IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

[Indranil]

All I can say is that there is more likelihood of US placing sanctions than Russia placing sanctions!

[brar_w]

Mission system maturity also counts towards something. The Block III Rhino comes with an over a decade worths of investment by the USN into baselines that started with an AESA, more than 500 of which have been delivered, with most also having been upgraded since delivery. The AESA radar has just had its second major processor upgrade, and is now prepped to absorb added capability ( such comms and EA/EW modes) that is likely to show up in operational aircraft before the end of the decade. Same applies for the EW suite, for which multiple mature options exist and can grow to something that builds on their own funded development of DEWS and ultimately the GaN AESA based EPAWSS that will also mature around the turn of the decade or early next decade. They are on the second version of the helmet now and as mentioned earlier the AMRAAM C5 and C7 have received the latest ECCM upgrades even ahead of the D version which itself should be available for export in the next 5-6 years.

Even the block II 9X is operational with block II+ configuration also likely to be available by the end of the decade. Two IRST options are available with the more advanced IRST-21 based now in Low Rate production. The engine has a demonstrated, and proven track record of performance in different conditions and the EPE/EDE upgrades have largely been de-risked and can be delivered as kits for upgrading at the depot level. As far as the Adv. SH upgrades, the CFT's and the weapons pod have flown, the RCS treatment largely tested at the range, with the new cockpit the only area of risk that remains. There is a huge difference in system maturity, and development when it comes to the Block II/III/III+ Shornet and the Mig-35 that has yet to become operational or delivered to a customer.

[Indranil]

Thank you Indranil. Very useful. I hadn't realized that a Mig 35 was 100 -150 million. I was under the impression from Philip's posts that we are talking @ 50 million.

Thank you Indranil. Very useful. I hadn't realized that a Mig 35 was 100 -150 million. I was under the impression from Philip's posts that we are talking @ 50 million.

They are available for $50 Million via special order through Philip only because of long love of Rodina. Sorry Philip, this one was far too good to pass up!! But you know that I love macho Putin vs wimpy Obama

If MIG-35 were really available for $50 Million, then buying would be a no-brainer.

Actually, in 2017, the sticker price of Mig-35K is likely to be no greater than 50-60M. The Egyptians are reportedly getting theirs at 40M a piece. Albeit, I don't know the support package. On the other hand, the F-18's flyaway cost in 2017, is not likely to be less than $75 M a piece. Then if you look at the factor the Dassault and Eurofighter consortium are charging for support package, or even India's other US-FMS deals, you can safely assume that the Superhornet will cost India around 1.5M per plane with the support packages.

So, my question is: if we spend 1.5M per Mig-35, in flyaway cost plus support cost, what will its availability be? Would we be able to indigenize more parts and gain more autonomy? I am not speaking of engines and radars, but there are many structural, fuel, electrical parts of a plane! I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but people have to give me technical reasons. Feelings, history etc. don't cut it for me in this respect.

[SaiK]

I would still think work with Israel and Japan rather the two cold-war heroes for creating our own core assets [the big two will chew us in different ways that will always inhibit our doctrine and aid theirs rather]. There may be gaps, and they must be filled all by ourselves. there is no begging or borrowing here that would work. LCA -> Mk2 and there on. The reason, we must have great emphasis on getting Kaveri in good shape, no matter how much it costs to fly it.

That confidence will further drive other lagging projects including Trishul to come back alive and Uttam going matured.

[Viv S]

Mission system maturity also counts towards something. The Block III Rhino comes with an over a decade worths of investment by the USN into baselines that started with an AESA, more than 500 of which have been delivered, with most also having been upgraded since delivery.
.
.
.
There is a huge difference in system maturity, and development when it comes to the Block II/III/III+ Shornet and the Mig-35 that has yet to become operational or delivered to a customer.

Question is, with the baseline Super Hornet already clocking in at about $68M flyaway (recurring), what will this new Advanced Super Hornet cost, especially considering the fact that there'll be no US DoD orders around to improve the economies of scale. $75M? $80M?

[Indranil]

Mission system maturity also counts towards something. The Block III Rhino comes with an over a decade worths of investment by the USN into baselines that started with an AESA, more than 500 of which have been delivered, with most also having been upgraded since delivery. The AESA radar has just had its second major processor upgrade, and is now prepped to absorb added capability ( such comms and EA/EW modes) that is likely to show up in operational aircraft before the end of the decade. Same applies for the EW suite, for which multiple mature options exist and can grow to something that builds on their own funded development of DEWS and ultimately the GaN AESA based EPAWSS that will also mature around the turn of the decade or early next decade. They are on the second version of the helmet now and as mentioned earlier the AMRAAM C5 and C7 have received the latest ECCM upgrades even ahead of the D version which itself should be available for export in the next 5-6 years.

Even the block II 9X is operational with block II+ configuration also likely to be available by the end of the decade. Two IRST options are available with the more advanced IRST-21 based now in Low Rate production. The engine has a demonstrated, and proven track record of performance in different conditions and the EPE/EDE upgrades have largely been de-risked and can be delivered as kits for upgrading at the depot level. As far as the Adv. SH upgrades, the CFT's and the weapons pod have flown, the RCS treatment largely tested at the range, with the new cockpit the only area of risk that remains. There is a huge difference in system maturity, and development when it comes to the Block II/III/III+ Shornet and the Mig-35 that has yet to become operational or delivered to a customer.

Absolutely, I acknowledged this in my very first reply.

However, the Americans stole a march during 1990-2010s. While the aerodynamics remained the same, F-18s continued their incremental growth in radar, avionics, EW, engines etc. making them more mature, and arguably more serviceable. Mikoyan, on the other hand, second in the pecking order after Sukhoi was in survival mode.

However at the same time, although the Mig-35 is "new", most of its systems are not. Its engines, avionics, cockpit, IRST, RCS treatments, weapons are also iterations of stable designs. Where, the Mig-35 probably is further behind is the AESA radar. There is no question about that in my mind. And that is a very critical part of a fighter.

And their are two other questions:
1. Are Russians as eager to maintain their relationship with India, as the US currently is?
2. Are the Indians as eager to buy from the Russians as they are from the US currently?

I think technically, India can do with both the Mig-35 and the F-18. They are both good planes, able to take on anything that Pakistan and China would like to throw at India. Also, the difference in price over the lifetime of the aircrafts is going to be marginal. The actual decision will be on the two questions above.

[brar_w]

Mission system maturity also counts towards something. The Block III Rhino comes with an over a decade worths of investment by the USN into baselines that started with an AESA, more than 500 of which have been delivered, with most also having been upgraded since delivery.
.
.
.
There is a huge difference in system maturity, and development when it comes to the Block II/III/III+ Shornet and the Mig-35 that has yet to become operational or delivered to a customer.

Question is, with the baseline Super Hornet already clocking in at about $68M flyaway (recurring), what will this new Advanced Super Hornet cost, especially considering the fact that there'll be no US DoD orders around to improve the economies of scale. $75M? $80M?

I don't really pay much attention to the Advanced configuration that Boeing have put together. The spirsl development path saw them get to the block 3 configuration without any significant increase in fly-awsy cost and things like radar and avionics upgrades wouldn't cost all that much I procurement. The engine kits will probably cost and Boeing in the past had expected the international/advanced upgrades including engine upgrades to come with a 20% cost premium. Since most of this is being funded, and practically all will be funded to maintain the rhino I to the 2020s and 30s as the USN looks to keep its mainstay strike fighter relevant over the years. Outside of EPAWSS adoption on the shornet I really don't see a lof upgrade related out increase provided the epe/ede engines are developed jointly with most operators benefitting from the usn economies of scale.

[brar_w]

Mission system maturity also counts towards something. The Block III Rhino comes with an over a decade worths of investment by the USN into baselines that started with an AESA, more than 500 of which have been delivered, with most also having been upgraded since delivery.
.
.
.
There is a huge difference in system maturity, and development when it comes to the Block II/III/III+ Shornet and the Mig-35 that has yet to become operational or delivered to a customer.

Question is, with the baseline Super Hornet already clocking in at about $68M flyaway (recurring), what will this new Advanced Super Hornet cost, especially considering the fact that there'll be no US DoD orders around to improve the economies of scale. $75M? $80M?

I don't really pay much attention to the Advanced configuration that Boeing have put together. The spirsl development path saw them get to the block 3 configuration without any significant increase in fly-awsy cost and things like radar and avionics upgrades wouldn't cost all that much I procurement. The engine kits will probably cost and Boeing in the past had expected the international/advanced upgrades including engine upgrades to come with a 20% cost premium. Since most of this is being funded, and practically all will be funded to maintain the rhino I to the 2020s and 30s as the USN looks to keep its mainstay strike fighter relevant over the years. Outside of EPAWSS adoption on the shornet I really don't see a lof upgrade related out increase provided the epe/ede engines are developed jointly with most operators benefitting from the usn economies of scale.

[Viv S]

Yeah but how much are we talking flyaway, by your estimate?

[brar_w]

Yeah but how much are we talking flyaway, by your estimate?

Can't comment on flyaway since this can't be a pure FMS since TOT, licensed production and other components are going to have to be involved if this ever materializes. Just the flyaway portion should come close to what the usn paid for recent deliveries with probably a 10% premium for added systems. Engine kits will probably add another 10% down the road but would obviously come with performance enhancement. Domestic production has different cost dynamics so there's going to be some variance there as well.

[Viv S]

Can't comment on flyaway since this can't be a pure FMS since TOT, licensed production and other components are going to have to be involved if this ever materializes. Just the flyaway portion should come close to what the usn paid for recent deliveries with probably a 10% premium for added systems. Engine kits will probably add another 10% down the road but would obviously come with performance enhancement.

Assuming simple inflation raises the figure to $70M, with another 10% chalked up to upgrades, the baseline recurring unit flyaway cost would be $75-80M.

Unless there's an extremely generous ToT offer on the table (which I doubt) that applies exclusively to the Super Hornet (which I doubt even more), it just seems lunacy to pay that much, while every else is passing on the aircraft in favour of the F-35A at $80-85M. Especially given that the Su-30MKI and Tejas are more than adequate as far as the basic grunt-work is concerned.

[Viv S]

Seems to be quite a bit of eagerness on the American side. Remains to be seen how much of that will translate into concrete results.


Pentagon Team in India for Fighter Coproduction Talks

Aaron Mehta, Defense News

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has a team in India evaluating the potential for coproduction on fighter aircraft, days ahead of a visit to the nation by Defense SecretaryAsh Carter.

Carter also hinted that a new project announcement may come during his visit to India next week, during which he will visit New Delhi and Goa.

“While in India, I will meet with Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi and Defense Minister [Manohar] Parrikar to discuss the progress we have made together in aircraft carrier, jet fighter, and jet engine collaboration,” Carter said in prepared remarks at the Council for Foreign Relations in New York. “And we will talk about exciting new projects, the details of which I cannot go into this afternoon, but stay tuned for when I'm with Minister Parrikar.”

Carter said such discussions were happening under the aegis of the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTT), a 2012 agreement between the US and India focused on sharing technology in what he called an “unprecedented way.”

“Members of my team, and industry, are right now, as we are here in New York, in India looking at the potential coproduction of fighter aircraft,” Carter said. “These conversations represent the growing enthusiasm of the US-India partnership, and even more than that, its promise. While these negotiations can be difficult and global competition is high, I have no doubt that in the coming years, the United States and India will embark on a landmark co-production agreement that will bring our two countries closer together and make our militaries stronger”

A US defense official confirmed that the discussion centered on the Lockheed Martin F-16V and Boeing F/A-18 fighter designs.

“Lockheed Martin's F-16V and Boeing's F/A-18 proposals to produce their aircraft in India to meet PM Modi's ‘Make in India’ initiative,” the official said, adding that the Indian Ministry of Defence “was briefed this week by a joint US government/industry team on the fighter aircraft co-production proposals.”

Both companies confirmed that they are in ongoing discussions with Indian authorities.

"Lockheed Martin is in discussions with the U.S. Government, the Government of India, and our Indian industry partners about potential new production F-16 aircraft to address India’s fighter recapitalization requirements," Lockheed spokesman Joe LaMarca wrote in an email. "Details about the aircraft and industrial offer will be determined in conjunction with the respective governments, Lockheed Martin, and Indian industry."

LaMarca pointed to the partnership between Lockheed and Indian industrial giant Tata on the coproduction of the C-130 as an example of how a coproduction deal could potentially work.

India has sought to upgrade its fighter fleet under the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program, which would procure 126 high-end fighters. While both the F/A-18 and F-16 were part of the competition, India selected the Dassault Rafale in 2011.

However, a deal was never consummated, and in July the Indian government cancelled the MMRCA program outright in favor of a government-to-government discussion. That gave new life to the American competitors, at a time when the Obama administration has made strengthening ties with India a priority.

The defense official called the discussions “essentially an unofficial recompete of India's Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft program.”

[ldev]

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-bi ... nce/387287

Rather than guessing what is going to happen and wishing what should happen, just watch Parrikar on that 5 month ago NDTV Big Fight. Trying to piece together everything that he said in the 45 minute program, it looks like "Make in India" is very important to meet the objective of developing an industrial base, even if what can be produced in country may not be the latest gizmo i.e. he is not looking at producing the F-35 in India. It is also clear that there will be a private sector Indian partner to provide competition to HAL. And by pushing "Make in India", it is also clear that GOI is not happy with the current level of industrial development in this area i.e. HAL assembling the SU-30. Based on all that I would give the US companies meeting Parrikar in the next few days a better than 50% chance of reaching a deal. If they cannot close the deal with this GOI, they will never be able to close one.

[Cosmo_R]

.
Moment we have a war with TSP against unkils wishes, what will happen?

For the Russian hanger queens, you can fill hangers with spares and make sure they are available at 90%+ rates for a short shooting war. Post that, they will be back to the usual 60-70% level. For the above, we all know the issues.

If what you say is true, we don't need a Rafale or MMRCA. Just the LCA in quantity and SU-30 serviceability at 70%.

Hopefully, these will be redressed prior to the war with Pakistan.

[NRao]

Pentagon Team in India for Fighter Coproduction Talks

First time I am seeing "fighter" along with the "engine" and "carrier".

This is about geo-politics - beyond planes and MIC, all three equally important.

Bury that "MMRCA" stuff - that was a competition between planes, where there was a sheet in which each got a thumbs-up or down (sort of).

This is about multiple teams sitting in various rooms and sorting out what each needs from such a deal - horse trading, within multiple verticals. Bet there is one team talking about joint patrols and what it would take to get it. And, it is not a zero sum game. Just because of a F-16/18 does not mean India will dump Russia - yes such a decision will impact Russia, but so will many others on both sides.

Good to see India in the major leagues. As I had said earlier India is vying for #2. And, yes, under the current set of circumstances a #2 India will benefit the US a lot more than China or Russia. But that is not India's problem (saying it in a positive way, not knocking anyone else).

[brar_w]

Pentagon Team in India for Fighter Coproduction Talks

First time I am seeing "fighter" along with the "engine" and "carrier".

This is about geo-politics - beyond planes and MIC, all three equally important.

Bury that "MMRCA" stuff - that was a competition between planes, where there was a sheet in which each got a thumbs-up or down (sort of).

This is about multiple teams sitting in various rooms and sorting out what each needs from such a deal - horse trading, within multiple verticals. Bet there is one team talking about joint patrols and what it would take to get it. And, it is not a zero sum game. Just because of a F-16/18 does not mean India will dump Russia - yes such a decision will impact Russia, but so will many others on both sides.

Good to see India in the major leagues. As I had said earlier India is vying for #2. And, yes, under the current set of circumstances a #2 India will benefit the US a lot more than China or Russia. But that is not India's problem (saying it in a positive way, not knocking anyone else).

x posting from acquisition and partnerships thread:

https://youtu.be/bPS6V4CoxFM?t=1066

[sudeepj]

Mission system maturity also counts towards something. The Block III Rhino comes with an over a decade worths of investment by the USN into baselines that started with an AESA, more than 500 of which have been delivered, with most also having been upgraded since delivery. The AESA radar has just had its second major processor upgrade, and is now prepped to absorb added capability ( such comms and EA/EW modes) that is likely to show up in operational aircraft before the end of the decade. Same applies for the EW suite, for which multiple mature options exist and can grow to something that builds on their own funded development of DEWS and ultimately the GaN AESA based EPAWSS that will also mature around the turn of the decade or early next decade. They are on the second version of the helmet now and as mentioned earlier the AMRAAM C5 and C7 have received the latest ECCM upgrades even ahead of the D version which itself should be available for export in the next 5-6 years.

Even the block II 9X is operational with block II+ configuration also likely to be available by the end of the decade. Two IRST options are available with the more advanced IRST-21 based now in Low Rate production. The engine has a demonstrated, and proven track record of performance in different conditions and the EPE/EDE upgrades have largely been de-risked and can be delivered as kits for upgrading at the depot level. As far as the Adv. SH upgrades, the CFT's and the weapons pod have flown, the RCS treatment largely tested at the range, with the new cockpit the only area of risk that remains. There is a huge difference in system maturity, and development when it comes to the Block II/III/III+ Shornet and the Mig-35 that has yet to become operational or delivered to a customer.

Absolutely, I acknowledged this in my very first reply.

However, the Americans stole a march during 1990-2010s. While the aerodynamics remained the same, F-18s continued their incremental growth in radar, avionics, EW, engines etc. making them more mature, and arguably more serviceable. Mikoyan, on the other hand, second in the pecking order after Sukhoi was in survival mode.

However at the same time, although the Mig-35 is "new", most of its systems are not. Its engines, avionics, cockpit, IRST, RCS treatments, weapons are also iterations of stable designs. Where, the Mig-35 probably is further behind is the AESA radar. There is no question about that in my mind. And that is a very critical part of a fighter.

And their are two other questions:
1. Are Russians as eager to maintain their relationship with India, as the US currently is?
2. Are the Indians as eager to buy from the Russians as they are from the US currently?

I think technically, India can do with both the Mig-35 and the F-18. They are both good planes, able to take on anything that Pakistan and China would like to throw at India. Also, the difference in price over the lifetime of the aircrafts is going to be marginal. The actual decision will be on the two questions above.

The questions need to be framed differently.
1. Do the Russian geo-political and strategic interests compel them to maintain their age old alliance since 1971 with India over an alliance with the Chinese camp in the world?
2. Are Indian political, strategic and technological interests better served with an alliance with the Russians? or the Americans?

* As to whether the Mig35 would do, recent Russian weapon systems have impressed more on paper than in reality. R77, Smerch, T90 ToT, Aircraft engines,.. the list goes on. What good is a plane with a BVR missile that cant shoot?

[Viv S]

x posting from acquisition and partnerships thread:

https://youtu.be/bPS6V4CoxFM?t=1066

Doesn't sound like the production proposals were unsolicited.

Ashton Carter: Last year, the Modi govt reached out to the US to discuss the possibility of launching joint production on a new platform to build upon the work Lockheed Martin and Indian industry achieved on the C-130 project and what Boeing and Indian industry will achieve on the production of the Apache and Chinook helicopters, recently purchased.

[srai]

.
Moment we have a war with TSP against unkils wishes, what will happen?

For the Russian hanger queens, you can fill hangers with spares and make sure they are available at 90%+ rates for a short shooting war. Post that, they will be back to the usual 60-70% level. For the above, we all know the issues.

If what you say is true, we don't need a Rafale or MMRCA. Just the LCA in quantity and SU-30 serviceability at 70%.

Hopefully, these will be redressed prior to the war with Pakistan.

Rather than 36 Rafale (another new type) and adding to the fighter zoo, better to stick to building up on existing types over the next 10-years. Serviceability and LCC has been the weak point for Russian and Indian products due to not just product quality but mainly how maintenance deals are structured. PIB method, where the manufacturer guarantees xx percentage availability for a fee, should be standard practice as is with Western fighters. Initial upfront cost is higher but better for long term serviceability and availability.

If a new MMRCA is a "must", then go for 5th Gen JSF at this late point in the game. These new planes will be around for another 40-years. Might as well get the latest ware that everyone is buying. Don't buy legacy stuff and always be a step behind even though huge sums of FOREX are being expended.

[NRao]

x posting from acquisition and partnerships thread:

https://youtu.be/bPS6V4CoxFM?t=1066

Doesn't sound like the production proposals were unsolicited.

Ashton Carter: Last year, the Modi govt reached out to the US to discuss the possibility of launching joint production on a new platform to build upon the work Lockheed Martin and Indian industry achieved on the C-130 project and what Boeing and Indian industry will achieve on the production of the Apache and Chinook helicopters, recently purchased.

That is what my feel has been. India just cannot afford to sit and keep regurgitating old analysis based on fear. India needs investments (in various forms), Modi has been very clear about that from day one.

Also, this deal, from an Indian PoV (the above vid is the US narrative, India's will be different) is NOT a zero sum game. What is preventing India from establishing "another line"? IF India is able to get techs that the US is unwilling to provide and economies, MICs and political pieces fall into place, heck, start another line of a MiG-35/Grip/Euro/Rafale. It is really up to other nations to horse trade - that is what Modi is. Modi/India has a very clear, transparent goal. And no part of it is trying to pit one plane against another or one nation against another. Modi gave the French a chance and they seem to have bungled the deal with their myopic mind set.

Don't buy legacy stuff and always be a step behind even though huge sums of FOREX are being expended.

May be I have got it all wrong. But, I bet Modi is clearly thinking about supporting the IAF, advancing the maturity of the MIC, getting some political brownie points AND exporting these techs and making money. The guys at HAL/ADA/DRDO had better start getting really good PMs, marketing and sales people on board.

[sudeepj]

If MIG-35 were really available for $50 Million, then buying would be a no-brainer.

Actually, in 2017, the sticker price of Mig-35K is likely to be no greater than 50-60M. The Egyptians are reportedly getting theirs at 40M a piece. Albeit, I don't know the support package. On the other hand, the F-18's flyaway cost in 2017, is not likely to be less than $75 M a piece. Then if you look at the factor the Dassault and Eurofighter consortium are charging for support package, or even India's other US-FMS deals, you can safely assume that the Superhornet will cost India around 1.5M per plane with the support packages.

So, my question is: if we spend 1.5M per Mig-35, in flyaway cost plus support cost, what will its availability be? **Would we be able to indigenize more parts and gain more autonomy?** I am not speaking of engines and radars, but there are many structural, fuel, electrical parts of a plane! I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but people have to give me technical reasons. Feelings, history etc. don't cut it for me in this respect.

Russia makes all her own weapon systems. Is Russia fully autonomous to do what it wants to do? Can a democratic India take Russia like actions and suffer Russia like consequences?

We have been doing 'indigenous production' of Su30s and T90s and the Brahmos for more than 10-15 years now. Weapons that are clearly an overmatch on anything on the subcontinent. Have these given us autonomy? If not, what is missing?

[Philip]

There seems to be a fatal flaw in the manner in which the MOD-NOT the services sign contracts with OEMs,where after-sales spares and service becomes an issue.That as far as Russian eqpt. is concerned is being remedied on a fast footing with the setting up of 4 regional service hubs for Sukhoi Flankers. The fact that this is being done more with pvt. entity JVs today also highlights the problem that the services have faced for decades with DPSUs delivering spares,etc. for foreign systems. The absence of accountability which the Modi regime at last had called the DPSU/DRDO bluff,demanding monthly reports directly to the PMO is making a difference. What needs to be done is to get the contract details for weapon acquisitions also vetted by the services as far as spares/service is concerned.

The JSF is still an unproven bird with a long way to go before its reliability in combat can be discerned. As said many a time before,it is NOT the equiv of the FGFA and was meant to be an accessory to the Raptor,hence the many reports about its vulnerability and lack of dogfighting ability. Pure and simple it is a 5th-gen stealth fighter. The entire exercise of the MMRCA was to find an interim solution to the lack of numbers because of the retiring legacy MIGs in their hundreds,and the absence of the LCA filling up the gaps in adequate number. That happy event still hasn't happened!

Therefore,the simplest and more cost-effective way to maintain numbers and IAF capability is to acquire more numbers of aircraft in service. Cost is the major factor at the moment affecting all weapon acquisitions.Surely a few sqds of new Jaguars with upgraded engines,avionics,etc. can be manufactured at reasonable cost? More MIG-29s too apart from MKIs at $70M a pop. 29s/35s come in at half that cost. A JSF will cost not less than $100Mm closer to $125M by 2020,that'sthe earliest that the IAF could think of acquiring either the FGFA or JSF which it has rejected earlier when offered. The FGFA is a further development of the MKI from the same Sukhoi stable. It would be easier to induct and operate than any Western equiv bird.

I've not said anything about the LCA as all we can hope for is the GOI applying max pressure upon HAL,etc.,to deliver the promised goods which should've arrived at least a decade ago. A point in Q.Have the gun trials of the LCA been completed? Overa decade ago,Rakesh Sharma,then part of the LCA test pilot team said it was the most difficult of all weapons trials becos of vibrations,etc. affecting other eqpt aboard.

[brar_w]

Absolutely, I acknowledged this in my very first reply.

However, the Americans stole a march during 1990-2010s. While the aerodynamics remained the same, F-18s continued their incremental growth in radar, avionics, EW, engines etc. making them more mature, and arguably more serviceable. Mikoyan, on the other hand, second in the pecking order after Sukhoi was in survival mode.
However at the same time, although the Mig-35 is "new", most of its systems are not. Its engines, avionics, cockpit, IRST, RCS treatments, weapons are also iterations of stable designs. Where, the Mig-35 probably is further behind is the AESA radar. There is no question about that in my mind. And that is a very critical part of a fighter.

Well i agree with most, but the F-18E/F has certain handling characteristics that are much better and improved in the past and once you add the EPE kits it will significantly better in areas where it lagged behind. Furthermore, it is a significantly more lethal machine compared to the Charlie hornets given the entire gamut of air combat. Additionally, I do realize that the Mig-35 carries on with iterations of existing sub-systems however the point still stands, that even outside of the AESA radar where Raytheon and the USN have now a 12 or so year start (it clearer OPEVAL like a decade ago) there is the entire back end and fusion that the USN has been slowly chipping away at and improving every since the Super Hornet first flew.

This isn't a small task, since its essentially been one developmental program after another to constantly improve the capability, particularly in networking and fusion ever since it was first fielded, and they have a trail of considerable investment to point to that while the Mig-35 baseline is yet to even enter Operational testing. Given how much time, and money building on mission systems and adding huge loads of capabilities takes we are talking about at a minimum of a 10-12 year lead as far as system development and maturity is concerned. All this not only translates to a 'proven capability' but also to reliability of the mission systems that even in their improved and upgraded form have flown tens of thousands of hours including operationally. The Multi-Sensor Integration Phase (outside Std. Link-16 ability) III program for example builds on the first two-phases and was demo'd in 2015. Beyond, you are looking at EA/EW and Communication modes for the AN/APG-79 and of course once the USN is done its acquisition program they will embark on the EDE engines, which as a program has already de-risked considerably thanks to earlier USN investment, and GEs own money. In fact GE has gone one step ahead and self-funded additional demonstrations well beyond the mandate of their EPE/EDE enhancements.

US Navy to add sensor fusion to Super Hornet fleet-26 SEPTEMBER, 2012

The US Navy has embarked on an incremental programme to add sensor fusion capabilities to its fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the first of which began operational testing earlier this year.

"MSI [Multi-Sensor Integration] Phase I will be released to the fleet with Software Configuration Set H8E in the 2013 timeframe and incorporates sensors for the air-to-ground mission," the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) says. "The H8E System Configuration Set software block upgrade for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler began operational test in July 2012."The MSI Phase I activity begins the process of fusing information generated by the Super Hornet's air-to-surface-oriented sensors with data entered into the system from off-board sources such as data-links.

But Phase I is only the beginning, as the USN is planning to further enhance the F/A-18E/F's sensor fusion capabilities with the next increment of MSI.

"MSI Phase II improves upon the design from Phase I and incorporates air-to-air [A/A] in to the overall systems architecture," NAVAIR says. "Software algorithm development continues to correlate multiple ground and surface tracks from on-ship to off-ship sensor sources and to begin integration with the common tactical picture." It will also expand track and correlation from emitting targets and tracks, to "improve lethality against stationary or moving targets," according to USN budget documents.

Phase II is set to be incorporated into fleet Super Hornet squadrons with the release of the H10E software set. "MSI Phase II is currently flying in developmental test aircraft and will be fielded in fiscal year 2014," NAVAIR says.

The next phase will add counter-electronic attack (CEA) and an enhanced air-to-air tactical picture, according to the USN. "MSI Phase III utilizes previous MSI upgrades and combines them in H12 System Configuration Set with display improvements to enhance A/A and CEA sensor integration," the document reads.

The USN envisions firmware upgrades for the displays which would allow the aircraft's processors to be fully utilised. Those would be coupled with improved display symbology and crew vehicle interface. MSI Phase III capability would be common to the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G. Boeing has previously suggested that its large area display could be considered for incorporation into the navy's Super Hornet fleet as part of those improvements.

In addition to MSI, the USN is working to add single-ship geolocation and specific emitter identification capabilities to the Super Hornet to better enable the F/A-18E/F to attack enemy air defence systems, according to budget justification documents. The service plans to "continue software algorithm development to enhance target identification and location" through 2013.

Successful Rotating CMC Part Demo For Future GE Fighter Engines Staged

GE has validated the temperature capabilities and durability of low-pressure turbine blades made from lightweight ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) in an F414 turbofan, opening the door for greater use of the advanced material in combat engines for sixth-generation fighters and other applications.

The blades, which were tested in the second low-pressure turbine stage, represent the first successful application of CMCs in a rotating stage. GE has spent more than $1 billion in developing the silicon carbide ceramic fiber and ceramic resin materials for engine applications which, so far, have been restricted to static parts such as shrouds, vanes and linings.

GE continues to evaluate data from the test, which was completed in November after 500 engine operating cycles, but says initial results prove the material is sufficiently robust to withstand the rotational stresses found in the turbine. The test also validated improvements made to strengthen the CMC after initial tests in 2010 revealed the original design did not meet the expected load requirements.

“One of the key challenges in transitioning CMC to rotating components from static components is the stress field they must live in. This progression of F414 testing has provided key learnings in making this transition,” says GE Military Systems Operation, Advanced Combat Engine Programs general manager, Daniel McCormick. “Today we are leading the pack in trying to push CMCs in rotating parts. It is about one-third the weight, and at the second stage doesn’t have to be air-cooled. The airfoil can therefore be more aerodynamically efficient because it does not need all that cooling air pumping up the middle of it. You also save cooling air, which makes the engine more fuel efficient.”The test were conducted in support of the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program, which will run a new core that incorporates rotating CMCs in 2016 as part of a broader technology development effort for future variable-cycle combat engines. The CMC stage in the F414 “was run at stress levels similar to what we would have to do in AETD,” says McCormick. “Running in that configuration allowed us to validate stress-wise that it would live in an AETD environment. The parts came through the test with glowing results.”

In comparing the latest test with the earlier attempt, McCormick adds, “the first F414 CMC blade test could not be claimed as a complete success, though we learned a lot. The blades ran to the expected elevated temperatures without thermal distress, but ultimately the set didn’t perform as we wanted due to load stresses that exceeded the design capability. This latest F414 CMC blade test took that learning into account, incorporated a design change to the blades that allowed them to run within the capability needed for the test. I call it the first test of CMC rotating parts that met all our performance targets.”

GE’s CMC micro-factory in Newark, Delaware, built the turbine components for the test. Each was made from “a series of layers of woven material that was impregnated and post-processed to get it in that form using hand lay-up,” says McCormick. “So where we are today is a very labor-intensive process to get the plies in the right way to withstand the stresses. A lot of what we are doing is to get that learning before we get into the field. The commercial world is moving into CMCs in 2016 [with the introduction of the CFM Leap], so the progression of technology and manufacturing maturation is going on."

In a nutshell, the point is that the Rhino is the mainstay of the US Navy and shares its mission systems with the Growler that will be the mainstay EA aircraft for all of the US Combat forces. Even when the F-35 enters service with the navy and beyond the Super Hornet would continue to stay as the main fighter both numerically and given its commonality with the Growler. What this translates to is essentially $8-12 Billion dollars worth of Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation over the next decade and a half in support of keeping the Super Hornet & Growlers relevant for the 2020's, and 2030's and even beyond in support of the Navy Aviation Plan 2030. With Hundreds of Super Hornets and Growlers likely to be in service well beyond 2030 for the USN, the sort of institutional support you will see to keep it upgraded to match the threat (which is CHINA) will be lacking on the -35 unless the RN or RuAF really changes course and buys it in huge numbers post development complete in 2017/18. Egypt surely won't be spending massive amounts of money to sustain the -35's follow on development plans.

The Super Hornet can NOW with the work already put in fly and conduct a highly integrated and multi-ship fused mission using stand-off weaponry such as the JSOW and soon JASSM (by next year if it isn't already capable since the legacy hornet is), and will soon have a nearly 70-100km ranged kittedJDAM specifically developed for it along with SDB's and SDBII's. In air to air it has the Aim-120C7, ASRAAM or block II Aim-9X now along with the full-color JHMCSII. It does all that now, and has had capability enhancements over the last 10-12 years leading up to its current iteration and state. As a package, when you look at the entire gamut of combat missions from air-air, SEAD/DEAD, Strike, CAS, ISR, it has enhanced capability available today with more to come that is already funded. The Mig-35 had been flying a demonstrator for years and won't complete its developmental program for a year or two. Then it will deliver its first aircraft to Egypt and possibly to the RuAF. There is a huge difference in maturity that cannot be overstated. As you know, these things are extremely important and take years to hammer out at the operational level and require considerable commitment of resources to follow through over 4-5 decades of a systems operational life. The Biggest thing the Rhino had going for, and will continue to have going for is the institutional support that USNAVAIR brings to the table given that the SHORNET will be the backbone of the Navy's fighting force over the next two decades.

[Cosmo_R]

.
...
If a new MMRCA is a "must", then go for 5th Gen JSF at this late point in the game. These new planes will be around for another 40-years. Might as well get the latest ware that everyone is buying. Don't buy legacy stuff and always be a step behind even though huge sums of FOREX are being expended.

I don't know (and maybe brar_w can elaborate) whether the JSF line can be ramped up as quickly in India as the F/A18 can.

What you suggest is also OK—it something the LM proposed at the beginning of the MMRCA (don't have link) around 2005/6/7: lease 180 F-16s and transition onto the JSF at a good deal price.

[Philip]

Why not lease from Russia more capable SU-34s/35s at a fraction of the cost? After all they're leasing us N-sibs! Or to go further "West",lease the bl**dy Rafales from France!

[brar_w]

I don't know (and maybe brar_w can elaborate) whether the JSF line can be ramped up as quickly in India as the F/A18 can.

Assembly, probably but you need time to hammer out details of making some of the stuff as an offset. Japan, and Israel for examples make wing-sets, not only for their own aircraft but beyond, for other customers. Those things are negotiated and given the stakeholders it will take time. The JSF negotiations would definitely be more complex especially when it comes to arriving at a middle ground when it comes to TOT, Control over mission system modernization/upgrades etc, hence I hadn't brought it up.

[Viv S]

The JSF is still an unproven bird with a long way to go before its reliability in combat can be discerned. As said many a time before,it is NOT the equiv of the FGFA and was meant to be an accessory to the Raptor,hence the many reports about its vulnerability and lack of dogfighting ability. Pure and simple it is a 5th-gen stealth fighter.

The F-35 program has clocked over 50,000 flight hours (more than the Rafale had when it formally entered the MMRCA competition) compared to < 2,000 hrs for the PAK FA, while the FGFA (i.e 'second stage' PAK FA) will start operational flying only after 2025.

Surely a few sqds of new Jaguars with upgraded engines,avionics,etc. can be manufactured at reasonable cost?

The Jaguar line was closed down years ago. It makes no sense to invest capital to revive it instead of simply expanding the Tejas production and ordering follow-on Su-30s.

More MIG-29s too apart from MKIs at $70M a pop. 29s/35s come in at half that cost. A JSF will cost not less than $100Mm closer to $125M by 2020,that'sthe earliest that the IAF could think of acquiring either the FGFA or JSF which it has rejected earlier when offered. The FGFA is a further development of the MKI from the same Sukhoi stable. It would be easier to induct and operate than any Western equiv bird.

The F-35A is currently $95M flyaway with the price expected to drop to ~$80M by 2019 when the first bulk order is placed. It will receive its "Final Operational Clearance" before the FGFA makes its first flight. The alternative is to purchase the interim variant PAK FA, a serviceability/reliability headache that the IAF isn't going to touch with a barge-pole.

[Austin]

Jaguar lines closed ? AFAIK they are still making Jags for IAF in more modern Darin 3 config and with Radar.

I second philip there , they should build 4-5 squadron of Jags with more modern Honeywell Engine , Israel AESA Radar , DARIN-3 config with full bells and whistles plus Python-5 and Derby-ER , except for the Honeywell Engine part rest is already being done AFAIK.

Atleast the modern Jags can be built faster as production line is there since 30 years and can be a substitute for 27 and 21's plus building more Tejas and MKI is right approach

[Austin]

However at the same time, although the Mig-35 is "new", most of its systems are not. Its engines, avionics, cockpit, IRST, RCS treatments, weapons are also iterations of stable designs. Where, the Mig-35 probably is further behind is the AESA radar. There is no question about that in my mind. And that is a very critical part of a fighter.

Depending what you define as new the engine is new with modern FADEC and improved thrust , Radar is new AESA , so is cockpit and IRST which now as imaging capability ...... I wont be too bothered by AESA because I think even a modern mechanical multi-mode pulse Doppler like Captor or Zhuk-ME is very capable system , so a PESA like BARS or Hybrid PESA like Irbis or a Ga/A AESA or Ga/N AESA is something the industry would always wants to push through users throat much like the CPU industry does , you can always integrate with your awacs or land based radar via data link and get things done or have a AESA based ECM/ECCM stuff.

Any ways I think even Mig-35 would be a good buy as it would have a good range of standardisation with 70 odd IAF Mig-29UPG and 45 Mig-29K that we operate , if it comes with stuff that IAF wants , cost effective buy

[NRao]

LM was supposed to include the F-35 at DefExpo2016:

Javelin missile system to F-35: What Lockheed Martin plans to showcase at the Defence Expo 2016

There is no point in building more Jags. Part of all these gyrations/dances is to introduce new techs and processes within India, which includes the private sector. More of the "old" does not help the larger picture. Granted more MKIs, -29, Jags will help fill the numbers for the IAF - and that is good. But it does not help the future of the Indian MIC nor the overall economy for the future. More Jags, MKIs, etc will only mean going back to foreign vendors down the road.

[brar_w]

I wont be too bothered by AESA because I think even a modern mechanical multi-mode pulse Doppler like Captor or Zhuk-ME is very capable system , so a PESA like BARS or Hybrid PESA like Irbis or a Ga/A AESA or Ga/N AESA is something the industry would always wants to push through users throat much like the CPU industry does , you can always integrate with your awacs or land based radar via data link and get things done or have a AESA based ECM/ECCM stuff.

AESA is critically important for a host of reasons that have been well established both during the capability development, and during thousands of hours of operational usage over system life. It isn't something fancy that has just shown up, its been available on frontline fighters for the last 15+ years and incrementally developed since then by improving capability that enables additional non-traditional functionality to augment other mission-systems in ways an MSCAN or even PESA cannot. As far as MSCAN and PESA being adequate, its entirely up to what the operator thinks is critical to it for a system that will last decades. Was an OEM allowed to compete without an AESA radar capability or roadmap demonstration for the MMRCA? With AESA radars it hasn't been the industry shoving anything down anyone's throat, but a concerted R&D effort realized after decades of investment to improve the basic elements and characteristics of what makes a good airborne radar first and foremost, and then to realize new capabilities enabled by a switch to element level digitization.

I wont be too bothered by AESA because I think even a modern mechanical multi-mode pulse Doppler like Captor or Zhuk-ME is very capable system , so a PESA like BARS or Hybrid PESA like Irbis or a Ga/A AESA or Ga/N AESA is something the industry would always wants to push through users throat much like the CPU industry does , you can always integrate with your awacs or land based radar via data link and get things done or have a AESA based ECM/ECCM stuff.

AWACS and other AEW offer surveillance functionality which is different from a fire-control radar establishing near real time SA on air to air and air to ground threats and being able to leverage its most power-supplied onboard sensor to counter them. Those aircraft, OEM's and operators that currently find themselves in situations where they are using MSCAN radar do so because they have constantly delayed investment to achieve a PESA or AESA upgrade to their primary sensor, not because there has been adequate realization of advanced capability from MSCAN radars. In the case of the Typhoon, the funding only came initially for the need to be competitive because operator after operator in competition after competition was seeking an AESA and not the radars OEM shoving AESA down their throats by not offering cheaper, more established solutions. The benefits of AESA radars, and the resultant capability enhancement has been proven both through research in the labs, and in actual operational evaluation. There is little doubt in most instances of the superiority hence every OEM that dabbles in radars has advanced development in place.

Ga/A AESA or Ga/N AESA is something the industry would always wants to push through users throat much like the CPU industry does

There is higher margin in GaA AESA, and lower risk of failure, so the industry would on the contrary resist that, just as it would have resisted the change in status quo jump from MSCAN to PESA or AESA. GaA and GaN are largely based on SWAP considerations, therefore they would continue to use and offer the lower cost and lower risk GaAs as long as there are no SWAP limitations/constraints when the offerings are developed in response to system performance requirements. No one is offering GaN despite of the SWAP trade allowing GaAs to be more than adequate or else you'd seen it since Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman had both acheived high TRL/MRL on their GaN integrated T/R modules, which does not penalize them on risk when it comes to GaAs based competitors.

[Austin]

Modern Pulse Doppler Radar are very capable be it Captor , Zhuk-ME or RDY-2 they can well scan air and ground target and scan enough of them that their wepons system of aircraft can use , Reason why IAF went for pulse doppler upgrade for M2K and Mig-29.

What they lack is the high bandwidth offered by AESA and faster scan rate , the higher range is not a major issue because these information can be provided by other assets datalinked. I think these Casegrain antenna types would still be very cost-effective for a long time to come with incremental backend upgrades , while the Industry will keep pushing all the fancy stuff that comes along.

[brar_w]

Modern Pulse Doppler Radar are very capable be it Captor , Zhuk-ME or RDY-2 they can well scan air and ground target and scan enough of them that their wepons system of aircraft can use , Reason why IAF went for pulse doppler upgrade for M2K and Mig-29

No one is arguing that they aren't very capable but the fact remains that PERSA and AESA radars have capability advantages over competing MSCAN radars hence the entire operator base around the world has either shifted to, or is in the process of shifting to AESA radars with reliance on MSCAN still being favored because of system maturity concerns with AESA's on offer. Had there been 500 AESA sets delivered for the ESCAN variant of the CAPTOR, funded by its OEM the decision would have been a no-brainer for the Eurofigher consortium members, however when you have to develop capability, things like system maturity comes into considerations and an existing, largely developed and mature system is preferred while the NG of sensors are slowly developed. Same applies to the French upgrades, that started with an antenna swap and would gradually move towards other component modernization over time (a right approach to capability enhancement given they started with a PESA that had antenna-swap in mind).

Reason why IAF went for pulse doppler upgrade for M2K and Mig-29.

Thats not a fair comparison since you would have required an equally mature, de-risked, and operationally tested AESA product. Russia's AESA production and operational usage is only now starting with the Mig-35 first aircraft, and the PAKFA. Had their own Mig-29's been flying with mature AESA"s the IN's decision would have been much different, reflecting other trends of the IAF requirements and the IAF/IN move towards developing the AESA radar for the LCA and LCA-N and seeking an AESA for the FGFA and even legacy fighters.

What they lack is the high bandwidth offered by AESA and faster scan rate , the higher range is not a major issue because these information can be provided by other assets datalinked. I think these Casegrain antenna types would still be very cost-effective for a long time to come with incremental backend upgrades , while the Industry will keep pushing all the fancy stuff that comes along.

Your reliance on 'industry' pushing something is not based on much fact. Again, could an OEM have been selected under the MMRCA without an AESA radar solution for the submission? Was that the collective industry pushing AESA's on the IAF, or the IAF demanding a capability that even a blind man can sense as fast becoming industry standard? Same was true for other operators who's job it is to write requirements for advanced sensors...requirements such as MTBF, MTBCF, LCC-logistical requirements, range, multi-role functionality, survivability and capability to grow into non-traditional radar functions. It was these requirements, that forced a massive R&D effort to develop better radars through AESA adoption not the other way around where the industry saw a cool new capability and began a marketing drive to convince everyone around the world that it was the best investment etc. AESA capability has been realized on the back of billions of dollars, and decades of R&D that predicated on the fact that Operator defined sensor-requirements would require a continuous, technology refresh to existing sensors in order to fully realize the capability that was likely to be demanded in the 21st century..These are the same trades pushing the last western fighter towards AESA adoption (Typhoon) at a much slower pace than its operators have liked due to financial considerations.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ca-360364/

[Austin]

^^ If IAF needed AESA they could have got it through the Israel route like they are doing for Jags but what was offered by the OEM was good enough and it was one of the most expensive upgrade so far specially for M2K.

Is there any operational report available which has evaluated an operation Cassegrain antenna versus AESA ?

[brar_w]

^^ If IAF needed AESA they could have got it through the Israel route like they are doing for Jags but what was offered by the OEM was good enough and it was one of the most expensive upgrade so far specially for M2K.

Again, that assumes the Israeli sensor was as mature in terms of integrated software modes and accommodative to other mission systems or even RF weapons like the MICA-RF that would have involved considerable integration, and testing unless the IAF was willing to completely switch over from the MICA. Third party drop in radars like what Israeli and US companies offers may or may not be as competitive when it comes how well they perform to OEM furnished, iteratively improved radars building on existing capability. It is significantly different form what we are talking about. Things like a dedicated radar unit designed specifically around mission system needs of a particular weapons system and iteratively improved over rate last 10 or so years post passing Operational Evaluation.

Look at the MMRCA, why was AESA demanded specifically? And would the IAF be ok if the FGFA took up a more mature PESA, or went back a few decades and chose a pulse doppler MSCAN radar?

The IAF asked for AESA on the MMRCA, all the OEMs that wished to be competitive invested a lot of time and resources on proving to the IAF that their radar offerings were mature, and capable. The entire world is moving towards AESA radars, at a pace in line with their own investments in fielding these systems at a desired level of maturity, some faster than others. The trends are well established and no one with even iota of sanity is taking the opposite approach. Any change in strategy to go ahead and choose a less capable sensor for a potential future medium fighter acquisition that as a program picks up the ashes of the MMRCA would be a 180 degree shift in sensor capability-demanded by the IAF.

Looking at it another way, dig up how many brand new clean sheet Pulse Doppler MSCAN fighter radars are being developed or asked for by some of the top Air Forces in the world (or clean sheet PESA's for that matter). You'll get your answer.

[Viv S]

Jaguar lines closed ? AFAIK they are still making Jags for IAF in more modern Darin 3 config and with Radar.

No they're not. The upgrades in question are implemented out at the Jaguar's MRO facility under HAL's Overhaul Division at Bangalore.

I second philip there , they should build 4-5 squadron of Jags with more modern Honeywell Engine , Israel AESA Radar , DARIN-3 config with full bells and whistles plus Python-5 and Derby-ER , except for the Honeywell Engine part rest is already being done AFAIK.

Atleast the modern Jags can be built faster as production line is there since 30 years and can be a substitute for 27 and 21's plus building more Tejas and MKI is right approach

The production line was closed down a decade ago.

[Karan M]

^^ If IAF needed AESA they could have got it through the Israel route like they are doing for Jags but what was offered by the OEM was good enough and it was one of the most expensive upgrade so far specially for M2K.

Is there any operational report available which has evaluated an operation Cassegrain antenna versus AESA ?

Are you speaking of the RDM? Even the French don't operate it and went to the RDI instead. The EL/M-2052 performance is unknown at this time.

[Karan M]

Modern Pulse Doppler Radar are very capable be it Captor , Zhuk-ME or RDY-2 they can well scan air and ground target and scan enough of them that their wepons system of aircraft can use , Reason why IAF went for pulse doppler upgrade for M2K and Mig-29.

NOt simultaneous modes. Jury is still out on Captor (A2G)a and Zhuk-ME (Kopyo issues). RDY-2 is proven to a degree.

What they lack is the high bandwidth offered by AESA and faster scan rate , the higher range is not a major issue because these information can be provided by other assets datalinked. I think these Casegrain antenna types would still be very cost-effective for a long time to come with incremental backend upgrades , while the Industry will keep pushing all the fancy stuff that comes along.

These are not cassegrain antenna's. These are planar arrays. This is a cassegrain antenna.
http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su ... -23-01.jpg

And the range IS a key issue for most AF to detect V/LO targets for cueing weapons onto them or even detecting them since the existing assets are not enough.
Rafale is hobbled there by its nose.

[Karan M]

Cassegrain antenna - N019, N001, RDM.
Planar mechan arrays - RDI, RDY, N010, N011, Captor, BlueFox, APG-69, APG-63v1
PESA- RBE-2, N011M
AESA-APG-63v2, RACR/SABR, APG-77/81/80, Zhuk-AE, N036 etc

[Rahul M]

IIRC jag production line moved to making hawks after delivering last batch of 20 odd IAF jags.