MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Dec 2010 22:32

indranilroy wrote:Kanson here is the promo video that Karan M and I were discussing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWG2PkwKiaQ

they clearly specify the 360 degree FOV

Karan and I were also discussing the rearward launch of missiles that Russians were thinking of.

how is it supposed to have 360 degree FOV ? can anyone explain to this confused soul ?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 02 Dec 2010 22:35

CM I think I just shot my self in the foot. What I meant to say was "tried & tested" with the current inventory in the IAF. Rafale isn't part of that, so it seems that they would not want to go that route, but there was an ariticle on defenseindustrydaily about France testing a Nukeclear missile of Mirage or Rafale. Can't access the link right now as it is blocked but if it is Mirage that is possibly what the IAF could want. Again this is all just a speculation on my part, and as you rightly stated let's wait and watch how this turns out for the IAF & France.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 02 Dec 2010 22:43

Wont it be better to have one of the existing aircraft to be part of SFC? I mean if say we specifically purchase rafale for SFC, secrecy cannot be maintained as compared to say additional 40 MKI for SFC..

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Dec 2010 22:44

wont the Mirage 2000N's be available if Adel'A is introducing Rafale in the N-Strike role?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 03 Dec 2010 10:03

Man, internal weapons carriage and JSF like ( upgrade available) cockpit in the SH. I may have to give up my love affair with the Rafale.

Oh, yeah CFTs too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Dec 2010 11:25

the F-18mki above and the F-15SE for usaf will no doubt remain the best bomb trucks with superb sensor / ew pkg and widest variety of munitions until well after the JSF enters service. reduced RCS is icing on black forest cake.

question is can we afford a sluggish bomb truck onlee for MRCA ? we do not have F22 to clear the way and sweep things out of the sky! neither we have the network and variety of munitions to make it as effective as in usaf.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 03 Dec 2010 11:59

Let me attempt to explain the 360 degree FOV.
1. this is total marketing speak.

2. This is basically the concept of lock on after launch where the missile can do a 180 turn after launch.

3. The way it works is that the target is acquired by the helmet mounted sight (or radar in some cases) and the position and velocity vector data is given to the missile. The missile is then launched on a inertial navigation mode and if the target interception vector is supposed to be 180 degree behind the current vector (based on time since acquisition and target vector) then it will turn and then try to lock on to the target using the infra red seeker.

4. if the missile can lock onto the target (if it is in the estimated 3D space) when it turns then it will be able to acquire the target and possibly destroy it.

I hope that this is understandable and succinct.

just my 2 cents...

Rahul M wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Kanson here is the promo video that Karan M and I were discussing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWG2PkwKiaQ

they clearly specify the 360 degree FOV

Karan and I were also discussing the rearward launch of missiles that Russians were thinking of.
how is it supposed to have 360 degree FOV ? can anyone explain to this confused soul ?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 Dec 2010 16:42

Sarkozy Seeks Weapons, Nuclear-Reactor Sales on India Trip
Bloomberg

French arms purchases “are something that India is very open to because there is a strong desire that we should not put all of our eggs into one basket,” said Nivedita Das Kundu, a research fellow on Indian foreign relations at the government- backed Indian Council of World Affairs in New Delhi.

Sarkozy will seek to advance talks on an Indian Air Force tender from 2007 to buy 126 warplanes worth $11 billion, the world’s biggest fighter-jet purchase in 15 years. Paris-based Dassault Aviation SA, with its Rafale, is competing with Chicago-based Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., Stockholm-based Saab AB, European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co., which has headquarters in Paris and Munich, and Moscow-based OAO United Aircraft Corp.

“The Rafale has minimum chances because India is looking for jets that have already been exported,” Siemon Wezeman, a senior fellow at SIPRI, said in an interview.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 03 Dec 2010 18:40

question is can we afford a sluggish bomb truck onlee for MRCA ? we do not have F22 to clear the way and sweep things out of the sky! neither we have the network and variety of munitions to make it as effective as in usaf.

GD boss, I was initially dead set against the SH (for political and performance issues) and whole hog for the Rafale with the EF as my second choice. But slowly I have changed my mind. The Rafale has engine and radar issues which will unfortunately cost us an arm and a leg for economies of scale reasons. Any mid life upgrades will also be prohibitively expensive looking at the near rape we are undergoing for the M2k upgrades.

The EF is will cost nearly as much as the the PAK-FA/ FGFA w/o stealth as well as A2G issues. Throw in F414 as choice for LCA engine, the most mature AESA and likely cheapest upgrades given Umrikhan Navy support of the SH platform and the deal looks better and better. Also recent removal of ALL DRDO and ISRO labs off the entities list and I think we are getting an offer we literally can't refuse.

With pseudo-stealth, top shelf avionics and AMRAAM power and uber A2G weaponry I have accepted the SH for better or worse as the MMRCA winner. As India's economy and technologic independence both grow possible sanctioning by the Khans grows more an more remote day by day.

Cheers.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 03 Dec 2010 18:45

I wished instead of upgrading Mirages IAF should have swamped them for Rafael with additional purchase of 39 fighters for making 5 sq of 18 fighters.

while through MRCA project IAF could have gone for 126 EF's

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 03 Dec 2010 18:47

Viv S wrote:Well saying that the EF will NOT have air to ground missiles integrated is speculation as well.

That's why I never said something like that and presented facts instead:

1. The actual EF is clearly less capable than the actual Rafale in terms of upgrade level, integration of weapons and multi role capability!

2. We can't say how capable EF T3A really will be for India, as long the partners did not officially cleared what the upgrade will include!

Tornado replacement - You actually point out the right things, but don't get to the right conclusions.
Yes UK and Italy will retire more of them by 2014/15, but which fighter is planed for induction at this timeframe too? The F35
Which EF partners are also hi level F35 partners? UK and Italy
Will the F35 be more capable to replace Tornados in the A2G role? No doubt
Will most of the A2G weapons that could be integrated into EF, available through F35 anyway? Yes

That leaves only Germany with a real need to put EFs in the A2G role, but just like you said they have nearly the whole decade time to do it and can delay those things to T3B. Not to mention that they will never go for a real war where they would use Taurus anyway. They even pulled their Tornados out of Afghanistan, because they were cleared from the German gov only for recon missions and that's what UAVs today can do even better and more cost-effective. Also just look at the tech level of their actual EFs and you will understand how imporant fully capable EFs are for them (the least Pretorian features, no IRST, hardly dropping LGBs now, not even Hope & Hosbo will be integrated, Arminger ARM developent AFAIK stopped for cost reasons).

As you can see, there is no operational need for the former Tornado customers, to gear up EF for the A2G role now, the EF partners initially planed with T3 upgrades way later, they agreed to it only for export reasons, but that doesn't mean they will fund full upgrades from the begining. It is more likely that they will fund the minimum upgrades needed for export competitions, like AESA radar, METEOR missile, but will delay other things to T3B later.
Here is a good article that talks about the split to T3A and B:

...None of the improvements and advanced features that were expected to be introduced with the Tranche 3 standard, and which the Eurofighter desperately needs in order to both adapt itself to the evolving operational scenarios and remain competitive on the export market, will actually be implemented.

There will be no AESA radar, no conformal fuel tanks, no TVC nozzles, no integration of weapons such as Meteor, Storm Shadow or Taurus – NOTHING. The aircraft will be fitted with electrical systems and interfaces to allow for the possible future integration of new weapons and electronic systems through retrofit programmes, but this is projected into a vague future.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/369/

Not to mention the aviationweek report from Farnborough that I showed you earlier, which stated AESA by 2015 only with A2A modes, while A2G modes and weapons have to be integrated later (T3B?)!

But there are even more reason for doubts, the EF partners were deeply hit by the finance and economy crisis and had to cut their defense budgets (for Briten even axed like you said), Italy don't even wanted to fund the AESA development because of costs reasons. They all reduced the initial orders and try to sell those, that are still on order to other countries, because that is the only way to get rid of their initial orders without paying penalities. In this situation, all their former intentions, or plans doesn't mean anything, what we needs are facts and the partners still hesitate to show them!
It's not only about the integration of some more weapons and capabilities, but also tells us about what future potential the partners itself sees for the EF. That's actually the reason why they need us join there consortium, to have a new partner that would fund more things now and in future, simply because they can't anymore, or have other commitments too.
Once again, it is and advantage for us to join such an project as a partner, especially for our industry, but we have to see the other sides unbiased too!

Commonality - Besides that you start to construct points for the EF, by down talk the commonality between M2K and Raffale, you didn't seem to get the point of the commonality advantage. The high commonality between Rafale and M2K (that was the base for Rafales development anyway), will give IAF big advantages of dual use of weapons and spares of both fighters. Only because you claim Scalp, AASM, Damocles and MAWS are not part of the upgrade deal (that still is under negotiation only) doesn't mean that M2K-5s can't use them right? Any part that is integrated into other IAF fighters means commonality and a big advantage for our forces in regard of reduced costs, ease of logistics and maintenance and also training of pilots and ground crews (a point that I missed last time).
It will be way easier for them to handle the same weapons and systems, that they are used to work with M2K-5, than add totally different once with EF again. Even IAF Chif Naik said that we have too many different types of fighters and if it would be possible, he would like to have 1 type only!
EF would mean exactly the opposite, because it is really useful only for A2A, offers nearly no commonality and will increase logistics, maintenance and training only!

Regarding IFF:
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/PressR ... x?id=12356

http://www.indian-military.org/news-arc ... grade.html

Viv S wrote:Like I pointed out to Danell as well -
1. this cost is inclusive of R&D.
2. its for an aircraft entering service in 2013 or later possibly equipped with an AESA and the Meteor

Think about it logically please! The EF partners paid for R&D during the development stage, why should they pay for the same now again? Doesn't make sense right? R&D costs will be added to new export orders only, be it EF, or Rafale, or any other MMRCA. If we get a partner status on EF, we should get the same fly away price without R&D costs for T3 too, but that makes the EF still to the most expensive fighter in the competition!

The second point is also the same for both, because it includes the order of 60 Rafale F3+ with AESA, METEOR...planed for delivery from 2012 onwards! That means the price that is given, is also the price for the latest Rafale standard on order!

You got very reliable sources, for the same standards and for the developing countries, which should leave no doubt anymore, unless you don't want to believe it!

The rest is speculation again, I mean please Jaguars for the nuclear role? One of the oldest and the least capable fighters of those that we will have in the next decade in such an important role and because China has a good air defense IAF will not even try to fight it? These kind of speculations will lead nowhere, so no need to further comment on it, all I'm talking about are the differences that EF and Rafale would give to Indian forces. You might believe, or wish that EF would be better for us, but the facts speaks clearly in favour of Rafale. That doesn't mean the EF isn't a good fighter in general, only that it don't suits our forces as good as the Rafale would!

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 03 Dec 2010 19:19

Cain Marko wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote:Mirage upgrade deal may not be ready during Sarkozy's Visit
Hmm? Need for 40 SFC fighters = Rafale quick purchase? OR are the French going to get the 126?

Otherwise the delay is rather ridiculous - they have been working on this rather small deal for almost half a decade now!

CM

You have to keep in mind from which point of view you look at it!
For IAF/MoD it would be not a good idea to talk openly about a possible Rafale in nuclear role, before MMRCA is decided, because it will reduce the chances to bargain. Also if they really want only a proven IAF fighter for this role the M2Ks are the best options as a stop gap till FGFA, AMCA, AURA, or whatever stealth aircraft we will have by 2025, to take over that role. That's could be one reason why IAF wants a big overhaul of the M2Ks, although it was reported that Dassault offered a lower price, without some new things that wouldn't be neccesary for a simple life extention.

From Dassaults point of view instead, the upgrade of IAF M2Ks will not benefit them too much, $2 billions of course are a good ammount of money, but they will offer new Rafales, or even UAEs M2K-9s instead!
Both would be way better for them, because an early order of new Rafales in this role, would increase the chances in MMRCA too. If we take the M2K-9s instead, they could clear the order of 60 Rafales for UAE again, including fundings for further upgrades. So it should be clear that they will try anything to convince us to get at least the UAE M2Ks, instead of an simple upgrade.

tejas wrote: With pseudo-stealth, avionics and AMRAAM power and uber A2G weaponry I have accepted the SH for better or worse as the MMRCA winner. As India's economy and technologic independence both grow possible sanctioning by the Khans grows more an more remote day by day.

Cheers.

I would request to look at the Boeing upgrade proposal once again and compare it with the Rafale F3+ that is offered for us, because it isn't as stealthy as it seems (SR missiles still on the wingtips, weapon pod stealthy shaped, but still on an external pylon) and not like F15 SE, or even a real stealth fighter!
Moreover most of the upgrades are needed to make the Super Hornet more comparable to Eurocanards again, especially the Rafale!

They already offer:

- modern cockpit layouts
- integrated IRST
- good T/W ratios
- long range
- Rafale has spherical MAWS, Gripen and EF might get them too

So this upgrade proposal isn't a real game changer for the F18 and it has to be funded and ordered first anyway.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 03 Dec 2010 21:27

Sancho, sir, I cannot disagree with anything you have written and I greatly admire the Rafale. But the SH upgrades will almost certainly be done to maintain the competitiveness of this fighter on the export market and we are looking at a price difference of anywhere between 30-50% btw Rafale and the SH.

I am by no means salivating over the SH but I believe the political pressure as well as carrots offered by Umrikah-- freer access to high tech imports for DRDO and ISRO, allowing ISRO to launch US satellites, membership in NSG and MTCR etc for India-- will make the SH impossible to refuse for MMS and co.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Dec 2010 21:29

tejas - you have explained exactly why this is a bad idea in one word:

"allow"

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 03 Dec 2010 21:32

Lalmohan garu, unfortunately this is Umrikah's world. We just live on it.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Dec 2010 21:32

tejas
aint gots to be that way dude...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2010 21:45

If Sarkozy is intelligent and long term game planner, he would have made a wish to join the pak-fa program with equal technology partnership and investment. That would have ensured all Rafale technology going in to pak-fa as well, and I am sure Russia and India will welcome Sarkozy on this.

French eh!.. they don't do it that way. Look what happened to their EF2K interests. I don't think they have changed a large bit from being adamant and arrogant to the extent would want to advise IAF how many Rafales it must take on their terms.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 03 Dec 2010 21:49

Lalmohan, we are just not there yet. 10 more years at 10% growth and fully functional SSBNs with intercontinental SLBMs tipped with proven TN warheads ( most likely via an Inertial confinement fusion test facility) and we will be.

Cheers, boss.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 04 Dec 2010 08:49

Much as I love the Gripen, I think this should drive the last nail into its coffin....Uncle Sam will not allow it to happen, all the pre decision reassurances notwithstanding........

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... orway.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Dec 2010 19:22

The intention for me to post against French Rafale in this thread about Sarkozy is this-
{MRCA is a political decision as many view}

Sarkozy wrote: Pakistan has traditionally been a good client of France for arms purchases. You know that the Indian perception is that any sophisticated arms or equipment acquired by Pakistan is meant for use against India rather than the terrorists. Is Pakistan still a potential buyer?

…I don't want any misunderstanding here: Pakistan's priority is to combat the terrorism which takes its toll on the people of Pakistan on a daily basis. This is what is behind the cooperation between France and Pakistan in the area of security equipment.

We have to be consistent. We cannot tell Pakistan “you must fight against terrorism at home” without helping it to strengthen the security capability it needs to do so. It's in this spirit and with this requirement in mind that we are helping Pakistan.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/04/stories ... 810900.htm

Essentially, France will not budge from the real decision making on the politics as well. India having a say on its surrounding is not liked by sarkozy. Dodging the question in supporting pakistan is a death for Rafale for India, imho if you consider the decision to be made by babus.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 04 Dec 2010 22:58

It will be EADS as they have provided the best offer in terms of tech transfer, partnership, positive spin-offs in other projects (LCA for example)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Dec 2010 02:41

koti wrote:The range necessarily does not mean a deep strike in the Chinese territory.
The strike AC would be required to take highly curved paths even to strike relatively forward tactical assets so as to avoid SAM hot spots. This capability should be coupled with a decent payload capability ofcourse.
Please note that the MKI's true multi-role capability arises in part from the fact that it can carry immense fuel load.

Without the range for heavy strike roles, the MMRCA cannot be considered M-Multirole-CA.

Any mission within 500km of the border can be performed quite comfortably by the Eurofighter. And its because of the MKI's range and payload, that the Rafale will be secondary option in range critical missions.

Opting for 40 Jaguars for SFC will be very funny I agree.
But what the deep strike capable AC like Su-34, Rafale will be able to do is to free up the currently used IAF assets dedicated to this role.

I could have understood an aircraft like say... the Tejas MkII being dedicated to a nuclear strike role to free up Rafales, but dedicating the Rafale to free up.... Jaguars, Mirages and maybe the MKI?

Lets have a example case study here:Agni III has a range of 3000KM. An armed SU-34 also has a range of 3000KM(say).
Now imagine the enemy's first strike morale when he has 40 Agni III's(in form of Su's) capable to be deployed along all the airbases (forward) in few hours time. Added to that, these can also be deployed in other countries(who knows) airbases. These will not be as easily detected(like a ballistic missile).
These will be able to better handle enemy Naval battle groups then any BM.

In short, a capable supersonic bomber cannot be complemented by BM's.

How is a Su-34 less detectable than a ballistic missile? On the ground, the missile can be anywhere, in a secret underground silo or an apparently abandoned railway wagon, or even in a nuclear submarine out on a deterrence patrol, while the Su-34 will be on the large but limited number airbases around the country. In the air, the Su-34 will go through hundreds of kms of hostile airspace bristling with SAMs and enemy J-10s and Flankers (and fifth gen. J-xxs in the future), while a ballistic missile can only realistically be intercepted in the boost phase or as is more likely, in the terminal stage. If they DO have a S-400 class system that can intercept an IRBM, I wouldn't put my money on a Sukhoi or Rafale getting through that SAM net either.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Dec 2010 03:13

vcsekhar wrote:Let me attempt to explain the 360 degree FOV.
1. this is total marketing speak.

2. This is basically the concept of lock on after launch where the missile can do a 180 turn after launch.

3. The way it works is that the target is acquired by the helmet mounted sight (or radar in some cases) and the position and velocity vector data is given to the missile. The missile is then launched on a inertial navigation mode and if the target interception vector is supposed to be 180 degree behind the current vector (based on time since acquisition and target vector) then it will turn and then try to lock on to the target using the infra red seeker.

4. if the missile can lock onto the target (if it is in the estimated 3D space) when it turns then it will be able to acquire the target and possibly destroy it.

I hope that this is understandable and succinct.

just my 2 cents...

Rahul M wrote: how is it supposed to have 360 degree FOV ? can anyone explain to this confused soul ?

thanks you for the effort.
if it is a basic 360 turn by the missile based on target info from launching aircraft then I believe the R-73 has this too. as should all modern CCMs.
the way the video was projected I felt as if the missile could detect all around it which was surprising.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Dec 2010 03:14

Philip wrote:Viv,latest news from AWST about the JSF is that aaprtf rom delays in development,it is becoming frighteningly expensive,Congressional current estimates at $133m apiece when in production! Now that is about a min. of 50m+ cheaper than a Raptor,$180-200m,but simply unaffordable to India both for the IAF or IN.Even an LCA-N,MK-2,with enhanced stealth features would come in at not more than $40-50m (double current cost) and that of a MIG-29K or upgraded to naval MIG-35 std. would be at least half the price of a JSF.It is probably why the IN has decided to invest in devlopment of the AMCA,if conceptualised as a stealth twin-engined version of the LCA,should also come in at not more than half the cost of a JSF.

I believe that $133 million includes the substantial development cost. The equivalent value of a Raptor would be in the $300 million range. The IN's advantage (or perhaps disadvantage) is that unlike the IAF, its limitation is parking space not aircraft. It will be able to field maybe 40 fighters plus AEW&C aircraft and helicopters on the IAC-2, unlike the IAF which needs to replace 126 MiG-21s, 100 Mig-27 and maybe two squadron's worth of Jaguars.

Given the limited number of aircraft at its disposal (a battle-group will usually have just one AC) and the fact that land based support may not always be available, the naval aircraft need to maintain as big a qualitative advantage over their adversaries as is possible.

A navalised AMCA is a long long way off. If you ask me, a naval PAK-FA is still another 15 years away and that's likely to enter RuN/IN service before the IAF receives its AMCAs.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 05 Dec 2010 05:52

^^^ add on to the point that SaiK made earlier..

Is There An MMRCA Warning Bell In How The Americans Screwed The Gripen For Norway?
Livefist

If you wanted a chunky glimpse of the cold political stuff that everyone knows goes down in a fighter competition in which the Americans have a horse, a clutch of the recent Wikileaks cables provide just that. It's simple (if you missed it): according to these cables (between the US Embassy in Oslo and the State Dept), the Americans denied the release of a US-built AESA radar for the Gripen-NG being pitched for a Norwegian requirement two years ago, while simultaneously bringing to bear political pressure ("high-level Washington advocacy") on the Norwegian government to choose the F-35 instead.

The cables provide the starkest view of how the threat of future political/diplomatic relations are very unsubtly yoked to weapon contracts. It's common knowledge that this is the way it happens, but here it is, in black and white. One cable ends, a touch frazzled, with, "Other advocacy efforts would contribute to helping [Norway] recognize the seriousness of their decision and resist the temptation of making a short-term expedient choice, but damaging long-term interests."

This is two years ago. Shortly after, Saab decided to call off all discussions with the Americans, French and Israelis (IAI was reportedly pressured by Washington to pull out of talks) and go in for the Selex Galileo RAVEN AESA, currently under development testing, and part of the configuration on offer to the Indian Air Force in the MMRCA competition.

You can pretty much bet that Tim Roemer has cables going out asking for the same sort of thing (including high level visits to impress the point) ahead of an Indian decision on the $12-billion contract next year, but there is at least one very serious question: Do the Americans still have leverage over the Gripen NG/IN, considering that the airplane's engine (F414G), avionics suite, head-up/down displays, environmental control system, air data computer, life support system, pressure regulator, shutoff valves and radar altimeter are American built? Worth thinking about, notwithstanding the fact that Saab (like the other five contenders where applicable) was made to submit a government-endorsed guarantee that all subsystems on the aircraft were export-cleared if not from the country of the principal integrator's origin.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Dec 2010 06:05

Sancho wrote:
Viv S wrote:Well saying that the EF will NOT have air to ground missiles integrated is speculation as well.
That's why I never said something like that and presented facts instead:

1. The actual EF is clearly less capable than the actual Rafale in terms of upgrade level, integration of weapons and multi role capability!

2. We can't say how capable EF T3A really will be for India, as long the partners did not officially cleared what the upgrade will include!

1. If by actual you mean current, then yes only a limited number of EFs are multi-role making the vast majority 'less capable'.

2. Unless I'm mistaken the AESA and Meteor have been cleared for integration on the Tranche 3. The question of Storm Shadow or Brimstone integration is not dealt within the Tranche 3.

Now three questions here - you've claimed that since the Storm Shadow has not been integrated the EF is NOT truly multi-role and can only perform CAS. AFAIK no aircraft in the IAF inventory is equipped with a cruise missile for ground strike (Jags have the Harpoon though).

i) Can we therefore assume no IAF aircraft is truly multi-role?
ii) Why would the IAF want to induct the Storm Shadow when its already due to get the Nirbhay for general missions and Brahmos to hit highly protected targets?
iii) How expensive would an IAF request to integrate say ... the JDAM-ER be? Or to deliver the AESA in 2014 instead of 2015, in case its actually worried about it. I'm trying to understand how insurmountable these problems really are.

Tornado replacement - You actually point out the right things, but don't get to the right conclusions.
Yes UK and Italy will retire more of them by 2014/15, but which fighter is planed for induction at this timeframe too? The F35
Which EF partners are also hi level F35 partners? UK and Italy
Will the F35 be more capable to replace Tornados in the A2G role? No doubt
Will most of the A2G weapons that could be integrated into EF, available through F35 anyway? Yes

ONLY the Italian Air Force is getting the F-35. The RAF, Luftwaffe and EdA will operate just the Typhoon.

That leaves only Germany with a real need to put EFs in the A2G role, but just like you said they have nearly the whole decade time to do it and can delay those things to T3B. Not to mention that they will never go for a real war where they would use Taurus anyway. They even pulled their Tornados out of Afghanistan, because they were cleared from the German gov only for recon missions and that's what UAVs today can do even better and more cost-effective. Also just look at the tech level of their actual EFs and you will understand how imporant fully capable EFs are for them (the least Pretorian features, no IRST, hardly dropping LGBs now, not even Hope & Hosbo will be integrated, Arminger ARM developent AFAIK stopped for cost reasons).

That's the point isn't it. Have you read that the Luftwaffe is looking to shift integration of the Storm Shadow and Brimstone to the Tranche 3B or are you assuming it?

...None of the improvements and advanced features that were expected to be introduced with the Tranche 3 standard, and which the Eurofighter desperately needs in order to both adapt itself to the evolving operational scenarios and remain competitive on the export market, will actually be implemented.

There will be no AESA radar, no conformal fuel tanks, no TVC nozzles, no integration of weapons such as Meteor, Storm Shadow or Taurus – NOTHING. The aircraft will be fitted with electrical systems and interfaces to allow for the possible future integration of new weapons and electronic systems through retrofit programmes, but this is projected into a vague future.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/369/

Not to mention the aviationweek report from Farnborough that I showed you earlier, which stated AESA by 2015 only with A2A modes, while A2G modes and weapons have to be integrated later (T3B?)!

Huh? He states that an AESA is NOT to be integrated and then you follow that up by saying that it will be done by 2015.

Also the Meteor integration trials for the EF began in 2003. And the integration of the AESA too has been sanctioned and more importantly its a part of the EF's MMRCA bid. The integration of the Brimstone/Storm Shadow/Taurus have been decoupled from the Tranche/Block system allowing the countries to integrate their own weapons individually instead of collectively. The software upgrades enabling them to be used were implemented with the block 8 Tranche 2. Flight trials still need to be performed.

But there are even more reason for doubts, the EF partners were deeply hit by the finance and economy crisis and had to cut their defense budgets (for Briten even axed like you said), Italy don't even wanted to fund the AESA development because of costs reasons. They all reduced the initial orders and try to sell those, that are still on order to other countries, because that is the only way to get rid of their initial orders without paying penalities. In this situation, all their former intentions, or plans doesn't mean anything, what we needs are facts and the partners still hesitate to show them!
It's not only about the integration of some more weapons and capabilities, but also tells us about what future potential the partners itself sees for the EF. That's actually the reason why they need us join there consortium, to have a new partner that would fund more things now and in future, simply because they can't anymore, or have other commitments too.
Once again, it is and advantage for us to join such an project as a partner, especially for our industry, but we have to see the other sides unbiased too!

You do realise that France hasn't weathered the economic crisis much better than the UK, and its economic revival is no where as robust as Germany's (who's posted the best growth rates among the major developed economies). While while they aren't very eager to purchase new aircraft, the RAF and Luftwaffe are both committed to upgrade plans.

Italy and Spain though have been the more reluctant participants among the partners. But, the IAF's opinion and India's investment will be more than sufficient to ensure the IAF (and RAF) get kind of upgrades they need.

Commonality - Besides that you start to construct points for the EF, by down talk the commonality between M2K and Raffale, you didn't seem to get the point of the commonality advantage. The high commonality between Rafale and M2K (that was the base for Rafales development anyway), will give IAF big advantages of dual use of weapons and spares of both fighters. Only because you claim Scalp, AASM, Damocles and MAWS are not part of the upgrade deal (that still is under negotiation only) doesn't mean that M2K-5s can't use them right? Any part that is integrated into other IAF fighters means commonality and a big advantage for our forces in regard of reduced costs, ease of logistics and maintenance and also training of pilots and ground crews (a point that I missed last time).
It will be way easier for them to handle the same weapons and systems, that they are used to work with M2K-5, than add totally different once with EF again. Even IAF Chif Naik said that we have too many different types of fighters and if it would be possible, he would like to have 1 type only!
EF would mean exactly the opposite, because it is really useful only for A2A, offers nearly no commonality and will increase logistics, maintenance and training only!

Unless they've been configured to employ the Scalp or Damocles, they cannot use them. AFAIK upgrade negotiations don't include them or MAWS/AASM - it deals mainly with some EW equipment, radar and cockpit upgrades, and the integration of the MICA. And seeing as they're already using the Litening pod and Paveway (no reason for the IAF to alter that), ironically they've got a fair bit of commonality with the Eurofighter as well.

But, here's very worrying possibility - the Mirage-2000 upgrade could be cancelled altogether.

High cost of Indian Mirage 2000 fighter upgrade causing a rethink

<snip>cost of upgrading the 51 fighters is working out to an average of Euro 45 million per piece</snip>

If the upgrade deal DOES go south, the Eurofighter would have greater commonality with the Mirage-2000 than the Rafale

. The Israelis have reportedly offered a much cheaper solution, in which case the Litening/Paveway will definitely be there to stay, along with hopefully a customised EL/M-2052 AESA radar.

Think about it logically please! The EF partners paid for R&D during the development stage, why should they pay for the same now again? Doesn't make sense right? R&D costs will be added to new export orders only, be it EF, or Rafale, or any other MMRCA. If we get a partner status on EF, we should get the same fly away price without R&D costs for T3 too, but that makes the EF still to the most expensive fighter in the competition!

The second point is also the same for both, because it includes the order of 60 Rafale F3+ with AESA, METEOR...planed for delivery from 2012 onwards! That means the price that is given, is also the price for the latest Rafale standard on order!

You got very reliable sources, for the same standards and for the developing countries, which should leave no doubt anymore, unless you don't want to believe it!

You're right about the Rafale being delivered in 2012 (interestingly with another 54 aircraft unordered, it puts the delivery schedule at par with the EF). The Tranche 3 order will include all the R&D costs for all upgrades including the AESA.

In case as you say the R&D cost WILL be passed onto the export customer, we might as well include the entire project cost (since the T3/F3 are based on the T1/F1, on which money has already been sunk).

Eurofigher: €80 billion - 560 aircraft (60 more options)
Rafale: €40 billion - 180 aircraft(54 more options)

The EF wins by a mile. Of course this doesn't really have a bearing because India's order will has its own set of requirements with offsets, ToT and local manufacturing.

The rest is speculation again, I mean please Jaguars for the nuclear role?

The idea of ANY aircraft (Jaguar, MKI, Rafale or Eurofighter) performing a toss-bombing deep in enemy territory is ... to be polite improbable. Against a far away static target, a ballistic missile is always the first option.

An aircraft on the other hand, is useful for a tactical strike against a dynamic target... say a Pakistani armoured spearhead, possibly in retaliation to a similar Pakistani strike on an Indian formation. The Jaguar can perform that role adequately as can the MKI and Tejas. Also, the Rafale doesn't have any advantage over the EF at such a mission.

One of the oldest and the least capable fighters of those that we will have in the next decade in such an important role and because China has a good air defense IAF will not even try to fight it?

Like I said before. Agni, Prithvi, Brahmos, Nirbhay. No one is saying the IAF will sit back and do nothing. Its just that the MMRCA will not be its first (or second or third) option for a nuclear strike, deep in enemy territory.

These kind of speculations will lead nowhere, so no need to further comment on it, all I'm talking about are the differences that EF and Rafale would give to Indian forces.

I haven't heard about the Rafale pitch that has an aircraft configured for a nuclear role. Nor is the ASMP-A available for export.

You might believe, or wish that EF would be better for us, but the facts speaks clearly in favour of Rafale. That doesn't mean the EF isn't a good fighter in general, only that it don't suits our forces as good as the Rafale would!

Well we'd have to agree to disagree. But, would you dispute the fact that when the MoD/IAF eventually approach the French for a Rafale MLU - the French will have them over a barrel and extract every last Euro that they possibly can. Something that India's participation in the EF consortium will mitigate.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 05 Dec 2010 07:34

M2K upgrade at such a high price is waste of money. If Israelis have cheaper solution, then it is a better idea.

For Navy requirement, India should go for Rafale integrated with Kaveri, this can be used for the strategic command as well. 40-50 that France is offering on the fast track basis.

For MRCA, I would like to Advance version SH. SH is most battle hardened fighter in the competition with largest number produced meaning most issues are ironed out.

Tejas Mk II would be similar in capacity to upgraded M2K, I think.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2010 07:45

^^shukla's link above..

what is parasun f@rting on apg-79s for tejas mk2?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2010 07:49

Brimstone is a very useful weapon albeit a anglofied hellfire. far more useful in a day to day use than a $10 mil storm shadow/scalp type weapon. we should buy it along with whatever MRCA we decide on.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2010 08:13

Wasn't Nag planned to have a10km operational ranged air launched variant for tactical ops for jags? Now, I guess it should more suitable for LCA as well. We should be able to bunch 4 of them into one pylon. Not sure if that would be mmw seeker. Quite equivalent I guess to Brimstone. Now, we should also seek for integrating home grown missile systems like Astra and Nag and perhaps brahmos (needed?) into MMRCA.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Dec 2010 09:50

Singha wrote:Brimstone is a very useful weapon albeit a anglofied hellfire. far more useful in a day to day use than a $10 mil storm shadow/scalp type weapon. we should buy it along with whatever MRCA we decide on.

It's not $10 million for Storm Shadown/Scalp. According to Wiki, its cost is €800,000 per unit (or around $1.3 million USD).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2010 09:58

hmm...but still it would be cheaper to use nag-ER/brimstone for routine targets like bunkers, tanks, APCs ...cost would like be around $50k each. we cannot use it to target lone gunmen like the RAF did below, but salvos of such a weapon fired on enemy vehicular columns with MMW/IIR seeker will wreak havoc because each fighter can carry atleast 12 of these light weapons (50kg each)..probably the idle weapon to supplement ground fire to break up charging enemy forces and ambush weapon on enemy forces on the march.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... armed.html

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Dec 2010 18:34

^^^^:"M2K upgrade at such a high price is waste of money. If Israelis have cheaper solution, then it is a better idea."

The French won't permit Israel to tamper with the Mirage. Remember Beriev and the Il-76?. The French will threaten action on IP grounds and support it by holding up spares. They will want their cut just as Beriev did. I do remember reading a few years ago that the IAF was keen on integrating the Elta -2052 into the M2K and then it fizzled.

The M2K upgrade appears more and more like trying to keep a 20 year old car running by replacing each part. The OEM part that cost the manufacturer $20 to install now costs $200 at the dealer level. It's not worth it if you can buy something new for just a bit more.

The Gripen faces another challenge if this is true: "airplane's engine (F414G), avionics suite, head-up/down displays, environmental control system, air data computer, life support system, pressure regulator, shutoff valves and radar altimeter are American built..."

If our worry is US sanctions, this has got to be the last thing we need. At least with the SH, there would be no plausible deniability by the US if sanctions were imposed.

BTW, has anyone heard of the French companies such as Dassault pursuing Indian partnerships the way Boeing and LM have been to prepare for the offsets? I have heard nothing.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2010 20:19

This is one the reasons I say extended schedule of Kaveri versions is fine and is important that it is totally indigenous rather a M88 eco core. The delays and its effects is okay compared to security and costs dealing with French technologies.. Think about the classified technology that would still never come out of any deals including if you double up the money on MRCA.

Kaveri program imho, must be pristine. Whatever GTRE is doing in Russia must be learned and reproduced in India with more investments for its variants. We have to similarly see what in the MRCA contract, we could learn in terms of technologies or aspects we lack.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Dec 2010 23:47

well if Aroor is to be believed then the 29 Ks are still not being supported well byt the Russians

so much for the 35 to be even considered

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Dec 2010 01:46

Interesting to read about how the US Embassy has highlighted how President Obama and Hillary Clinton need to underscore the USG support for the Boeing SHornet..I think that we can easily draw parallels between this type of cables regarding Brazil and what must have gone on regarding MRCA. Obama and Clinton must've applied considerable pressure on the Congress govt. for sure and will continue to do so till the winner is announced.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Dec 2010 03:05

^^^Kartik: "Obama and Clinton must've applied considerable pressure on the Congress govt. for sure and will continue to do so till the winner is announced."

Absolutely right. But then all of the MRCA contender governments will be doing the same. Medvedev probably will pressure GoI to sign up for the FGFA to compensate for the MRCA.

I guess the key is whose pressure will work and why. If GOTUS is effective, there must be some reason why GoI succumbs to them versus the others. In the US case, at least USE in Brazil is talking about technology export assurances and not 'facilitating payments' like the French probably are doing or will do.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 06 Dec 2010 04:05

M2K upgrade at such a high price is waste of money. If Israelis have cheaper solution, then it is a better idea.

For Navy requirement, India should go for Rafale integrated with Kaveri, this can be used for the strategic command as well. 40-50 that France is offering on the fast track basis.

For MRCA, I would like to Advance version SH. SH is most battle hardened fighter in the competition with largest number produced meaning most issues are ironed out.

LOL, at the SH being battle hardened. The only reason its battle hardened it b/c we are constantly at war with countries. If france went to war with another country and used the Rafale extensively it would be battle hardened too.
The EF and SH can be offered on fast track too.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Dec 2010 04:20

ragupta wrote: For Navy requirement, India should go for Rafale integrated with Kaveri, this can be used for the strategic command as well. 40-50 that France is offering on the fast track basis.

Contradictory.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Dec 2010 05:42

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=165

At a July 30 dinner for visiting SouthCom Commander General Doug Fraser, Brazil,s Air Force (BRAF) commander, Brigadier Juniti Saito (protect), pulled Ambassador Sobel and Political Counselor aside to discuss the FX-2 Fighter purchase. He said that there was no question from a technical point of view that the F18 was the superior aircraft. &We have been flying U.S. equipment for decades,8 he said, ∧ we know that it is dependable and that maintenance is simple and cost-effective through FMS.8 That has to be factored into the cost of the new fighter, he said, as the BRAF will likely be using the plane for thirty or forty years. It is the best decision, he said, and the French can,t complain as they just signed a USD 14 billion deal with Brazil (for submarines and helicopters).

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=166

Over the last few months, the French sales effort has been
based on a misleading, if not fraudulent, claim that their
plane involves only French content (rendering it free of
meddlesome U.S. export controls). This is not the case. A
DTSA analysis found a high level of U.S. content, including
targeting systems, radar components and safety systems that
will require U.S. licenses.