Likewise.indranilroy wrote:Viv, appreciate your point of view.
That was certainly my belief all along. But, if you recall Eurofighter Gmbh intended to back out from the competition before the trials as it felt the investment wasn't it worth it since the EF was at a disadvantage in the lowest bidder model. But after discussions with the IAF, the EF head honchos decided to commit as the performance is apparently factored into the equation somehow.And then coming back to my idea of buy the cheapest fighter that does the work for us. Now I do understand why IAF just had checkboxes to tick and then give the MOD the list of three which filled most tick boxes (prioritized may be). And then MoD just goes for L1.
.there is no such thing as 60% technology transfer as 90% of the technology is locked up in the brains of foreign scientists.If, however, the Eurofighter is selected, then we would be contractually bound to effect a 60% technology transfer.
Probably, but the careful sculpting involved in the Rafale (forward fuselage area especially), and the the angular looks of the Tiffy vis a vis the Rafale imvho suggest this. I feel that the French insistence upon building on their "discrete" objective is a reflection of this emphasis upon low observability (not in the full blown sense of an F22 of course, but in specific applications).Viv S wrote: I'm pretty sure the EF and SH were designed to have a low signature right from conception as well. In addition the EF carries half of its MRAAMs in semi-recessed troughs to further reduce its RCS. But, yes between the EF and Rafale, neither has a decisive edge as far as the radar cross section goes.
Because iirc it (Mica IIR) can be used at BVR ranges - a unique feature not shared by any others. A very possible scenario is targeting using feeds from others or even the ELS/Spectra or the OSF. I recall reading an old article by a British pilot in a Rafale claiming that the OSF could lock on to a Transall well beyond Mica range through clouds!??? How is more silent than say the Python-5 or Iris-T or for that matter the R-73.
First, we don't exactly know what is included in the latest deal - what is the configuration for these MKI? Secondly, regardless of the price hike, what other a/c with similar capabilities can be delivered at a similar price? Rafale? Strike Eagle?I don't quite share your optimism. The Russians doubled the price of the MKI in six years. The T-90's real cost ended up being much more than the Arjun(after refusal of ToT), to say nothing of the Gorshkov disaster.
Yes, it seems bothersome, but if it ultimately works out, a little haggling is fine. What about the French Scorpenes - troubles there too, right? Thing is - India squeezes a LOT out of the Russkis and they part with tech that others simply won't consider.The worst part isn't the price. Its the attitude towards signed agreements -
"Hey fellovs, remember the kontrakt we signed recently. Turns out we skrewed up...... so if you could just make the check out to Rosoboronexport, we vil be on our way. Oh and we may be a little late on delyveries, but vil send over some komplimentary vodka. Do svidaniya!"
I would bet on it, esp. the twin engined ones- IF it makes it past round 1 that is.Regardless, it will be the cheapest, but by how much? Enough to undercut the rest significantly (esp. considering the drop in the Euro)?
I thought the reasons were more political than anything else apart from the insistence of the French re. their requirements being given top priority.IIRC, one of the reasons for France's withdrawal from the FEFA program was the insistence of the UK on a high speed transonic optimized fighter (in the F-15 class) while the French wanted a carrier capable aircraft with good low speed handling at high AoA (in the F-18 class).
Not so. The EF2K too might take off from carriers if tinkered with, this ability does not automatically mean a2a performance is sacrificed for all versions of a given bird. The Rafale M and Rafale C are different after all. Nor does good low speed performance necessarily mean poor supersonic performance. And IIRC, the Rafale can supercruise with stores.That's why, while the ratio of dry thrust to empty weight is roughly the same for both, but only the Eurofighter has demonstrated sustained supercruise with external stores.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/filead ... e_nr_8.pdfMore significantly, it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly drop tank
Yes, although not by much. Esp. considering that the Meteor/Asraam is not a pure French alternative. But yes, they are pricey.1. Rafale's A2G munitions tend to be more expensive than American/British options.
True that. Although from a wider/broader perspective, one does not know how much this will matter. I feel that if they are going to spend this kind of $$$s, the IAF should gain some rather unique/esoteric capabilities - AASM, Mica IIR etc.2. While it'll field an AESA long before the EF, the smaller size ensures the Captor-E will outperform the RBE-2 AA.
How do we know? They offered to stick the Kaveri in there a long while back. The EF folks make a lot of noise ala the US and Saab chaps, but ground realities may be different. French make less noise, but seem to offer a lot.3. The Dassault proposal doesn't seem to offer the same level of participation as the Eurofighter Gmbh's one.
The Tiffy's price so far hasn't exactly been economy class either. None of them are. Btw, iirc a recent F-16 MLU package was equally costly, and its lines are still open.If the Mirage-2000H's $40 million each upgrade is any indication, the French bid is unlikely to be much if any bit, lower than the EFs.
What I can't understand is why, after all the RCS reduction measures used in the Rafale, did Dassault blow it by putting in an non-retractable refueling probe that can't possibly be stealthy.Cain Marko wrote:Probably, but the careful sculpting involved in the Rafale (forward fuselage area especially), and the the angular looks of the Tiffy vis a vis the Rafale imvho suggest this. I feel that the French insistence upon building on their "discrete" objective is a reflection of this emphasis upon low observability (not in the full blown sense of an F22 of course, but in specific applications).Viv S wrote: I'm pretty sure the EF and SH were designed to have a low signature right from conception as well. In addition the EF carries half of its MRAAMs in semi-recessed troughs to further reduce its RCS. But, yes between the EF and Rafale, neither has a decisive edge as far as the radar cross section goes.
CM.
Maybe the final cut will be made public after Obama's visitiparvas wrote:SH , SV are all American so prone to get sanctioned ....gRIPEN NG contains too many American stuff so US may not permit those stuff to go to IAF ...
MiG 35 is still a paper plane .. is not ready yet .. wouldnt be able to meet the requirement of IAF to produce them soon ... IAF needs the some jets in fly away condition ... so MiG35 wil not be making the final cut .
Real jets the the IAF would be logically looking at are the EF Typhoon and Rafale ...
My guess is space constraints - it seems rather tight near the nose on the Rafale. But "blow it" seems rather harsh. How much frontal RCS will that probe offer? You'll probably get more reflection/return from the tailfin head on. Definitely not pretty though.nachiket wrote:What I can't understand is why, after all the RCS reduction measures used in the Rafale, did Dassault blow it by putting in an non-retractable refueling probe that can't possibly be stealthy.
The OSF is no longer included with the RafaleCain Marko wrote:targeting using feeds from others or even the ELS/Spectra or the OSF.
The Rafale has a Flanker/Fulcrum type hooded look , well atleast they got that one thing right in there , now will they sell it as cheap as a flanker then that could be of interest.
Which idiots write this stuff?The F16IN Super Viper is a fifth generation fighter, sharing a heritage with the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22
The old OSF isn't available at any price because the components are obsolete and not made any more.Danell wrote:About the Rafale OSF, 48 have been delivered with the first batch, it's true the current batch of 59 Rafale F3 ordered in 2004 is not delivered with new OSF because of budget constraints , but it is a removable and interchangeable equipment which can be fitted on any Rafale when needed. And the next batch of 60 Rafale F3+ ordered in nov. 2009 will be delivered with the new OSF-IT.
GeorgeWelch wrote:The old OSF isn't available at any price because the components are obsolete and not made any more.Danell wrote:About the Rafale OSF, 48 have been delivered with the first batch, it's true the current batch of 59 Rafale F3 ordered in 2004 is not delivered with new OSF because of budget constraints , but it is a removable and interchangeable equipment which can be fitted on any Rafale when needed. And the next batch of 60 Rafale F3+ ordered in nov. 2009 will be delivered with the new OSF-IT.
The OSF-IT is TV only (no IR) and is 'expected' to be ready in 2012.
OSF-NG will incorporate IR at some undefined time in the future.
In the meantime, Rafale relies on the seeker heads of its MICA missiles for IR imaging, which is rather limiting.
Right, because they move around the OSFs they've already bought.Danell wrote:Currently, every Rafale used in operations (As'tan) or exercises (ATLC, Cruzex) are fitted with OSF.
Which is probably why the OSF-IT won't have IR.Danell wrote:According to Air and Cosmos and DSI magazines, there were problems with the IR but the pilots praise the OSF-TV.
Again, perhaps enough components to maintain the current units, but not manufacture new ones.Danell wrote:OSF components are obviously still available but with delays still too long . (DSI May 2010 page 103)
These are the ones without IR, correct?Danell wrote:Therefore, in June 2009, a remedial order of 49 additional OSF-it was launched.
So you're saying I was off by 6 months and it's mid 2011, not 2012.Danell wrote: They will equip the current tranche 3 Rafale from mid-2011,
So OSF-NG with IR is nowhere close, correct?Danell wrote:before the 60 roadmap tranche 4 rafale ordered in 2009 to be delivered from 2012 with RBE2 AA, DDM-NG, OSF-IT...
Expensive versus what? For what capability? Your aircraft of choice, the Gripen NG is good at making similar large claims in several competitions, only to be not selected when evaluators disregarded those costs and came up with their own estimates, and then claiming that the evaluators did not know what they were talking about (Norway) but where are the actual Gripen NGs to actually learn about the detailed lifecycle and operational costs? The Brazilians even went so far to note that they couldn't get costing for subsystems as the Swedes could not provide them, as the subsystem providers had them classified under national laws. Your claims about expense are hence without merit and akin to stating that a Honda City is expensive, whereas a Maruti 800 is not.raj ji wrote:Is this new information that the Rafale and EF are expensive? Have you read the countless previous posts, this isn't speculation it is a fact.
Oh wow, so now you trot out the last arrow in the quiver, its uneconomic to go to war argument? Is that why India is spending thousands of crores to position strategic missiles in the North east, equip new divisions and is going for a MAFI for the IAF. All that occcurred presumably because India's decision makers are so silly that they got sucked into saber rattling?As for partisan evangelizing and games, it is easy to be sucked into the sabre rattling from our neighbours, and throw money at a "potential" threat.
All while knowing that a conflict (small or large) would be very bad for business for the two fastest growing economies in the world, and both sides know it.
This is a ridiculous line of argument. SAM systems are inflexible, and remain vulnerable to stand off munitions and cruise missiles. And at the end of the day, they are not even able to take the fight to the enemy. In contrast, aircraft like the ones envisaged in the MMRCA can take the fight to the opponent while performing a multitude of roles. Google swing role.But if you really want to deal with the threat, invest $10 Billion in the best off the shelf SAM systems, you would have enough to secure all Indian airspace from all but one Air Force.
Agree to disagree on what. So far you have not made a single valid point in any respect. If you had any depth of interest in the topic, those blatant advertorials for one particular contender would not have emerged.Last post on this. Again, lets agree to disagree.
Thanks!Devesh Rawal wrote:A very sensible and rational post. You are on my respected list!Karan M wrote: Choose a top of the line system, and fight a war with the best tools
This is absolutely logical. In fact, I'd even state that we need to look at Apache, Taurus, Israeli alternatives (Popeye, Delilah) as well. In sum, the MMRCA will have to be equipped with a wide variety of long range strike munitions. In this respect as well, the fighters which already have an experience of integrating with these types, come out in front. They save on cost, and integration expense. The US is unlikely to release its munitions for integration on third party types, not the most advanced ones anyway, but MBDA and Rafael are alternatives, till India makes its own systems.Any opinion on the question I asked couple of pages ago about integration of stand-off smart bombs (AGM-154a JSOW) on the MRCA contenders? It seems to be the way to go over traditional munitions?
Its amazing that you dont see the humor in your own post. "One technology that the Typhoon and Rafale is flying right now" versus "Gripen NG wont have". In other words, the other two already have the technologies, that the Gripen claims it will have. That apart, there is also a clear difference in terms of capability and technologies. The latter feed into the former, but they are not always the latter. In other words, the Typhoon and Rafale (and Super Hornet) are heavier planes, able to range longer, strike harder with more payload. Unless the Gripen NG gets alien suppliers and not the same ones who supply better systems to the above two (eg Captor E with more TRMs for Typhoon versus ES-05 for the Gripen NG), theres not going to be much catch up. Not to mention, the critical dependence of the Gripen team on these external suppliers.Henrikl wrote: Christ, name ONE technology that the Typhoon and Rafale is flying right now that the Gripen NG won't have.
Irrelevant, as even if the LCA MKII has a longer way to go, the capabilities it will provide will be in the ballpark of the Gripen NG, why go for the Gripen then, and that too for an aircraft which is also in development as is the LCA MKII. If the Gripen team had a more capable platform, in the Typhoon and Rafale class, then it'd be worth the wait"My attitude"? I just spoke the truth didn't I? Did I step on your toes? The Tejas MkII still has a long way to go, probably a lot longer to go still then the Gripen NG has.
karan wrote:What sharing parts and where, apart from the engines. The Gripen NG is a hodge podge of systems from across the world, as far as sourcing goes and its likely to complicate logistics not simplify them, with multiple systems all having issues with multiple national laws, in case politics comes into the picture.
Absolutely, go ahead and show otherwise from a strategic and supply chain point of view. In Rafales case, India has to deal with the French armament authority and things are considerably simplified by the fact that Dassault, Thales, Safran are French owned, while MBDA has French stake. Typhoon - India has existing ties with BAe, the German Govt signed a defence coop treaty with India, MBDA is scouting for a long term partnership with India, EADS is investing in India, many of the building blocks are already in placeSo you are saying that the Typhoon or Rafale would be smarter from a logistically point of view.. jeez.
You misinterpret what a person is saying, and expect others not to note it? Should one use euphemisms or inform you upfront, that you were being inaccurate in attributing words to a source which did not say anything you claimed it to be?indranilroy wrote: Could you be a little civil in your choice of words, please.
How do you infer what plane can do a job? Did you make any detailed analysis of the same? My "scathing" remark is actually towards your claims, which are now in the form of "x" and "y"s. The V Admiral noted that he thought upgraded Su-30's and LCA (which he supports continued development of) would do the job. Clearly, he is referring to the savings in logistics costs obtained by continuing only with these two types. How does introducing a third type, whether X or Y help then? Furthermore, if your Gripen NGs and MiG-35s were sufficient then why the need for upgraded Su-30s? Are you even aware of what the current Su-30 can do, and what an upgrade would confer?Karan M wrote:I am not a spokesperson for the Gripen NG and Mig-35. I just expressed what I thought was correct. Gripen and Mig-35s are X and Ys for me. I would have said the same if they were any other fighters. And please bear in mind that I didn't say the V. Admiral was saying, go for plane X or plane Y. He said get a plane which can do the job. Is it very different from my above posts? Then why such a scathing remark!
Anyone who reads the airframe comment in context, would realize they are referring to both aircraft. Airframes is a word commonly used to refer to the aircraft itself! Or if you prefer to nitpick, I was referring to the platforms! The MiG-35 prototype can turn all the circus tricks it wants to, but as long as it does not provide a well put together system, its not worth a dime.Could you please tell me how the Mig-35 and/or the GRipen NG are under-performing airframes. And this time stick to the aerodynamics and structural studies as you specifically said airframes. I am hoping for good points from you and not generic statements again. If not would you please retract such a scathing comment on my post.
Look at the number of statements here which fly in the face of reality or dont at all meet India's requirements.indranil roy wrote:If you ask me frankly ... I wouldn't go for a top of the line fighter. I would rather have 2 fighters for the price of one. I don't think the Gripen-IN or the Mig-35 are mud movers. I have am sure many have seen the Mig-35 in the air. If you think thats not an agile plane, then I have nothing more to say. I also don't believe in the end-of-the-line argument. All fighters evolve over time. If the requirement arises the Mig-35 and the Gripen will also evolve.
Call me thrifty but are we looking for the best fighter for our AF (unlike the French/Uk/german). If we are looking for the middle of the pyramid, it should rather be as large as it can be for the amount of money we are doling out
Does one need to provide answers on a plate? Does this forum and by extension, everyone here exist to tell you what you should be determining yourself?indranilroy wrote:And instead of bickering like this provide points which say IAF needs/may need the MMRCA for so and so operations and roles.
I actually wrote what the roles were and where the EF/Rafale were superior. In fact, a few posts above, Devesh Rawal got what I was saying. But you didnt. Please read through them again.Write the objectives of the roles properly and say here's where EF/Rafale can do it and the other's can't. If they are valid points then you are perfectly right, we should buy them and their huge costs are justified!
Gee, so just before this, you were saying we should buy Gripen NGs and MiG-35s, X and Y's and now all of a sudden, you question the MRCA itself? So, for a spend of $12 B, we should buy mediocre platforms while you still struggle to convince yourself about what the role of the MRCA is. Do understand, its irrelevant as to whether you'd rather buy more Su-30s or even I or the VAdm. The decision has already been made to go for new aircraft and in that vein, since more Su-30s are NOT being acquired, is it even logical to go for an underperformer? If you still dont get it, I really cant simplify the arguement even more.I said something very similar to what the VAdm and indeed others said. Why should I buy "medium" fighters which will cost me the same to buy (actually more) and maintain as the Su-30s. The Su-30 is one of the most swing-role aircrafts in the world. I would rather buy more Su-30s then and simplify logistics, pilot training, simplify strategies, bring in more economy of scale and what not !!
This takes the cake. When I answer the relevant details about how the Gripen NG and MiG-35 are far behind the others, you say I write essays.indranilroy wrote:Karan, you expressed your point of view. I expressed mine.
When I asked you to prove that Gripen and Mig-35 is FAR behind the others, you choose to write essays but not answer to the point. You may choose the airplanes, and not airframes if you wish to. Instead of writing essays, please bring valid points to the table.
Compared to the knowledge you have displayed so far, of air warfare and all things considered, you should be the last one attempting to brazen it out. Please stick to the points, namely that both your chosen peers have severe limitations against the threat perception the Indian Air Force faces and will continue to face. Dont simplify things to mere talk of "beating the crap" and similar simplistic stuff.You think Rafale/EF would be able to go and beat the crap out of every other plane in the neighborhood, even if they come in hoards. While the others Mig-35/Gripen can't. I will say your knowledge of air warfare seems quite limited.
And you use such rhetoric about "strategy and often the man is more important", with what assumption, that the other side has no access to strategy and is not making its men important?Mere sterling equipments have never won wars, and never will. Why wasn't the Mig-21 amongst the behemoths, the biggest pain in the a$$. Strategy and often the man is equally important if not more. Having spoken to the people that I have spoken to, I would rather take two 80% of the elite rather than one elite. It's my understanding. There is nothing wrong in stating them. How does this become "ill-considered"?
Finally, so now you make an attempt to figure out whats what, instead of relying on rhetoric.And besides, I have been trying to look for the role of the fighters. If I need a Mirage-2000 role, why should I buy a EF with its superlative air skills. I would take something which is a decent A2A platform (at par with the Mig-29) and can drop truck loads of A2G. If I see an aerial threat bigger than what they can handle, I will let the su-30s/MCA/FGFA accompany them! Where am I missing the point? All I am saying is that if we need a Jaguar, buy 2 Jaguars instead of 1 Su-30. Stick to the roles! Anything wrong with that?
You mean no longer on the current Rafale; the NG version should do the needful. In any case, I was not refering to the thermal imager (IR); it was the TV imaging that is seriously amazing - the Transall example I cited refered to the OSF-TV providing a crystal clear image of the bird's propellers at a distance beyond the Mica's ability to engage (well beyond BVR), and through clouds. I guess with such a solid ability they may actually find the damocles/MIca IR enough - in WVR scenarios at least.GeorgeWelch wrote:The OSF is no longer included with the RafaleCain Marko wrote:targeting using feeds from others or even the ELS/Spectra or the OSF.
Yes, they seemed to have steered towards the russki designs in terms of the LERX, however, the a/c is quite impressive in other ways as well, and brings some unique abilties to the table. Without doubt its prowess as a striker is unmatched in that it weighs a mere 9500kg (less than the single engined F-16 blk 60), but can carry a payload of 9.5 tonnes, a good 1.5 tons more than the nearest competition - the Shornet.Austin wrote:The Rafale has a Flanker/Fulcrum type hooded look , well atleast they got that one thing right in there , now will they sell it as cheap as a flanker then that could be of interest.
