the 50% offest will apply to the total projected costs over X years?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jul 2011 18:15

The poss. of 60+ extra MMRCAs is a ruse to sweeten the deal,a luscuious bunch of carrots and get a better price from the two contenders who will slug it out with each other.It is also a side swipe at the LCA team to get their act togther quickly otherwise.....The FGFA is on far firmer ground as the Russians have to succeed;they have no alternative with the F-22 in service and the Chinese stealth dragon revealed.Judging from the manner in which failure is treated in Russia right now under the Putin/Medvedev combine,where celebrated missile scientists have been sacked for failure,there is no way that the Russians will allow the FGFA/PAK-FA to be unduly delayed.The push that key defence projects are getting in Russia rght now flush with petro funds is seeing success with the Bulava missile and a slew of other projects and large orders for the Russian defence forces.

Interestingly,recent reports say that the F-22 which has been grounded for a while, due to crashes, have been found to be linked to the same fault plaguing F-18s,with the OBOG system,oxygen failure knocking pilots out and leading to crashes.There appears to be a design fault plaguing the same system that these two aircraft use .

Thw two contenders will now tout their fillies to the limit,boasting of their assets and tricks in recent action as in Libya ad infinitum! The best course for the IAF is to "trust but verify"! The UPA,IAF,MOD also appear to be acting in unusual haste to award the prize as the ship of state is leaking like a sieve ,with "all hands to the pumps" trying to save the ship under Capt. Bligh,sorry...Singh's disastrous helmsmanship steering it towards the breakers!

navneeet · Post by **navneeet** » 26 Jul 2011 19:52

OT here, but a recent report suggests Carbon Mono oxide poisoning behind the Raptor OBOGS problems

Link

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AIR&s=TOP

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Jul 2011 20:05

Philip wrote:The poss. of 60+ extra MMRCAs is a ruse to sweeten the deal,a luscuious bunch of carrots and get a better price from the two contenders who will slug it out with each other.It is also a side swipe at the LCA team to get their act togther quickly otherwise.....

Philip,

There is not 'otherwises' to LCA project. its a different class.

IMO, some country is going to give up its 60 + EF's.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jul 2011 22:46

It would be a good challenge for AMCA team, to race ahead than FGFA. quite possible, once the engine and radar takes shape for LCA Mk2. There should be an intermediary version Mk3, like the Mirage 4K prototype, before jumping into AMCA.

FGFA still on papers.. where as AMCA, we have a wind tunnel model at least.. and more controls.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 27 Jul 2011 02:14

Winner of combat aircraft deal likely in 5-6 weeks: Naik
MSNIndia

"The next step is to call vendors and open up the commercial bids. I think in the next five to six weeks, I expect that the L1 (lowest bidder) would be decided," he said here

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jul 2011 02:39

Ganesh_S wrote:
importance of this deal to US may have been to strengthen its leverage over Pakistan

By whom ? and in what context do you think that leverage would be nessacary ? The point is its important to reach on a right conclusion with a right analysis rather than a right conclusion with a wrong analysis. There is a perceivable difference.

You are absolutely correct and I agree with you. I would like to know how would you answer the question.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 27 Jul 2011 04:59

And so the sales pitch begins...Wonder how much of what he's saying is true.

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

'British Typhoons whacked India's Sukhois in joint exercises'
Submitted by admin4 on 24 July 2011 - 2:32pm

India News

By N.C. Bipindra, IANS,

RAF Fairford (Britain) : Britain's frontline fighter jet Eurofighter Typhoon, shortlisted for India's $10.4-billion combat jets tender, whacked the Indian Air Force (IAF) warhorse Sukhoi in one-on-one dog fights during bilateral air war games, if Britain's air chief is to be believed.

"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.

Interestingly, the IAF had claimed in 2007 that Sukhoi's performance against Typhoon had convinced the RAF of its superiority. "The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI's observed superior manoeuvring in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated," an Indian defence ministry release had said during the July 2007 Indradhanush.

It was, however, fair to Typhoon, saying the IAF pilots were impressed with its agility in the air.

Dalton was also all praise for the IAF for training its pilots to put any aircraft they fly to best use.

"The issue is you are comparing technology and people. So, more often than not, technology can give you a great edge, a great lead. But actually it is always the people (behind the machines) who make the difference at the end of the day," he said.

"It is not just how the aircraft did in the air. It is also about how the individual thinks, how they work, and their willingness to develop and to experiment.

"I have always found the IAF to be extremely good. Yes, technology is a significant element, but also the individual is really important in this," he added.

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.

But, he added, it was not criticism, as Typhoon is the product of next generation technology.

"I would say the IAF crew that I have worked with and seen are every bit as clever as any other air crew in the world, and in many cases better. It is all about the man as the machine that they operate," he added.

Dalton said the cooperation between the RAF and the IAF will continue, as Britain valued this relationship. "IAF has a lot of experience and I would like to suck that out and use it, quite frankly," he added.

(N.C. Bipindra can be contacted at nc.bipindra@ians.in)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jul 2011 05:49

It is not a good sales pitch.. it is stupid pitch, to talk against an a/c that IAF is already handling.

It is like saying to a King, that one of his best wife sucks.

They better change that title, and reword that article soon. the count down has begun.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 27 Jul 2011 07:32

^^^ I seriously doubt the typhoons can beat MKI'S in the a2a unless a dumbed down MKI is used against a fully functional typhoon. Which radar did those exercise typhoons use ? was it captor or caesar ? or was it apg 65 ? If it was the later it stands no chance against the MKI'S Bar PESA. How many MKI'S are fitted with Zhuk AESA ?

Surely not a good sales pitch. Some one for euro consortium must have called RAF chief or the article writer for a GUBO session for such a messy work.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 27 Jul 2011 08:51

Nikhil T wrote:MMRCA deal: IAF might order 63 more jets

But it will not be "a cut-and-dried" affair to determine the lowest bidder (L-1). "Calculation of L-1 will take around a month due to the huge amounts of mathematical and data verification of the lifecycle costs of operating the jets over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, as well as cost of ToT," he added.

6,000 hours of flying over 40 years? Works out to 150 hours a year or less than 3 hours a week. Isn't that very much on the low side?
Or is this only an evaluation standard - in which case the actual costs would work out to be much higher.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Jul 2011 09:14

The flying hrs quoted are quite good, when you bring in the time spent on simulaters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2011 09:32

Vinit wrote: 6,000 hours of flying over 40 years? Works out to 150 hours a year or less than 3 hours a week. Isn't that very much on the low side?
Or is this only an evaluation standard - in which case the actual costs would work out to be much higher.

Airliners are designed to fly 50 hours or more a week. Any typical flight you take will be on a plane that has flown or will fly more than 3 hours on that day. In fact a long 11 hour flight is like nearly one month of IAF flying for a fighter. If you look at it that way yes it appears low. But none of these airliners are designed to accelerate to supersonic and climb to 40,000 feet in 2 minutes, pull 6+ Gs while carrying the weight equivalent of 100 passengers on their wings. That places demands and stresses on the airframe that requires careful use. If a fighter was required for cruising alone - then an executive jet would do the job.

If you take a bus and put it on an F1 race track along with all the other cars - the rest of them will finish the race with several refuelling and tyre change stops and go for an overhaul while the bus continues to plod along for half a day and will still not need any overhauling of tyre change.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 27 Jul 2011 13:55

^^ Shiv, thanks. I do understand the difference between commercial airliners and military combat jets; that was not my question.

Pratyush, yes, simulators would play a part, agreed. If I assume that each jet caters to two pilots (I might be wrong here), then with 150 hours per annum, on average each pilot would get 75 hours non-simulator flying time a year. This seemed low to me, hence the question (this is in the context of normally quoted training figures of 200-300 flying hours per annum, including simulator time).

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Jul 2011 16:07

Vinit wrote:
But it will not be "a cut-and-dried" affair to determine the lowest bidder (L-1). "Calculation of L-1 will take around a month due to the huge amounts of mathematical and data verification of the lifecycle costs of operating the jets over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, as well as cost of ToT," he added.
6,000 hours of flying over 40 years? Works out to 150 hours a year or less than 3 hours a week. Isn't that very much on the low side?
Or is this only an evaluation standard - in which case the actual costs would work out to be much higher.

The average flying hours are not linearly distributed. The first 20 years the planes are flown much more and then the last 20 years decreasing every year. Then there are different flying hours during peacetime, exercises, operational readiness, forward deployment, and wartime. I believe the pilots also fly other types (i.e. AJT) during their posting with a particular combat aircraft. Plus, pilots also undergo training on simulators to augment these.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 27 Jul 2011 16:24

Acharya wrote:
Ganesh_S wrote:
I did hint this implicitly early on
Also what kind of US interest's in pakistan would be in threat for them to respond in favour of pakistan ?
Your question is also answered.
importance of this deal to US may have been to strengthen its leverage over Pakistan

The point is, there is a distinct between leverage and interest being sought and pursued respectively. when one pursues his interest he has conceded a preliminary leverage. IMO US concerns wrt PAK is in the interest of global security the advantage of which has been exploited to a large extent by pakistan both during cold war and GWOT. In contrast US pursues its economic interests with india the magnitude of which would be enormous in future also a prospering india is the key to contain chinese influence in the region. under such circumstances any rational individual wouldnt conspire to kill the hen that lays golden egg's as you seem to have suggested earlier. The pakistani state has to eventually act on its public perception rather than global interest which creates a leverage over US which it has to overcome. Now if india would have conceded MMRCA to US the PAK administration would be at the mercy of US during war times and thus US would manage to neutralise this leverage.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 27 Jul 2011 16:49

gakakkad wrote:^^^ I seriously doubt the typhoons can beat MKI'S in the a2a unless a dumbed down MKI is used against a fully functional typhoon. Which radar did those exercise typhoons use ? was it captor or caesar ? or was it apg 65 ? If it was the later it stands no chance against the MKI'S Bar PESA. How many MKI'S are fitted with Zhuk AESA ?

Surely not a good sales pitch. Some one for euro consortium must have called RAF chief or the article writer for a GUBO session for such a messy work.

I wouldnt be skeptical on his claims for a few reasons. If there wouldnt have been an element of truth, such a statement wouldnt have come from a person of high stature. The simple reason being if false it would severely hamper the chances of eurofighter winning the deal and other goodies that may have been associated with this deal. This statement to me signifies an attempt to justify the higher price of the typhoon and tries to convince the general opinion in favour of Eurofighter. The claims made here logically iterate that since we have beaten your best our offer needs to be considered. As i have mentioned earlier presumably sukhoi's may have fared well against the rafale's.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jul 2011 17:09

Vinit, just apply that hours onto a job you are expected to do in the future (not routine one). Take for example ahem-ahem. So, are you saying 3 hours of it a week is very low?

bottom line, you can't reverse and pro-rate that total hours in to a reduced time units.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Jul 2011 18:01

MMRCA deal: IAF might order 63 more jets

But it will not be "a cut-and-dried" affair to determine the lowest bidder (L-1). "Calculation of L-1 will take around a month due to the huge amounts of mathematical and data verification of the lifecycle costs of operating the jets over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, as well as cost of ToT," he added.

Service life of Typhoon is 6000 hrs and that of Rafale is 7500 hrs. Though it is subjective, in terms of years it is 25 years for Typhoon according to official release.

Is the defence official inadvertently dropped name of the entity that is going to be selected?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Jul 2011 00:26

Ganesh_S wrote:
The point is, there is a distinct between leverage and interest being sought and pursued respectively. when one pursues his interest he has conceded a preliminary leverage. IMO US concerns wrt PAK is in the interest of global security the advantage of which has been exploited to a large extent by pakistan both during cold war and GWOT.

I would not call it for global security but for US interest in the region.

Now if india would have conceded MMRCA to US the PAK administration would be at the mercy of US during war times and thus US would manage to neutralise this leverage.

Please expand on it. This is interesting and would also help other BRF members who are questioning the rational for not choosing US birds.

vishnua · Post by **vishnua** » 28 Jul 2011 02:10

Ganesh_S wrote: I wouldnt be skeptical on his claims for a few reasons. If there wouldnt have been an element of truth, such a statement wouldnt have come from a person of high stature..

I would think other wise. Statue is drectly proportional to the lie or is it called streching the truth now a days . ii..e (Not trying to sound linke Umrao but )bigger the stature bigger the lie especially when that kind a molah is in play + given the state of economies in 3 of those countries.

The simple reason being if false it would severely hamper the chances of eurofighter winning the deal and other goodies that may have been associated with this deal..

Not necessarily. It is a psyops game.

This statement to me signifies an attempt to justify the higher price of the typhoon and tries to convince the general opinion in favour of Eurofighter. The claims made here logically iterate that since we have beaten your best our offer needs to be considered. As i have mentioned earlier presumably sukhoi's may have fared well against the rafale's.

Did anybody ask anyone in IAF that it is indeed true and what was the IAF resposne ?? or IAF is like yeah right.. thanks that exactly what we want you to think.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Jul 2011 02:12

Vinit wrote: 6,000 hours of flying over 40 years? Works out to 150 hours a year or less than 3 hours a week. Isn't that very much on the low side?
Or is this only an evaluation standard - in which case the actual costs would work out to be much higher.

No Vinit, that number is quite alright. Some of the earlier supplied jets will get flogged heavily as more pilots get trained on them to prepare them for later supplied jets. But in general, 150 hours per year on each airframe seems like a normal number, keeping in mind that some airframes go in for overhauls that take months and there is a rotation policy with some airframes being put into reserve or being cannibalised to keep others flying (especially if the part cannot be acquired quickly) till they can also get the parts from the OEM. Besides, if the airframe is not too badly fatigued, they can always replace or rework some critical structural parts like spars, ribs or bulkheads and get additional hours out of them.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Jul 2011 02:18

Kanson wrote:MMRCA deal: IAF might order 63 more jets

But it will not be "a cut-and-dried" affair to determine the lowest bidder (L-1). "Calculation of L-1 will take around a month due to the huge amounts of mathematical and data verification of the lifecycle costs of operating the jets over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, as well as cost of ToT," he added.
Service life of Typhoon is 6000 hrs and that of Rafale is 7500 hrs. Though it is subjective, in terms of years it is 25 years for Typhoon according to official release.

Is the defence official inadvertently dropped name of the entity that is going to be selected?

more likely that its the minimum number of hours that the IAF has mandated from all MRCA contenders. Anything above that 6000 hr mark is malaai.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 28 Jul 2011 06:01

I would not call it for global security but for US interest in the region.

you may say so. To me there has to be a good enough justification to arrive on your conclusion.

Please expand on it. This is interesting and would also help other BRF members who are questioning the rational for not choosing US birds.

I did not conclude US will act in pakistans favour as i do not have any thoughtful explanation to do so. IMO if this decesion may signify denial of leverage to US against pakistan there will be other strategies being played by india as it would seek to exploit the favour given to PAK which for the moment happens to be a damsel in distress courtsey US. Alternatively if the platform has been chosen on merit these strategies simply wouldnt exist.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 28 Jul 2011 06:54

I would think other wise. Statue is drectly proportional to the lie or is it called streching the truth now a days . ii..e (Not trying to sound linke Umrao but )bigger the stature bigger the lie especially when that kind a molah is in play + given the state of economies in 3 of those countries.

you may continue to think so with some rhetorics. Unless you convince me my lord. State of economies define everything to you isnt it ? Is competence directly proportional to state of economies ? reminds me of china.

Not necessarily. It is a psyops game.

Brilliant !! And where does it lead to in this digital world ? well do you mean there are fools to play a 11billion$ psyops game.

Did anybody ask anyone in IAF that it is indeed true and what was the IAF resposne ?? or IAF is like yeah right.. thanks that exactly what we want you to think.

My apologies i thought IAF responds quickly to USAF personel Claims onlee.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 28 Jul 2011 21:00

MMRCA contract winner to become clear in 5-6 weeks.

Sixty per cent of the aircraft's technology will be transferred to HAL in four phases. India has also insisted in 50 per cent industrial offset for the contract.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jul 2011 01:57

Anurag wrote:And so the sales pitch begins...Wonder how much of what he's saying is true.

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

'British Typhoons whacked India's Sukhois in joint exercises'
Submitted by admin4 on 24 July 2011 - 2:32pm

India News

By N.C. Bipindra, IANS,

RAF Fairford (Britain) : Britain's frontline fighter jet Eurofighter Typhoon, shortlisted for India's $10.4-billion combat jets tender, whacked the Indian Air Force (IAF) warhorse Sukhoi in one-on-one dog fights during bilateral air war games, if Britain's air chief is to be believed.

"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.

It should be enough to say, going even by public information, Shri Dalton has pretty little clue of what the IAF is doing with its Su-30 MKIs and their capabilities, beyond what the IAF chooses to show the RAF.

The EF consortium has already shared all critical details with the IAF of Typhoon performance. The IAF is not selling the RAF the MKI, they have no interest in sharing all the information about the MKI, whether it be its sensors, or its roadmap of upgrades - whether it be those underway, or those budgeted for & being finalized, ie the Super 30 MKI.

Even at current levels, the systems and technologies going on the Su-30 MKI are at equivalent levels and being implemented in a cycle time, a fraction of what the EF team has achieved till date. The MKI's Multirole capabilities are already established - it can carry ASMs of various types, ARMs, long range AShMs and A2A armament.The sum total of what the EF is capable of, can be reflected by the Libya campaign where it accompanies LDP carrying Tornados. In air to air, the EF team might want to ask some others who actually looked at the issue dispassionately, as versus chest thumping.

If we look at what the Su-30 MKI has, whats in maturity (India & Russia) and whats being incubated via programs like the PAK-FA, and Dalton's statements get even more amusing. The most humorous part is OEMs who supply systems to Typhoon are offering the same, or developed variants to the Su-30 MKI.

Basically, given the way the MKI is evolving, best response is to smile at Mr Dalton and say "thank you for your comments, please make sure you sign the guest book".

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2011 04:07

Please make the correction...Does not the name need to be spelt as "Dolt-on" judging from hi asinine comments? In any case "Dolt-on" should read the detailed analyses from the land of Oz as to the capabilities of the "Eurocanards" against PLAN Flankers,where the Flankers and upgraded versions would be found superior,making it order JSFs which are now much delayed.Even US studies and wargaming came to the conclusion that US Raptors would be found inferior in ops againt the PLAF due to the larger numbers of PLAN Flankers and other PLAF fighters that they would have to deal with (limitations of number of anti-air missiles carried).

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 29 Jul 2011 06:16

Philip wrote:Please make the correction...Does not the name need to be spelt as "Dolt-on" judging from hi asinine comments? In any case "Dolt-on" should read the detailed analyses from the land of Oz as to the capabilities of the "Eurocanards" against PLAN Flankers,where the Flankers and upgraded versions would be found superior,making it order JSFs which are now much delayed.Even US studies and wargaming came to the conclusion that US Raptors would be found inferior in ops againt the PLAF due to the larger numbers of PLAN Flankers and other PLAF fighters that they would have to deal with (limitations of number of anti-air missiles carried).

Disagree, while I give due credit to the Carlo gang for doing due dilligence in terms of coming up with information and presenting facts, the conclusion that they draw upon by using that information is obviously biased towards the stealth types and you can very clearly see that!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jul 2011 07:02

Rafale and AASM-Hammer, a dynamic duo
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/07/ ... c-duo.html

According to Captain P, who is very satisfied with the performance of this new weapon, "In the Libyan theater of operations, as soon as we have the slightest suspicion of air defenses, which are always widely scattered in Libya, we remove the Paveway bombs and equip our Rafales with the AASM, because it allows us to effectively engage the enemy, away from their air defenses, especially the dangerous ’SAM rings’.

In TST (Time Sensitive Targeting) mode, the AASM’s range also allows us to hit a target without being detected from the ground, a possibility in asymmetrical combat. What’s more, a single Rafale can carry up to six AASMs. These are all significant advantages. Plus, since we can fire our weapons from further away than with the Paveway, and don’t need approach maneuvers, we save fuel – and in the combat environment, fuel is a key factor.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2011 13:15

Right,about the "Eurcanards" though vs the Flankers.The other report was from US wargaming ,not Oz alone,about the vulnerability of the F-22 when pitted against numerically superior PLAF Flankers and other PRC aircraft.Oz determined that only a stealth fighter should be its next acquisition,but with the JSF woes,will appear on;ly by 2017 at the earliest-a two year delay according to official US sources,is ruminating about buy of Shs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jul 2011 17:22

So, it should be an acceptance that providing a stealth air-frame for MKI, should do the required job., and the reason IAF is after FGFA. Now, fgfa will enhance and augment extra with Indian components and software.

As rightly said, speeding up LCA Mk3 twin engine staged prototype (la Mirage 4K), is an idea path, and should begin now before Mk2 FoC. Parallel programs of fgfa and amca should settle all squabbles.

The point should be, what is that in Rafale or Ef2K that brings in power up this home grown plan for 5th gen a/c. This is the baseline strategy for the deal.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Jul 2011 17:24

http://livefist.blogspot.com/

With the mirage 2000 upgrade signed today I believe we can say that rafale chances are bolstered. That will bring economy of scales with a rafale fleet and will allow more margin for Dassault to tighten its rafale MMRCA price. Considering it has already the lowest flyaway price and most probably the lowest operating costs (smaller, smaller engines, less moving parts : fixed refueling probe, fixed intake, no dorsal air brake, longer airframe life span) I am fairly confindent it is going to be the L1 and by a comfortable margin.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 29 Jul 2011 21:16

^^ यह क्या था?

manum · Post by **manum** » 29 Jul 2011 22:28

Mirage's are signed because IAF found some crippling flaws in older systems compared to newer ones, which could have only made them sitting ducks, so once you are aware your combat systems make you loose what you are good at just because of older technology could have proven disastrous...
So Mirage upgrade was on cards, if they wouldn't have upgraded it, then only reason could have been either we are poor or we don't perceive ourselves best in whatever we do...

Mirage is not linked to Rafale, all because of the same reasons, once you are aware of a flaw, which you can simply remove then you do it, because more you delay more prone you get to disaster and more pricier it might get...we had to choose, we chose.

as per connecting Rafale to Mirage is, We might select Rafale naturally as it is ahead...but don't think that EF can not really turn the wind around if it takes some radical decision economically, its all about L1, if they stick to that its all about L1...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jul 2011 01:08

I am taking the counter productive stance the eurofighters took to bashing MKI. Now, any logical reasoning would say, stop it before it reaches the media. If they have done it, me thinks they are confident of beating the rafales in L1. no?