India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Dec 2011 06:32

srai wrote:
Leo.Davidson wrote:Isn't this good news

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... dates.html
The advantage Rafale platform has over the EF is that it will be fully ready with all the features developed and integrated in time for the service entry into the IAF around 2015. EF is more like fully ready by 2018/2020.

The EF will have everything the IAF wants integrated by 2015 (a production model AESA is scheduled for 2014). Any future developments will probably be limited to software upgrades to the Captor-E (or IAF specific equipment).

Its optional upgrades/modifications like TVN, LERX, EJ-2XX that will materialize only later.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Dec 2011 07:40

Septimus P. wrote:AASM is certainly not a very unique weapon. It only does essentially what a SDB does at a lower range. SDB can hit target over 100 km and can be used in air burst, loving target or bunker busting more. SDB 1 and 2 come at nearly one third the price of a AASM. JDAM-ER too can be used to hit targets over 50 km away. AASM makes little sense to buy when we will clearly buying huge volumes. PGMs will most likely be US made.

Its unique in that it can convert a dumb bomb into a pseudo-missile and has a higher range than a glide bomb at low altitudes . Unfortunately it ended up costing as much as a real missile.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2011 07:59

its better to integrate US made a2g weapons with either buy then and save a packet. but will the french agree to it?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Dec 2011 09:06

Singha wrote:its better to integrate US made a2g weapons with either buy then and save a packet. but will the french agree to it?

Probably, but they'll be miffed about a lost AASM order and will charge a pretty penny for its integration as well.

The Eurofighter on the other hand will come equipped to handle a wider variety of munitions including the AMRAAM and JDAMs.

Germany Awaits Air-to-Ground Eurofighter

BERLIN - German air force officials have confirmed that the air-to-ground version of the Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 will enter service before the end of 2009.
.
.
In contrast to the United Kingdom and Italy, Germany plans to replace its fleet of Panavia Tornado interdictors with the new jet, starting with Jagdbombergeschwader 31 'Boelcke' (Fighter-Bomber Wing 31, JBG 31), based at Nörvenich, near Cologne.
.
.
Luftwaffe officials confirmed that the air-to-ground aircraft will initially be optimized for use of the GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Luftwaffe acquisition of this weapon was announced by Boeing in July, and Germany is the first international customer for the weapon.

Introduction of LJDAM gives the Luftwaffe a precision-attack capability usable in asymmetric warfare. The GBU-24 Paveway laser-guided bomb and Taurus standoff weapon currently in the arsenal are considered too large for that type of combat.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3755330

Also while the Meteor is no doubt a superior missile, its expected order size has been dwindling thanks to reduced European EF orders and a slow Rafale production line, and its expected cost has been constantly increasing.

According to the report, assessment work has "concluded that Typhoon's existing [Raytheon AIM-120] Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile would provide sufficient capability out to 2015," and adds that this is now "the earliest point at which the Department now expects to need the capability". Development work on the long-range weapon will conclude by August 2012, however.

In addition to the delay, a decision to also cut the UK's planned purchase of Meteor weapons to the minimum contractual level possible has resulted in a doubling of the weapon's original expected unit cost, to £2 million.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... le-320294/

I hope MBDA offers a good deal (hopefully with some degree of domestic manufacture), because a Raytheon offer for Aim-120Ds at half the price or less will start to look very attractive to the MoF and MoD.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2011 09:06

what the.. as we speak of the devil..
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/us- ... -mmrca-pie
US wants its share of $15 bn MMRCA pie

Looks like this is pure patao from BR discussions.

The entire weaponry for the 126 aircraft will cost around $34 million going by the per unit and life-cycle costs.

Hughes-Raytheon, the US missile-making company, which wants to do the weapons suite, has said that it is committed to the transfer of technology (ToT) within the guidelines laid down by the US government. What will be shared will be determined largely by the arrangements the US and Indian governments work out

Only under: BECA, LSA and CISMOA: The US has signed the sale of some of the weapons that India needs (see box) with other Nato nations under the FMS (foreign military sales) route. After approval from the US government for weapons integration, Raytheon and BAE Systems of the UK will conduct the actual integration on the winner aircraft. A joint production arrangement will be worked out with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in India, under technology transfer manufacturing partnerships. This will ensure that components and sub-components can be manufactured locally.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2011 09:13

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ore-r.html
some old link about the duel between Rafale and Raptor.

According to Air & Cosmos' sources, the USAF requested only two training sorties between the F-22 and the Rafale of three engagements each, with one-on-one combat within visual range. [In other words, the USAF says, "If you don't turn on your Spectra system, we won't turn on our ALR-94."]

In those six engagements, the F-22 scored one gun kill, but the other five dogfights ended in a draw, Air & Cosmos says. Another sources tells the magazine the F-22 scored two gun kills, with four nulls.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 11 Dec 2011 11:35

Singha wrote:the stuff thats going into the emb145 is our growler pack.

Even if we are able to stuff a fraction of the electronics going into our Embraer AEWCS, our Rambhas would become a potent growler. if we remove the second seat and utilize the space for adding more bells and whistles, the baby can be as deadly as its namesake...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2011 12:06

looks like AIM-120D is ready but congress cut its funding
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ut-358102/

I have read it even has a reserve endgame fuel that is triggered by the active seeker...kind of a 2nd stage attack profile. not sure if its cleared for export yet, but we should try to get this weapon onto MRCA atleast...meteor or no meteor....it will be cheaper than meteor for sure...failing that 120C7 is export cleared.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 11 Dec 2011 12:30

Septimus P. wrote:
Singha wrote:the stuff thats going into the emb145 is our growler pack.
well its a nice pack but similar to growler? nah.. its more like growler lite.

can you provide comparative parameters based on which you made the above comment.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 11 Dec 2011 14:11

One of the distinct advantage of the rafale is to offer a naval variant which will offer the possibility to operate a common aircraft among different indian services. A rafale choice will open strategic perspective in that regard.

Indian Navy has requested a RFI for a new naval jet. For this reason SAAB and Typhoon proposed (unrealistic) naval variant of their aircrafts marketed with indian colors.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories419.htm
http://www.thehindu.com/business/article53220.ece
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... ed-to.html
http://www.domain-b.com/defence/sea/ind ... craft.html

The indian navy already evaluated the rafale M and is very keen to it.

Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash was the first Indian that has flown in a Rafale:

"It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft," says the Indian Navy's Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it "only an eight ton platform". The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/12/lc ... -ours.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2011 14:18

the number and diversity of targets in a sino-pak context is so high, we cannot afford AASM at $300,000 a pop (if that be true). we will have to manage with sudarshan, paveway-x and jdam's all of which presumably are in the $20,000 a pop range. likewise we may not afford the Scalp which will surely be millions of $$ per unit.

quite clear we need a range extention kit for the sudarshan equipped with GLONASS guidance pkg for our own desi jdam and jdam-er. a range of 50km when released from mach0.9 and 40,000ft should be enough.

for now brahmos , popeye and kh59 & kh31 will have to manage the air launched LR attack role until we get nirbhay air launched may a decade from now.

not much point buying a paltry number of weapons and then not be able to use them because they will always be held in reserve for a all-out war or to deal with a enemy breakthrough.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 11 Dec 2011 14:32

I doubt that the unit cost of the AASM is that high. Price quoted must include development costs that will not be billed to foreign air forces.
A unique advantage of the AASM is its booster. It allows off bore-sight over the shoulder type of firing which allows better flexibility and reactivity than a SDB for instance. It also allows stand off firing from very low altitude.

If you want something cheaper you can use the GBU-49 (laser/gps). It will be integrated in the coming months with the rafale M as the navy and air force already operate this weapon with the Super Etendard and Mirage 2000D.

But to strike high value defensed targets the AASM provides quite a unique capability. Future variant will also allow to strike moving targets thanks to the laser variant and new IR variant which will be able to take down moving tanks or boat from long ranges.

In the end the AASM offer a compromise between extremely expensive cruise missiles and cheaper but less capable LGB/JDAM.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 11 Dec 2011 14:45

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Dec 2011 16:24

Indian purchases of US equipement under FMS has been very very costly. Case in Point is Harpoon missile and Torpedos. For instance the torps bought by India for US$ 3 million a pop were sold to Australia for half a million each. Similarly the cost of Harpoon missiles seemed 6 times. Repair and maintenance cannot be 5 times the cost of original equipment which in any case is supposed to be wooden rounds.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 11 Dec 2011 17:04

It's amusing to see arthuros crusade for the Rafale and anything french. He certainly likes to raise french stuff into the heavens and talk down and discredit everything else.

But seriously, why would you want an AASM when you could get an SDB 1/2 with twice the range, more sensors, more functions and costs less?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 11 Dec 2011 17:46

Singha wrote:the number and diversity of targets in a sino-pak context is so high, we cannot afford AASM at $300,000 a pop (if that be true). we will have to manage with sudarshan, paveway-x and jdam's all of which presumably are in the $20,000 a pop range. likewise we may not afford the Scalp which will surely be millions of $$ per unit.

arthuro wrote:If you want something cheaper you can use the GBU-49 (laser/gps).

In fact the GBU-49 is probably the Rafale main Air to Surface munition.
BTW how many Air to Surface weapons is the Rafale really cleared to use till date? AFAIK 3-4(apart from cruise missiles), of which 2 are American. Also if I'm not wrong it does not come with any cluster munitions because they have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty. It kind of makes it hard to give credence to the claim of it being a mature and capable A2G platform especially vis a vis the American teens. I know the Pro-Rafale guys have posted absurd illustrations like this one:>http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1882/rafaleposter.jpg. May be arthuro, Tay and co. can post pictures of the Rafale with different weapons so that we can do a "dood-ka-dood, pani-ka-pani"(separate fact from hype).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2011 17:49

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ray ... ion-06510/

SDB2 looks like amazing piece of work. tri-mode laser, IIR, mmw radar seeker from LM + GPS guidance...so it can undertake all known forms of attack active or passive in all weather conditions. and with 17,000 weapon production target for usa alone, plus surely more for clients of US planes, its cost will be controlled.

and the F-35 with 8 such weapons will pack a good punch now. got to give full marks to khan, they get into problems but then work hard and throw money at it to find strong solutions....aim120D is a class leader but they are already hard at work on the next gen 'air dominance' aam. hellfire works great but they are already working on the next gen per the link above.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2011 19:18

vic is right.. just checked Oz buy over the google, hit a link that said $169m for 179 Mk54s, where as India paid $86 for 32 of them, ->$2.6M per puppy while Ozies paid only $0.9M for the same.

So, where are all the CAG and cheap buying and indigenous experts gone?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2011 19:45

True,and when pointed out that FMS sales allow for "padding" of prices,some pro-US BRites suddenly suffer from Alzheimer's!

Meanwhile,this report is a few months old,but very relevant.JDW Apr/20th issue,where the UK parliament "slams Typhoon management for cost overruns".

Now what does this eman for us? Simply put,the cost overeuns of Typhoon will be passed on to the sucker-buyer! Let's have some more details from the report.

1.Cost overruns-$60+ Billion.

2.Purchase cost rose,wait for it.......by "75%"!

3.Cost per aircraft?....126m GBP!

4."Typhoon is costing the UK 3.5B GBP more for a third fewer aircraft"!

5.Change of roles in Libya affected the force,as "Enhanced Pavwway 2" bombs had to be guided to the target by a Panavaia Tornado 4 carrying a designator pod!

6.Contracts for spares,"still not running smoothly". Typhoon not flyimng hours required and MOD "forced to cannibalise parts" fom other aircraft to maximise number available each day!

7.Only 8 aircraft are thus capable of ground attacks,pilot training inadequate.

Now,has the IAF and MOD studied the reports given by no less than the British parliament about the shortcomings of the EF? Will India be dumped with the additional costs incurred by the seller,which led to a "75% " increaae in cost? In the Finance Minsitry carefully studies the cist of this ulta-expensive aircraft and compares it with the SU-30MKI costs,the expected cost of the FGFA @ $100m per aircraft, and even with some of the rejected aircraft whose cistw e are told is around $45-55m apiece,plus the lesser cost of an LCA MK-2,it will be very difficult to justify the buy on financial grounds .

Yes we do need an MMRCA but at what price? I think that this is going to be the crucial factor in choosing the bird and the cost of the first 126 determining how many will be bought/built in future.Given the downturn in the economy and the huge demands being made by allies and interest groups for "social spending",to win elkections,the MMRCA price is going to be controversial.It is most unfortunate also that the IAF has been historically "profligate" in acquisitions,when compared with the IN in particular,which has taken command of th designs of warships and subs that it requires.A break in this has been with the LCA (treated liek the second wife's child though) and with the FGFA.It is incumbent upon the decision-makers to carefully study the implications of a hugely expensive buy of only a 4++ gen aircraft and its TOT for a cost we are now told will be $20+ Billion,when we are getting 5th-gen TOT from Russia for the FGFA and when such large resources could be marshalled and distributed intelligently amongst the LCA and other aircraft acquisitions.

It would be a shame if the Rafale too came with such exorbitant prices as an EF.If this is what it is going to sot us for the EF,then I am sure that the French can swing a much better offer financially.We simply cannot buy both aircraft.Imagine the immense cost of setting uo two lines of production for mere 4++ gen aircraft which by 2017 will be overshadowed by the arrival of the 5th-gen FGFA.As BK said,the leverage that we must extract out of this exorbitant acquisition should go far beyond aerospace tech alone and fill the gaps in crucial advanced tech areas in which we are decades behind such as engine tech,nuclear science,missilery,etc.I can even think of the design of the new Le Clerc tank turret with integrated ERA,etc.,as an option for the Arjun-3.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2011 19:59

If one would consider the amount on money paid to ToT, and zillion agreements and upgrades, one would see if the same money spent on Indian establishments and men (brains), it pay better for the future. But unfortunately, the management of all these and vision is poor. And at the same time, the requirements are linear going by the competitive nature the world is in.

Bridging the gap by money alone doesn't give us the strategic depth we are looking for. Great nations need great manufacturing and support base, with advanced infrastructure. We have lot of investments to make, but not channelized to some profit making private entrepreneurs. How it feeds back into establishing our 50% offset flows does make a big difference.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 11 Dec 2011 20:12

AASM is a nich nich for India, whether we buy raffy or EF, we'll end up buying tons of SDB, LJDAM, JDAM-ER, missile like the SLAM-ER is a cheaper option to the Stromshadow and can hit moving targets on the land or the sea. Harpoon and SLAM-ER share a lot of commonality. I wonder if Aim-120D is available, would be nice to have it, EF with Aim-120D would be capable of exploiting near full effective range of the missile while supercruising using that big radar. EJ200 for tejas was coming with TVN so there is no reason why it shouldn't part of the EF pack.

Also the winner will end up getting by far the deadliest bomb ever made

the CBU-97/105 SFW and we ordered over 500 of these bad boys. why bother with AASM when a high altitude release of one such bomb could destroy an entire armored column. We need to be ordered more of these, another 1000 with TOT so that we can make them at home. I think this large order of aircraft calls for a larger order of deadly PGMs with considerable TOT and local manufacture. For hitting both PAki and Chinese targets we need a massive volume of inventory.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... 018951.pdf

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=809

http://www.aviationnews.eu/2009/02/18/b ... rget-test/

http://www.google.be/imgres?imgurl=http ... Ag&dur=141

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2011 20:23

is the SLAM-ER cleared for export? google tells me south korea and turkey have it, so we should be covered. we should get it even for our P8I.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Dec 2011 21:15

Philip wrote:True,and when pointed out that FMS sales allow for "padding" of prices,some pro-US BRites suddenly suffer from Alzheimer's!

Meanwhile,this report is a few months old,but very relevant.JDW Apr/20th issue,where the UK parliament "slams Typhoon management for cost overruns".

Now what does this eman for us? Simply put,the cost overeuns of Typhoon will be passed on to the sucker-buyer! Let's have some more details from the report.

1.Cost overruns-$60+ Billion.

2.Purchase cost rose,wait for it.......by "75%"!

3.Cost per aircraft?....126m GBP!

4."Typhoon is costing the UK 3.5B GBP more for a third fewer aircraft"!

The UK sold 72 of its committed Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 purchases to Saudi Arabia. But while their costs were included in the report, the receipts from the Saudi sale were not. In any case, we know that the EF's flyaway cost as offered to India was within 5% of that offered by Rafale.

5.Change of roles in Libya affected the force,as "Enhanced Pavwway 2" bombs had to be guided to the target by a Panavaia Tornado 4 carrying a designator pod!

Some missions yes were flown by mixed forces, because the RAF had a shortage of pilots with air to ground currency due to its training commitments with the RSAF. But the EF did self designate targets as well.

6.Contracts for spares,"still not running smoothly". Typhoon not flyimng hours required and MOD "forced to cannibalise parts" fom other aircraft to maximise number available each day!

7.Only 8 aircraft are thus capable of ground attacks,pilot training inadequate.

Those are the RAF's management issues. The Luftwaffe on the other hand is doing just fine. In addition, the EF had a serviceability of 99% during the Libyan operation as well as on other overseas detachments.

Now,has the IAF and MOD studied the reports given by no less than the British parliament about the shortcomings of the EF? Will India be dumped with the additional costs incurred by the seller,which led to a "75% " increaae in cost? In the Finance Minsitry carefully studies the cist of this ulta-expensive aircraft and compares it with the SU-30MKI costs,the expected cost of the FGFA @ $100m per aircraft, and even with some of the rejected aircraft whose cistw e are told is around $45-55m apiece,plus the lesser cost of an LCA MK-2,it will be very difficult to justify the buy on financial grounds .

Its a open and competitive market. If those facts hold up, the Rafale should have easily under the EF as far as production cost goes.

Yes we do need an MMRCA but at what price? I think that this is going to be the crucial factor in choosing the bird and the cost of the first 126 determining how many will be bought/built in future.Given the downturn in the economy and the huge demands being made by allies and interest groups for "social spending",to win elkections,the MMRCA price is going to be controversial.It is most unfortunate also that the IAF has been historically "profligate" in acquisitions,when compared with the IN in particular,which has taken command of th designs of warships and subs that it requires.A break in this has been with the LCA (treated liek the second wife's child though) and with the FGFA.It is incumbent upon the decision-makers to carefully study the implications of a hugely expensive buy of only a 4++ gen aircraft and its TOT for a cost we are now told will be $20+ Billion,when we are getting 5th-gen TOT from Russia for the FGFA and when such large resources could be marshalled and distributed intelligently amongst the LCA and other aircraft acquisitions.

Keeping a busy MRCA line until about 2025 when the PAKFA/FGFA production line matures is a very sensible idea. And no this doesn't have a come at the cost of a Tejas Mk2 (which too needs to be produced in quantity). A brief look at our neighbors to the north and west will make that very clear.

The PLAAF has some 350 Flankers and 200+ J-10s in its inventory today (ignoring the older generation types). Give it another five years and you'll have 500 Flankers and 350 J-10s. And before we take it for granted that we'll have a significant qualitative edge, it would prudent to remember that while those Chinese Flankers don't have something that can match the Bars for now, its only a matter of time before they're sporting lovely great 1sq.m AESA radar of their own. They already have a missile that's broadly in the same range as the R-77, with a ramjet air to air missile rumored to be in development. Toss in a two front scenario and what have you.

Point is, those aircraft and technology from Europe are very much needed. If lucky and smart, the technology and munitions will be able to feed into the Tejas and FGFA programs.

It would be a shame if the Rafale too came with such exorbitant prices as an EF.If this is what it is going to sot us for the EF,then I am sure that the French can swing a much better offer financially.We simply cannot buy both aircraft.Imagine the immense cost of setting uo two lines of production for mere 4++ gen aircraft which by 2017 will be overshadowed by the arrival of the 5th-gen FGFA.As BK said,the leverage that we must extract out of this exorbitant acquisition should go far beyond aerospace tech alone and fill the gaps in crucial advanced tech areas in which we are decades behind such as engine tech,nuclear science,missilery,etc.

It didn't have significant advantage as far as fly away price goes. I'm sure Rafale supporters are hoping that the operating cost will end up being low enough to compensate for the EF's offset and ToT advantages.

I can even think of the design of the new Le Clerc tank turret with integrated ERA,etc.,as an option for the Arjun-3.

Dear God no!!

Frankly if there's any tank tech to be had (not that the MRCA contract allows for such idle hopes), I'd much rather we look at the Leopard 2A6. Rheinmetall L55 perhaps... if the IA decides to go smoothbore. Maybe not.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 11 Dec 2011 21:15

I doubt that SDB II with a tri-mode seeker will be cheaper than an AASM whatever the seeker type. Besides the AASM offer more range and a bigger firing envelop (especially in the 125Kg version) and offer a wider type of bomb size (125, 250, 500 and 1000kg) for more operational effectiveness.

The modular concept of the AASM will help save money as it is basically a kit that can be fitted to a standard NATO bomb.

It is also a more efficient CAS weapon as you are much more "reactive" against time sensitive targets as you just have to shoot, shoot, shoot and shoot without having to lose time repositioning your aircraft like for LGBs or SDBs, each AASM having its own kinetic.

As for US weapons in general if their is a requirement they can be integrated with the rafale without a problem. The rafale has already more US AtG weapons integrated than the typhoon...So that's hardly a competitive advantage for the typhoon quite the contrary.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 11 Dec 2011 21:23

some eye candy for entertainment :

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Dec 2011 21:35

arthuro wrote:One of the distinct advantage of the rafale is to offer a naval variant which will offer the possibility to operate a common aircraft among different indian services. A rafale choice will open strategic perspective in that regard.

Indian Navy has requested a RFI for a new naval jet. For this reason SAAB and Typhoon proposed (unrealistic) naval variant of their aircrafts marketed with indian colors.

And RFI doesn't mean jack until a RFP is issued. It was also issued to the F-35B and F-35C. Big deal. The IN is already committed to the MiG-29K and N-Tejas. The IAC-II is still a long way off and it will no doubt seek a fifth generation type (hopefully the N-FGFA will be a possibility) to operate off it.

The indian navy already evaluated the rafale M and is very keen to it.

When did that happen?

Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash was the first Indian that has flown in a Rafale:

Here's Ratan Tata heading out to fly the Super Hornet.

Doubt you'll be seeing on of those in his garage.

"It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft," says the Indian Navy's Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it "only an eight ton platform". The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/12/lc ... -ours.html

That means they're committed to the N-Tejas not the Rafale.

For that matter they've been a fair few indications that the IN would favor the F-35.

"Yes. Given an offer, we will be much interested in having the F-35 fighters," Admiral Prakash told reporters when asked if the Navy would be willing to procure the advanced fighters from the US.

http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=309785

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 11 Dec 2011 21:56

The fact that they issued a RFI is not innocent just like the fact that non naval fighters like the typhoon and the gripen started marketing navalized variant of their jets. They are said to look for a new naval fighter in approx. 10 years.

Also the fact that Indian officers are testing Naval aircrafts like the Rafale M or the SH (for the latter it could be related to MMRCA only though) makes my point. Even the comment of the F35 goes against what you previously stated.

Now as I said in my first post : operating the rafale "open the perspective" of using a common aircraft between indian services. I did not say that Indian navy is going for a new jet tomorrow. Just that the temptation could be great to use a common type aircraft between the air force and navy for obvious reasons. I pointed that as one of the reason that could push for a rafale choice.

When you decide to buy a fighter you necessarily look at the future synergies it can offer and the long term perspectives. This possible future synergy is so evident and conspicuous that I can't believe one in the Indian armed force will not have thought about it, especially when there is a RFI for a new naval fighter.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Dec 2011 22:59

arthuro wrote:The fact that they issued a RFI is not innocent just like the fact that non naval fighters like the typhoon and the gripen started marketing navalized variant of their jets. They are said to look for a new naval fighter in approx. 10 years.

No one is saying that the RFI was an accident, and everyone is aware that the IAC II will field a different type (though initially it may have a mixed aircraft complement). But what you need to recognize is the a request for information that was issued to practically everybody doesn't translate into specific interest in the Rafale.

Also the fact that Indian officers are testing Naval aircrafts like the Rafale M or the SH (for the latter it could be related to MMRCA only though) makes my point.

Ratan Tata isn't an Indian officer, he's the chairman of the $100 billion Tata Group, very much a civilian. Point was to show how ridiculous it is to hold a joyride in an aircraft as evidence of specific interest.

Even the comment of the F35 goes against what you previously stated.

Difference is that the F-35 brings a quantum leap in capability to the table with an unparalleled sensor fit and the support of humongous US Navy. While it may not be ideal for the IAF order which needs deliveries in 2014-15, extensive ToT and large build order, it fits the IN's requirements - limited numbers of a high performance aircraft to provide cover for an entire carrier battle group, delivered in time to serve on the IAC-II.

Now as I said in my first post : operating the rafale "open the perspective" of using a common aircraft between indian services. I did not say that Indian navy is going for a new jet tomorrow. Just that the temptation could be great to use a common type aircraft between the air force and navy for obvious reasons. I pointed that as one of the reason that could push for a rafale choice.

When you decide to buy a fighter you necessarily look at the future synergies it can offer and the long term perspectives. This possible future synergy is so evident and conspicuous that I can't believe one in the Indian armed force will not have thought about it, especially when there is a RFI for a new naval fighter.

Indeed. But if is looking at the long term perspective, opting for a fifth generation type is a given. Also if a degree of commonality with the IAF is deemed necessary, well then the clearly this is the best option -

Moscow set to upgrade Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier

In the late 1990s and the early 2000s, it was repeatedly proposed that the Admiral Kuznetsov, which remained moored for long time periods, be decommissioned and sold for scrap.
However, an improved situation in the country gave the ship a new lease of life. Her propulsion unit and other equipment were repaired, and she started taking part in various high seas war games more often.
In the mid-2000s, Navy representatives and Russian political leaders once again started speaking of the need to build aircraft carriers for the Navy. Moscow decided to preserve the Admiral Kuznetsov, used to train deck aircraft pilots.

The choice of catapults is linked with the choice of the ship's propulsion unit. Steam catapults require a nuclear propulsion unit, while a gas turbine propulsion unit leaves no choice but electromagnetic catapults. Moscow will either have to develop such catapults independently or buy them abroad, or ... copy them illegally.

The carrier's air wing is to comprise 26 new Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29K Fulcrum-D multi-role fighter aircraft, helicopters and navalized Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA (Future Frontline Aircraft System) fifth-generation fighters, currently under development. It appears that 15-20 of these aircraft will be built pending the ship's re-launching, which is likely to take place in 2020 rather than 2017.

Russian Navy to get fifth generation carrier fighter after 2020

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Dec 2011 00:06

arthuro wrote:I doubt that SDB II with a tri-mode seeker will be cheaper than an AASM whatever the seeker type.

I wouldn't be so sure. It builds on the SDB I which already has a robust production line. The SDB I for example costed the USAF less than $40,000 including bomb racks (1:7 ratio). Between the SDB I and SDB II, the expected order size is already almost 30,000, compared to the AASMs order size of a little over 4000 units. With the F-35's expected to number over 3000 units, its simply not possible to match the SDB or JDAMs on price.

Besides the AASM offer more range and a bigger firing envelop (especially in the 125Kg version) and offer a wider type of bomb size (125, 250, 500 and 1000kg) for more operational effectiveness.
The modular concept of the AASM will help save money as it is basically a kit that can be fitted to a standard NATO bomb.

It is also a more efficient CAS weapon as you are much more "reactive" against time sensitive targets as you just have to shoot, shoot, shoot and shoot without having to lose time repositioning your aircraft like for LGBs or SDBs, each AASM having its own kinetic.

Unfortunately since it includes both a seeker and propulsion unit, its basically a missile that's fitted with a standard NATO bomb in lieu of a warhead.

On tank busting/CAS missions it can be substituted with the Brimstone, Helina, AGM-65 or after 2016, the JAGM. And given their higher speeds, they're more likely to defeat APS units on armored vehicles.

Ideally though, munitions would be launched from high altitude, where the JDAM and SDB are again considerably cheaper options.

As for US weapons in general if their is a requirement they can be integrated with the rafale without a problem. The rafale has already more US AtG weapons integrated than the typhoon...So that's hardly a competitive advantage for the typhoon quite the contrary.

But you've repeatedly made the argument that India will have to foot a considerable bill for integrating anything on the EF. Surely the same applies to the Rafale, which unlike the EF does not use the AMRAAM, nor is scheduled for integration with JDAM, HARM, (the Luftwaffe will replace its Tornado ECRs with EFs), Brimstone or the Litening Pod.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 12 Dec 2011 00:13

Sometime ago I did a small exercise. I found that for most of the jet aircraft, from 1960/70s till date the time taken form their first flight to their induction, is anything about 8 years. The PAK FA, or what-ever-the-hell you may call it, first flew in 2010.

How can it enter service in IAF by 2016/17 or 2015 ? Would it no require a few thousand hours of testing and development ?

Or is this date cooked up by vested interests so ensure that the
MMRCA contest is down the drain
EuroBirds are not selected
The final selection would be a US and/or Russian aircraft.

And if PAK FA is REALLY vey advanced it would take
More (time) testing
More time for IOC and FOC
Much More time to develop the tactics to use it.

Experts, your opinion
K

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Dec 2011 00:28

Kersi D wrote:Sometime ago I did a small exercise. I found that for most of the jet aircraft, from 1960/70s till date the time taken form their first flight to their induction, is anything about 8 years. The PAK FA, or what-ever-the-hell you may call it, first flew in 2010.

How can it enter service in IAF by 2016/17 or 2015 ? Would it no require a few thousand hours of testing and development ?

Not an expert but I agree completely, PAKFA in IAF service by 2017, isn't happening. Its very unlikely that it would become operational before 2020.

But as far as the naval variant goes, the IAC-2 isn't going to enter service before 2020 either. And even if there is a bit of a gap, it will still be able to operate MiG-29Ks and N-Tejas' in the meantime (assuming one carrier is out to sea, one in port and one in refit).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Dec 2011 01:20

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NjHp5DLYx9o/T ... hoon+1.JPG
typhoon vs. raptor spec comparison

nice pic
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Jz5S_4UBXVY/S ... ph_da4.jpg

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Dec 2011 01:20

thats assuming it does not become another Gorshkov, Nerpa, T 90 saga

one prays and prays

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 12 Dec 2011 02:03

If the IAF goes for the rafale there will certainly be a strong incentive for the rafale as a new rafale naval fighter. I am not saying it would be Indian Navy decision for sure but it would certainly become the natural option in case of a rafale win. It is evident that indian officers and defense ministry bureaucrats must have envisioned the possibility of operating a common aircraft. In that case the rafale choice opens strategic "possibilities" by creating synergies between branches of the armed forces. That's a distinct rafale asset as it leaves possibilities opened while they would be most certainly closed with the typhoon unless you want to invest billions in a risky concept that is completely unproven.

The F35C is certainly very capable but as far as ToT, access of source codes and indigenous evolution is concerned it will most probably not make the cut for Indian armed forces. As for the T50 speaking about a naval variant is speculation at this stage.

Regarding the SDB II you are wrong on that : it is a totally new design from a different manufacturer than the SDB I. It will certainly be too expensive to be used in very vast quantities just like the AASM which is cheaper than you say as India will not have to pay for french development costs (quoted costs are all inclusive but does not reflect the "fly away" price). And the SDB is basically a small bomb while the AASM is a kit and can be fitted to small to heavy bombs for better operational effectiveness. A 1000Kg AASM will pack incredibly more punch than a SDB, even the 125Kg AASM for that matter. Total SDB weight is around 110Kg.

And if you are so fond of the SDB you can still integrate it on the rafale so that's hardly an argument as you will still have to pay to integrate it on the typhoon.

AASM family :

SDB II from raytheon

SDB I from boeing :

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Dec 2011 03:53

arthuro wrote:If the IAF goes for the rafale there will certainly be a strong incentive for the rafale as a new rafale naval fighter. I am not saying it would be Indian Navy decision for sure but it would certainly become the natural option in case of a rafale win. It is evident that indian officers and defense ministry bureaucrats must have envisioned the possibility of operating a common aircraft. In that case the rafale choice opens strategic "possibilities" by creating synergies between branches of the armed forces. That's a distinct rafale asset as it leaves possibilities opened while they would be most certainly closed with the typhoon unless you want to invest billions in a risky concept that is completely unproven.

I don't think I or anyone else has endorsed the acquisition of a naval Eurofighter, on the forum.

As for the 'natural' option being the Rafale, it comes down to the threat perception. Whichever aircraft gets chosen will have to serve in Indian Navy upto 2050. The IAF will end up with a mix of PAKFAs, MRCAs, Su-30MKIs and Tejas' spread over dozens of airbases, and will be able to sustain attrition in wartime.

The performance of the naval fighter on the other hand, as the primary air defence, will be absolutely critical for the safety of not only a very expensive aircraft carrier, but the entire battle group. That's at least six high-value-assets, if not more. And while the threats to IN today are relatively modest, it will in the future be tasked with striking high defended targets (like say a PLAN destroyer flotilla or CBG) and faced with stealthy threats like the J-20 and next gen UCAVs.

Keeping that in mind, the question is would the Indian Navy want the Rafale to be at the core of its future defensive and strike capabilities for the following 30 years, just so it can have some commonality with the IAF. Or would it prefer to have a fifth generation aircraft like the F-35 or even better, a Naval PAKFA. The PAKFA is set to become the most potent weapon in the IAF's arsenal, why should the Indian Navy have to settle for any less?

The F35C is certainly very capable but as far as ToT, access of source codes and indigenous evolution is concerned it will most probably not make the cut for Indian armed forces. As for the T50 speaking about a naval variant is speculation at this stage.

When you're buying a carrier's worth of aircraft for a critical task, ToT is hardly a primary consideration.

Your right about the naval PAKFA not being around the corner, but then neither is the IAC-II. After all, the IN isn't looking for new aircraft for the Vikramaditya or Viraat carriers.

Regarding the SDB II you are wrong on that : it is a totally new design from a different manufacturer than the SDB I. It will certainly be too expensive to be used in very vast quantities just like the AASM which is cheaper than you say as India will not have to pay for french development costs (quoted costs are all inclusive but does not reflect the "fly away" price). And the SDB is basically a small bomb while the AASM is a kit and can be fitted to small to heavy bombs for better operational effectiveness.

I was talking about the program not the missile. I would assume the risk reduction phases and qualification exercises for example will be faster and cheaper. In addition, they should be able use common racks. Also, the SDB II isn't a successor to the SDB I but intended to be used concurrently. Which means a prospective IAF order will at least partially comprise of the $50K SDB I.

As far as its cost vis-a-vis the AASM goes - it will very much be produced in vast quantities. The platform it was primarily meant for (F-35) isn't expected to get its IOC before 2018, yet its already gotten over 12,300 orders (for delivery upto 2014) for the SDB I and has an expected build of 17,000 for the SDB II. They'll be further orders once the F-35 is operational, from the US military as well as over a dozen other air forces who'll operating the F-35. That sort of cost effectiveness isn't likely to be matched.

And if you are so fond of the SDB you can still integrate it on the rafale so that's hardly an argument as you will still have to pay to integrate it on the typhoon.

Indeed we can. That still leaves the question of integrating the AMRAAM, HARM, Litening as well as the JDAM, ASRAAM/IRIS-T and Brimstone, if ordered. Come to think of it, if the Taurus wins the IAF's contract for a long range stand off weapon, the Rafale may have to integrate that as well.

Lol, I bet this separate munitions package was a real irritant to the folks at Dassault.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Dec 2011 12:03

abhik wrote:...
BTW how many Air to Surface weapons is the Rafale really cleared to use till date? AFAIK 3-4(apart from cruise missiles), of which 2 are American. ...

Rafale - Fox Three n°14

On top of the Scalp, the AASM, the Mica IR/RF, the Meteor and its internal 30 mm gun, the Rafale is cleared to carry the AM39 Exocet antiship missile and the GBU-12/22/24 laser guided bombs, and the French Armed Forces are seriously considering the adoption of rockets in the near future.

Other external payloads:

MBDA ASMP-A (Nuclear strike)
Thales Damocles targeting pod
Thales System Reco NG (new generation tactical reconnaissance system) (AREOS)
Buddy-buddy tankers w/ 4,700 kg of internal fuel plus five external drop tanks (three 2,000-litre and two 1,250-litre fuel tanks)

kelesis · Post by **kelesis** » 12 Dec 2011 12:44

According to EADS, Indian "Rafale offer was priced counting on successful UAE deal."

This kind of looser statement smells good for Dassault!

Considering the tensions between UK and Germany on Europe and inside Eurofighter (EADS was not aware of the UAE offer by BAE until revealed by the press!), it is clear that Rafale is the safest and the cheapest option for India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Dec 2011 12:50

I have a feeling the HARM is due for a deep upgrade or replacement with the new age kit like SDB2 and JSOW combo. these can reach out 100-130km in high alt mode.
US sure has a amazing inventory of standoff weapons...

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Dec 2011 14:20

Singha wrote:I have a feeling the HARM is due for a deep upgrade or replacement with the new age kit like SDB2 and JSOW combo. these can reach out 100-130km in high alt mode.
US sure has a amazing inventory of standoff weapons...

Actually the most recent variant of the HARM i.e. the AGM-88E has just recently entered production, so it will be around for a while yet.

ATK Awarded $55 Million Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Low Rate Initial Production

ATK (NYSE: ATK) has received a $55 million Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract from the U.S. Navy for the advanced anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM). The contract is for missiles, containers, spares, support/special test equipment, and required production transition activities. The contract provides for AARGM deliveries of sufficient quantity to meet the U.S. Navy's Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2010.

AARGM is a supersonic, air-launched tactical missile that will be integrated on the FA-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G and Tornado ECR aircraft. The missile is also designed for compatibility with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, EA-6B Prowler and U.S. F-16 Falcon aircraft. Its advanced multi-sensor system, including a Millimeter Wave (MMW) terminal seeker, advanced digital ARH receiver and a Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS), is capable of rapidly engaging traditional and advanced enemy air defense targets as well as non-radar time-sensitive strike targets. The AARGM MMW seeker can operate in concert with the ARH to counter RF shutdown tactics, or in a stand-alone mode to guide to non-emitting targets. AARGM is a network-enabled weapon that will directly receive tactical intelligence information via an embedded receiver and transmit near real-time Weapon Impact Assessment (WIA) reports prior to weapon detonation. AARGM, an upgrade to the U.S. Navy AGM-88 high speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) system, is a U.S. and Italian international cooperative acquisition Category I major acquisition program. The U.S. Navy is the executive agent for the program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/ ... RN20090121

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2011 15:13

In answer to Kersi's Q,yes,by Cold War standards aircraft did take that long to arrive into service.If you go by the LCA example than 7 years is a miracle! So it all depends upon the project management behind the programme and shifting goal posts for aircraft prameters during the dev. stage. with the inevitable consequences.The JSF is the worst example today with the monthly revelations of new problems surfacing and even more cost overruns.In the digital age,when some of the testing can and is being done through simulation,one would expect a faster maturing time for a new aircraft design.The first deliveries of the FGFA are scheduled for 2015 for the RuAF.It looks ambitious indeed,but when we now know that even the IAF will be obtaining the same single-seat FGFA,some 200+ and only about 40 twin-seat arcraft ,2017 is not an unrealistic date for IOC.

We must also remember that much of the systems testing of the FGFA has/is being done on the SU-35,as an incrmental step between the Flanker and the T-50/FGFA.Therefore,even though the FGFA might've first flown in 2010,some of the systems have already been tested on SU-35s earlier. When our M-2000 upgrades are only to be completed by 2019 (!),the production rate pf MMRCAs is going to be "as per usual, IST",unless someone really kicks ass.
therefore,even if the GFA enters service with the IAF only late in the decade,its arrival will sharply focus on the disparity between the two ,FGFA and MMRCA and the costs of each.By then even the LCA MK-2 should be in full production and the IAF will have three options to choose from to give it the advantage in quality and quantity at afforable cost.FGFA production locally should start when local production of SU-30MKIs are ending.First deliveries will be earlier.

In this matter there is a parallel on the IA's armoured vehicle/MBT procurement.A recent "F" mag piece has news of the emergence of the T-90AM,which has overcome the shortcomings of the earlier versions of the T-90S.Just as was done with the SU-30s,an incremental approach was envisaged from the first acquisitions.The idea has thus been mooted that instead of upgrading over 2000 old T-72s of varying vintage,the IA instead should order another large qty. of new T-90AMs,plus "400 new Arjun MK-2s",using the older T-72s chassis modified to house new turrets for Akash SAMs,anti-tank ATGMs,SP artillery,anti-air artillery,etc.