MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Singha]

in a Indo-China war, chinese ability to punish India would rest on
[a] part of PLAAF surged into the big new runways they are building all over tibet
ability to move vast stocks of munitions and supplies/manpower from the rear areas to the frontlines
[c] artillery in all its forms in and around the frontline.

I feel MKIs main value-add would be to go after [a] & - even better if MRCA or dedicated "AAM-only" MKIs can take over the air dominance role in the strike package while the rest lay heavy munitions and a2g missiles on target.

to protect [a], , [c] there will be [d] - a strong network of radars and SAMs.

this where a high energy MRCA and latest gen SEAD pkg of sensor and missile can provide the money's worth. kh31p/armat is getting long in the tooth. something based around the "crystal maze" (popeye) or newer with a ALARM type loitering mode and Mach4 attack speed could help. strike package fires a few into the air , a few minutes before the pkg is due to pass hostile area...as radars light up, these missiles shed parachute and target the radars. without radars the SAMs are useless.

alternately since the chinese are fond of changing the playbook and coming up with new models of war, they could inflict a offensive air war on india and leave the ground alone , calculating that we will not take the offensive for fear of the situation escalating. they will do it if they are confident of dealing strongly with the IAF in the air over the north and east indian states. this is where a higher number of Tejas can also help out - protect the target rich industrial and military heartland areas , and let the MRCA and MKI take the air war into tibet.

[Austin]

there is an RCS advantage of course for the MRCA applicants over the mki but there are other advantages like better sensor integration, better sensor fusion, better MMI and better Situation awareness. Technology is moving fast and by the time the winner of the MRCA will enter in service the technological gap should be quite significant

arthuro , I think the RCS advantage is probably the most exaggerating part , unless these MRCA candidate can fly clean the claimed advantage cannot be exploited ( that too in specific band ) , no MRCA candidate uses any significant shaping to acheive RCS reduction nor do they use internal weapon bay.

So hang a few weapons plus the pylon and the RCS goes for a toss for any 4 or 4 plus gen fighter.

Yes in the sensor fusion area the Rafale or Typhoon would have an advantage to what degree is something we do not know. Plus I think Typhoon would enjoy the supersonic regimes of engagement which it is designed for over MKI , but MKI will have the same advantage on subsonic regiems of flight at slow speed due to TVC.

The sensor fusion disadvantage is probably because the entire architecture for Mk3 was freezed in early 2000 ,so they just tried to put what ever was possible then apart from soft upgrade , with the MKI going in for upgrade in the coming decade atleast they can reduce or eliminate the SA,MMI and Sensor Fusion advantage.

It will also depend on how other infrastructure of Netcentricity develops in the IAF in coming decades , if NATO enjoys a distinct advantage in Netcentricity ,Satcoms and datalinks then put a Typhoon or Rafale in IAF they wont do any better then MKI does because IAF would be lagging in these areas which NATO aircraft has and can exploit , its a constantly moving goal post and an expensive one to build and exploit. then simply buying aircraft.

All said and done if there are weakness in MKI it can be removed specially in sensor fusion/SA/EW area , MKI is a big aircraft with longer persistance , range and space to exploit ,while Europe fighters would be better it comes with an expensive price tag.

It wouldnt be unfair if I say IAF could buy 2 MKI at the cost of one Typhoon or Rafale and that would sum up the dilemma in buying top class but expensive European jets.

[shukla]

Indian MMRCA contract by March 2011: IAF Chief
Defenseworld

The Indian contract to buy 126 MMRCA fighter aircraft is expected to be signed by March 2011, the Indian Air Force Chief of Staff, P.V. Naik has been quoted as saying. In an interview to Vayu Aerospace, a media partner of defenseworld.net, the air force chief said that the likely timeframe for completing various activities before the contract is signed is about 6-8 months, “So, we expect the contract to be signed by March 2011. From thereon, the induction should begin by mid 2014 onwards".

The RFP for the M-MRCA was issued in August 2007 to six global vendors. These vendors responded with their proposals and the TEC was completed in June 2009. By this time, the IAF was already ready to undertake Field Evaluations and these were conducted from July 2009 to May 2010, the Air Chief said.

Thereafter the IAF has completed the analysis of results and compiled an exhaustive report well in time. The Staff Evaluation report was submitted on 30 July 2010. "In my opinion, considering the number of vendors involved and the complex nature of evaluations, there has not been any inordinate delay. We have been able to achieve our objectives well within the stipulated time frame", he added.

[SaiK]

wikileaks is enough for India to step away from the buxom showing cheating and lying teens.

[Viv S]

Seems I missed your post. Well better late than never.

Agility is obviously an abstract quality; a combat aircraft unable to take advantage of an higher T / W ratio because , for example, it's losing more energy than its opponent once involved in a WVR engagement, is not a more agile aircraft. Things like design , aerodynamic... and even manoeuverability also affect agility.

Really? I believe its the other way round. Increase in agility will lead to a more manoeuvrable aircraft. I always believed sustained turn rates define the manoeuvrability of an aircraft, while instantaneous turn rates have a impact on both.

Forgetting semantics for a bit, what we DON'T know is what the Rafale and EF's relative turn rates and max. sustained AoAs are. What we DO know is that the EF performs better in the transonic and supersonic region. When the Rafale gets upgraded with 90kN engine and comes around to demonstrating supercruise, we can revise that assessment.

Btw i have no problems with your link about rookie Rafale pilots learning their job against experienced Harrier pilots, even if in our case it's not a good example, because i judge a source depending on its credibility, seriousness and reputation, whatever the country where it is published.
Air&Cosmos is an highly regarded magazine which sometimes publishes negative informations about the Rafale .. at the point of being banned from Dassault ads since 2006.

Okay. That being the case, I'd have no problem if Air & Cosmos were an independent observer at these exercises with actual access to briefings and records if not the actual FDRs. The magazine makes it abundantly clear that an AdlA officer is the source not its own aviation journalists. I wonder in that case what your response to the USAF colonel's critique of the French Air Force post Red Flag '08, is.

Another extract about "Typhoon vs Rafale" in Solenzara:
"The first skirmish is indisputable. It needs less than 40 seconds and only 3 crossing for the Rafale pilot to have its gun in firing position. However, the pilots flying the two planes are far from beginners. While the English is considered a Typhoon specialist in air-to-air, the "Provence" pilot has also a solid experience in within visual range combat."
Full article here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ost5016394

I mentioned the Rafale having hard time of it against veteran pilots in perhaps the 'past obsolescence' Sea Harrier, at WVR, for a reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears the EC 1/7 (Lt. Col. Grandcauldon's outfit) was the one which inducted the aircraft into AdlA, presumably wrote up the training book, was present at every one of the exercises (including the UAE one with a claimed F-22 kill). It was in fact the EC 1/7 at Red Flag '08 where the Su-30MKI was a first time participant. And I can't recall whether it was the Indian flight evaluation or somewhere else, but the pilot interviewed (ostensibly a current or former test pilot) flew for the EC 1/7. Seems like a pretty elite unit to me.

[Lalmohan]

EC 1/7: i would say moderately elite. its not one of the ww1 heritage squadrons, was formed in 43 in north africa and was based in germany post ww2 and back to north africa in the 50's. formerly flew jaguars until replaced by rafale

it should represent atleast a high quality squadron with sufficient weight of history to shape its quality

[Viv S]

EC 1/7: i would say moderately elite. its not one of the ww1 heritage squadrons, was formed in 43 in north africa and was based in germany post ww2 and back to north africa in the 50's. formerly flew jaguars until replaced by rafale

it should represent atleast a high quality squadron with sufficient weight of history to shape its quality

I mean 'elite' in terms of their overwhelming experience on the Rafales rather than something on the lines of .... I don't know the 'Guards Division' or the 'Foreign Legion'.

[b_patel]

We can certainly reserve a single squadron of an F-35 like aircraft to perform the stealthy SEAD role in the early hours and days of a war. Even that squadron is likely to see some attrition.

I agree every plane is going to see attrition during peacetime, look at the raptor its had its share of crashes. The thing is can India afford to have three different types of 5th generation aircraft? I would love to see the F-35 in Indian colors but the chances of it happening are unlikely. Not out of fear of sanctions but the logistical nightmare it would cause. The F-35 would definitely make SEAD missions easier to execute successfully. Unless the Navy decides to go for the F-35 (which i hope it does) it won't fly with the IAF.

with the MKI going in for upgrade in the coming decade atleast they can reduce or eliminate the SA,MMI and Sensor Fusion advantage.

Agreed, I'm surprised that there aren't any concrete details of what the MLU includes. If one of the European aircraft is chosen I hope the IAF considers integrating the METEOR with the MKI.

[Lalmohan]

viv-ji, agreed

more importantly, isnt it about time we had some dedicated wild weasel or 'mad mongoose' squadrons?

[Kartik]

Just check out this display of the Gripen C at RIAT 2009. Now that is a high energy display that truly shows off the great instantaneous turn rates and the very good sustained turn rates of the Gripen design.

JF-17 pales in comparison when one looks at this video.

Youtube video Gripen C RIAT 2009

[Sancho]

All the remaining capabilities are available of the last lot of Tranche 2 aircraft...

...How does that effect IAF deliveries which aren't expected till 2013 at the very earliest (most probably 2014 or later)?...

...there's a good probability that they HAVE been integrated...

Again Viv, please don't speculate only, let the EF partners first decide about which capabilities and weapons will be added till 2013 in T3A (when production for Indias first squad has to start), as long that is not cleared, EF offers only A2A and some CAS capabilties, nothing more!
You are assuming way to much, JDAM was never integrated for the Saudis EF, because they get EFs from the original order of UK, which are the most developed EFs, but still offer only Paveway and Litenting pods. I would request to check the official Eurofighter website for press releases about weapon tests, or even check the image library and you will find numerous pics of test with Paveway LGBs, but no one of any A2G missiles test:

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/image-library.html

When you say 'additional cost!' how much are we talking? In Euros? Its necessary to see those figures in perspective...

I can't give you exact figures of course, but to offer the same capabilties, for the same roles as Rafale F3+, EF has to integrate:

- AESA radar
- Meteor
- JDAM (the equivalent to AASM, Rafale can use Paveway LGBs too)
- Strom Shadow, or Taurus (the equivalent to Scalp)
- Harpoon (the equivalent to Exocet)
- Upgrade the EW capabilities
- CFTs for more range (check arthuros post on the last page)

Hoever, so far only the first 2 are cleared and if the partners don't fund the rest, we have to do it to get a useful and capable EF. On the other side, the only capability that needs to be funded for Rafale, that the EF offers is HMS.

Commonality with Mirage-2000-5 - So what's common between the two besides the Magic-II and maybe the MICA (the Meteor looks likely to replace it)? Maybe some minor spares.The cost saving is still doubtful.

Again you are very mistaken!

- MICA IR
- MICA EM
- Exocet
- AASM
- Scalp
- Paveway LGB
- Damocles pod
- if I'm not wrong the same 2000l fuel tanks
- Topsight HMS for Mirage (and Mig 29Ks) could be integrated into Rafale too
- DDM MAWS (although Rafale will get even the improved version)

and other avionic parts like the IFF transponder that we also bought for upgraded Mig 29s, Mig 29Ks and maybe Su 30 MKIs (not sure about that though)

The only other MMRCA contender that can offer so much commonality is the Mig 35, all that EF can offer are Paveway bombs kits and the Litening pod so far.


So once again the facts of EF and Rafale in MMRCA:

- EF T3A weapons and capabilities still undecided, while Rafale F3+ techs are mainly ready now

- delays in the development of EF T3A are already confirmed, while Rafale F3+ will be available from 2012 onwards

- EF so far offers only CAS capabilities in A2G, while Rafale is already fully multi role capable which makes it useful for IN and SFC

- EF offers limited range in strike roles only, which makes it not useful for deep penetration, or nuclear strikes, while Rafale shows his excellence exactly in these roles

- according to the official Eurofighter website (or like Danell showed you too), EF T3 costs around $107 million each, fly away (for the basic fighter with engines, but no weapons, or spares) and for partners (so excluding R&D costs), while the official website of the French senat says, Rafale costs between $84 and 92 millions each (depending on version), again fly away and excluding R&D costs, that means Rafale is around $20 millions cheaper than the EF (I don't think you will find more reliable sources than these)

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/ ... igned.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... n&ie=UTF-8

- if EF partners don't fund all needed features to make EF as capable as Rafale, we have to fund them, which means additional costs, while Rafale needs only HMS

- EF offers only very limited commonality to present IAF fleet, while Rafale offers high commonality, which reduces costs, eases logistics and maintenance

- with high unit and additional costs, as well as limited multi role capabilities, more than an order of 126 EFs is unlikely, while Rafale is a very good option for SFC and IN too. That would bring up the order to 126 + 40 + 40 = 206 (+ 64 optinal for IAF) and higher numbers reduces the unit costs again.

As I said before, the Rafale is the most suited fighter for Indian forces and compared to the EF also more cost-effective! The only real advantage of EF are the offsets, although I disagree on the ammount of influence we might have in the consortium (UK/BAE and GER/EADS will clearly remain the leaders) it is still a big offer for India. But is that enough to justify the expenses and to compromise on so many operational points, doubtful! We will have to wait and see.

[koti]

How about the aerospace industry in Chengdu.

Location of Chengdu town. It is more reachable than Bangalore, Kerala is to the opposition.

It would be at least 1000 Kms from Tezpur.

Fair enough.

In a hot war with China that starts off with the Chinese having say 600 aircraft reserved against India (with the rest in the East) an attack on Chengdu can only have a long term effect on Chinese aviation in 6 months or later down the line. So if we are attacking targets in China that will have an effect only after 6 months - we are expecting a war to last 6 months or longer. And in attacking that target we may lose 25% of the attacking force of aircraft reducing our own ability to fight for 1 month, leave alone 6 months. What sort of war are we going to fight with China for 6 months or longer? How many of a theoretical 60 F-35s of the IAF will be left after 6 months?

Future wars are not necessarily going to be fought like WW 2 and no war between India and China will be like a US-Iraq war. I don't know about China but India definitely does not have the force levels and reserves to fight a war on the scale of the 1971 war and carry on with such a war for 6 months. India lost over 4 aircraft a day in 1971. Assume 4 a day and we get 720 aircraft lost in 6 months. I am not sure that everyone who talks about aircraft and war on BRF actually knows what they are talking about. China won't even need to attack Bangalore, Kerala. Why should we be attacking Chengdu if we can ensure Chinese attrition is unacceptable? Or if we can gain local air dominance?

No. Its not that fair.
Thats why we need missiles like Tomahawk(Nirbhay) to do the job.
Please keep in mind that even Air force of US uses several days of continuous and very heavy pounding of enemy airbases and SAM cells with CM's before even actual B-2's or F-117's will be used for the heavier bombardment roles.
It will utter insanity to opt to carry out bomb-runs on installations like Chengdu given the level of sophistication(and numbers) the Chinese Air Defenses possess.
The MMRCA will be mostly be present to provide air defense to Indian assets and to keep the PLAAF at bay.
The most important strike role for either MMRCA or the Flankers IMO will be to deliver the Nirbhay/Brahmos.
That said, the payload and range of the MMRCA contenders will be given a good weight.

[Philip]

Shiv is spot on as usual.I agree with him entirely and have been saying something similar,about numbers being very important in the overall order of battle of the IAF.It's why a former CoAS on the MMRCA decision remarked about cost being important-so that we can acquire as many as we can,required on two fronts and remember that the Kargil War lasted for months.As Shiv said what if it the next "long war" is also an air war too? Even the US has found that in the first frenetic days of warfare (GW1),the attrition of missiles was particularly heavy and aircraft them had to rely on "dumb bombs".This is why the dogfighting skills of the pilot and air combat capabilities of his aircraft remain paramount,BVR notwithstanding.

Now,the JSF is getting enmeshed into further difficulties,latest AWST,with cost and delays affecting development and now facing declining orders from key allies too.From current costs,it is going to be unaffordable to India even if it were available with all the bells and whistles,which it won't come with if offered.The IN can therefore forget about it.However,both the Brits and US are developing EM cats for carriers with the British one supposedly being simpler and more effective,where the energy can be adjusted according to the type and weight of the aircraft being launched.

How the IAF is going to preserve/achieve the 45-55 sqd. strength required to deal with both China and Pak simultaneously is the big Q.Even if we upgrade all our types in service yet to be upgraded (MIG-29s/M-2000s/Jaguars),we will still have to replace those older MIG-21 sqds.,so that numbers can be kept satisfactory uptil 2020.This has to be done on a one-to-one basis.By then,enough of new FGFAs and upgraded SU-30MKIs (with 5th-gen tech)will have joined the IAF to keep qualitative levels of the IAF superior to ouer enemies.I doubt if enough LCA and MMRCA production can deliver the same.We will need more aircraft which can only be bought.

With the Wikileaks expose of the US's duplicity ,under no circumstances should we reward it with the order for this key deal.

[GeorgeWelch]

the attrition of missiles was particularly heavy and aircraft them had to rely on "dumb bombs".This is why the dogfighting skills of the pilot and air combat capabilities of his aircraft remain paramount,BVR notwithstanding.

So you're saying the lack of GROUND attack munitions proves the need for AIR combat skills?

I'm not saying aerial combat skills are a bad thing, but it's just a mighty strange leap of 'logic'.

and now facing declining orders from key allies too

And it still has more guaranteed orders than all other 5th gen fighters combined.

where the energy can be adjusted according to the type and weight of the aircraft being launched.

This is a feature of EMALS.

This has to be done on a one-to-one basis.

Not necessarily. It has to be done with an eye to potential threats. If, hypothetically speaking, China was moving towards a smaller, more modern fleet, the rationale for maintaining the same number of planes would need to be examined.

With the Wikileaks expose of the US's duplicity ,under no circumstances should we reward it with the order for this key deal.

And all the other competitors are as pure as the wind-driven snow.

[koti]

And all the other competitors are as pure as the wind-driven snow.

That is my favorite.

And it still has more guaranteed orders than all other 5th gen fighters combined.

Agreed. But we see that many nations are having second thoughts about the price and capability of the platform lately.

[Indranil]

And all the other competitors are as pure as the wind-driven snow.

HATS OFF

[Karan M]

Karan M,

You write something and keep asking me to look into "context". I ask you what other meaning of does your sentence have other than saying that TVC shortens the ROT and helps pull a tighter turn?
If you want to write statements which mean literally and "contextually" (I know not what you mean) different then please provide some clue to the reader.

The clue is in the entire post, not a pulled out one-two line statement! Problem is you are looking at every statement in individuality as versus the overall gist. Anyways, there is no point in beating a dead horse.

Getting back to the usage of TVC in BVR. As far as I have read when one detects that a BVR missile or SAM the first thing one does a sharp 90 degree turn (if you want I will cite you many literature on this, but you can easily find the same with an easy Google search). The direction of turn (up-down-left-right) depends on many things (like seeker of the missiles, relative clutter on ground, whether it is a cloudy day or a sunny day, you might laugh on the last proposition but you would be surprised that they are actually considered when evading missiles). This is to have the largest perpendicular speed to get out of the FOV of the missile. The FOV of most missiles is a cone in the longitudinal direction of the missile. As far as I know here the TVC is of no use to turn significantly faster.

This is just one of the tactics. Not at all the only one as you seem to infer - "the first thing one does" - and is not a certainty either! Instead of a 90 degree turn, you may want to do a 180 degree turn, in other words, head back where you came from - putting maximal distance between yourself & the incoming missile - provided you are willing to save yourself versus scoring a kill no matter what. Problem is you are talking of getting out of the seeker of the missile in the endgame because thats when it comes into play, when no amount of turning will help, whereas the actual tactic should be to counter not the missile itself by when it would have come close enough for you to be in its NEZ but at maximal range, when you still have a chance of survival & can also use your defensive aids to jam/confuse the targeting radar.

And no, there is nothing to laugh about "sunny day" versus "cloudy day", different seeker heads have significant issues in different conditions. However, the latest bunch of imaging infrared seekers are said to work effectively across different conditions.

You have argued that if the missile was launched head on, it would be very helpful to do a 180 degree turn as in a tail chase the range is much smaller. You have argued that the AL31 can accelerate the Su-30 up to speed pretty fast after a stall maneuver. The stall maneuver to do a 180 degree turn is the hammerhead (also called the stall maneuver). However, this is highly debatable because a clean Su-30 completes a 180 degree turn in around 10 seconds. A hammerhead from 700 kms would take more time than that and your exit speed would be significantly lesser (as the during a turn the plane go on full AF right from the beginning of the turn. Also with a turn you put more distance between yourself and the missile (= roughly the diameter of your turn).

Again, you are looking at things individually. Look at them altogether. Is the combination of RCS reduction + maximizing the distance between the target aircraft + the synergistic effect of jamming a radar, which now has to track a receding target & is the time taken to point the nose in the opposite direction & the spool up time for the afterburner, fairly ok vis a vis trying to pull a high G sustained turn at speed (again subject to structural limits) while still being in the envelope of the larger sensor. The answer, if you look at it all together, does make a case for TVC, provided the average pilot can be trained to implement them as a matter of routine per the situation that requires it. That is the critical factor. Making a 90 degree dive as in the good old days may still be employed by the vast majority of platforms, but most of them neither had TVC & the effect of RCS vis a vis planform only became understood once stealth became a huge buzzword. Otherwise, it was all about speed & jamming.

There are several ways to effect such a rapid direction change. I have already presented video evidence of an operational Su-30 MKI undertaking a 180 degree turn in the horizontal plane & accelerating away. There is also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_ ... iagram.jpg

Notes from the original evaluation of the X-31 - am typing them out from a copy that was printed in a dry publication quite sometime back - the Herbst Maneuver presents a capability to implement an extremely tight heading change. The X-31 terminates the Herbst Maneuver in an accelerating fashion.

The X-31 aircraft on a research mission from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California, is flying nearly perpendicular to the flight path while performing the Herbst maneuver. Effectively using the entire airframe as a speed brake and using the aircraft's unique thrust vectoring system to maintain control, the pilot rapidly rolls the aircraft to reverse the direction of flight, completing the maneuver with acceleration back to high speed in the opposite direction. This type of turning capability could reduce the turning time of a fighter aircraft by 30 percent. The Herbst maneuver was first conducted in an X-31 on April 29, 1993, in the No. 2 aircraft by German test pilot Karl-Heinz Lang.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... neuver.jpg

Similarly, not all situations will entail the use of TVC either.

And its not just about 180 degree turns, depending on your speed & conditions and opponent position, TVC can be used for a variety of maneuvers depending on the situation.

Given the fact that the US had extensive experience with TVC, via the X-31, F-15 ACTIVE & other projects, and chose to implement it on their F-22, which like the MKI has integrated it with flight controls. In an interview, Paul Metz noted that the TVC offers the F-22 increased controllability at speed, reduced use of conventional controls (maintaining stealth & reducing drag).

I am reasonably sure there is a lot about TVC & its employment that is only known to the actual operational users of the technology today plus core developers, namely Russia, India & the US. Much aviation fuel has been spent on figuring out exactly what can be done and what cannot be and is being implemented in doctrines. Most of what has been however written about TVC in aviation mags & public literature however, is from a lot of folks who did not acquire this technology & have spent considerable effort convincing everyone it was not required.

A lot of folks including a certain bunch, who tended to play down the effect of TVC are now busy trying to get funds to finance a TVC capability, albeit couching it in innocuous language as it would otherwise detract from their previous claims.

The interesting part is what will happen on future aircraft where TVC and pilot aids are integrated. You'll end up with more and more "automated" complex subroutines performed instantly as cued by the pilot, with issues of what maneuver is suitable for what part of the envelope transferred out of his hands.

[Indranil]

^^^ BOSS, you again took me 2 weeks and 5-6 pages back. I was at the verge of saying ok boss and stop ... just kidding ... your points have always been good.

You are right when you say that how you evade after being painted can be a plethora of combinations based on god know how many things.

Other than that we seem to be on the same page.

I have always spoken in favour of TVC, except when people have said that TVC makes the plane make tighter turns, or lob missiles backwards during a cobra manoeuvre.

[Indranil]

I have just one more thing to add. Suppose both sides have HMS and off-boresight missiles. This is clearly the scenario around us. In that scenario manoeuvrability comes back as an advantage as the lower your off-boresighted-ness the higher would be your kill probability.

So I don't see manoeuvrability of an A2A plane as a thing of past.

Certainly not till somebody fails to prove that Newton guy was wrong or somebody develops laser guns which can swivel around in 360 degrees.

[Karan M]

I have always spoken in favour of TVC, except when people have said that TVC makes the plane make tighter turns,

"Tighter turns" with energy decay, ITR versus STR. Again a trade off, but for which a solution has been proposed, minimize the Post Stall exposure, but with the tradeoff in terms of G effect transitions & rapid acceleration required to spool up. Am fairly certain though that there are still advantages which have been determined.

or lob missiles backwards during a cobra manoeuvre.

The interesting part is that despite all the hype about Russian backward firing missiles and debate, the French & Israelis seem to have implemented this capability.

http://www.fighterops.com/forum/showthr ... th-MICA-EM

The Python 5 demo video has an interesting sequence where fighters with P-5 do not stay for the dogfight but just cue their missiles (with full sphere capability) and leave. The missiles do the rest.

So what this tells me is the Russian looked at how R-73 missiles could be cued using helmet mounted sights, and decided that putting reverse mounted R-73 missile was not required. But it is still a very interesting idea, if it can be implemented versus all the issues with missile dynamics, aircraft/missile interacting with each other. And if anyone, the Russians can, they tend to go for such "simple solutions" (but which are really not) versus the west which tends to rely more and more on electronics & systems. I think if it could be managed, strike aircraft with a rear mounted radar & reverse firing missiles would be a very dangerous proposition for interceptors.

[Karan M]

I have just one more thing to add. Suppose both sides have HMS and off-boresight missiles. This is clearly the scenario around us. In that scenario manoeuvrability comes back as an advantage as the lower your off-boresighted-ness the higher would be your kill probability.

So I don't see manoeuvrability of an A2A plane as a thing of past.

Certainly not till somebody fails to prove that Newton guy was wrong or somebody develops laser guns which can swivel around in 360 degrees.

Agreed. But from what I have been reading, only the PLAAF so far has this capability (same as India) with similar helmet sights & missiles (Russian R-73E). Pakistan is getting helmet sights only for its latest F-16 but with a more limited AIM-9M missile to go along with them. Hopefully, they will not get more advanced missiles, but it is only a matter of time before somebody sells them.

[klein]

Gulf king mocked French jet as 'yesterday'

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 18fpf.html

Apologies if already posted.

[Indranil]

The interesting part is that despite all the hype about Russian backward firing missiles and debate, the French & Israelis seem to have implemented this capability.

.
Not quite. I think you are speaking of this Mica test. link

The scenario they embodied was
1. a C-22 drone following a Rafale a few nautical miles behind (did not specify how many ).
2. The second Rafale a wingman of the first one acquired the coordinates and passed it for target acquisition to the first Rafale. (what are the chances that your enemy fighter is between you and your wingman as is happily coasting along to be shot by a missile)
3. The first Rafale shot the missile which took a sharp 180 degree turn (and the French continue about how Mica turns the fastest in the world)
4. And knocks the UAV out of the sky.

I appreciate the avionics here. Missile ... hmmm.

The Python 5 demo video has an interesting sequence where fighters with P-5 do not stay for the dogfight but just cue their missiles (with full sphere capability) and leave. The missiles do the rest.

I have seen that demo. You are a knowledgeable enough. I wouldn't say anything more

So what this tells me is the Russian looked at how R-73 missiles could be cued using helmet mounted sights, and decided that putting reverse mounted R-73 missile was not required. But it is still a very interesting idea, if it can be implemented versus all the issues with missile dynamics, aircraft/missile interacting with each other. And if anyone, the Russians can, they tend to go for such "simple solutions" (but which are really not) versus the west which tends to rely more and more on electronics & systems. I think if it could be managed, strike aircraft with a rear mounted radar & reverse firing missiles would be a very dangerous proposition for interceptors.

Ya it is. But firing missiles backwards while flying is quite complex in itself.
1. It also has to overcome its own momentum first (though the energy expended may be lesser than 180 degree turn.
2. There are restrictions on propulsion. Cannot be an Ramjet/Scramjet till considerable forward momentum is reached.

[Karan M]

Well backward firing == engaging a target in the rear sector with a missile that flips 180 degrees, semantics apart, its pretty much the same operational capability, is it not. Thats what I was referring to.

Coming to the Rafale thing, my point is Mica has that capability, if cued properly. This test was in 2007. The French have demonstrated Mica can be cued by Spectra in 2010. Not too far too think it could be cued to a target behind a Rafale, which is not judicious in its use of radar.

IMO, its the Missile capability here which is substantial not the avionics alone which can be achieved with integration. After all, all they did was provide the missile with locational data, but it had to make the 180 degree turn ASAP, without structural failure, acquire the target and complete the task.

Coming to the Python-5, I didn't get what you meant. But the Israelis are trying to hardsell it as a capability that avoids a turning fight to begin with. However, in operational exercises, the IAF has demo'ed the R-73E + helmet sight to be very effective, thanks to their TVC. Victories against USAF aggressors (complete whitewash) speak for themselves. So IMO, HOBS + Helmet Sight + very speedy nose pointing capability = substantial advantage.

Coming to "Ya it is. But firing missiles backwards while flying is quite complex in itself. "- agreed. Which is why I think Russians said, forget about it, for now. All short range missiles are conventional solid motors, not ram or scramjet, so that won't be an issue, though all other problems remain. But what a capability it would be.

[khukri]

Gulf king mocked French jet as 'yesterday'

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 18fpf.html

Apologies if already posted.

That's an erroneous interpretation. The article says King Hamad agreed with Gen. Petraeus that it was yesterday's technology.....implying that Gen. Petraeus may have initiated the idea - not surprisingly!

[Indranil]

Coming to the Python-5, I didn't get what you meant. But the Israelis are trying to hardsell it as a capability that avoids a turning fight to begin with.

I somehow confused the Python 5 with something else. The 360 degree FOV is very interesting. I don't know how they implement it though. Is it a complete sphere or more like a donut. Or is it elongated in the front? What happens when the opposition breaks lock. Does the missile still keep loitering? If it does, how is the missile guided after lock is broken. How long can it loiter. It's a whole lot of questions.

But there is no doubt that there is an advantage that a fighter A can turn completely and then launch. Whereas as enemy fighter B can only turn at max to his off-boresight capability before shooting. But then the python missile has to do a complete 180 degree turn. If fighter B knows that it is being painted it starts turning as well. Fighter B might complete the turn by the time (or couple of seconds later) than when the Python makes its turn and it become a tail chase.
If fighter B knew that fighter A could be carrying python 5, he might start to turn when fighter A starts to turn. Fighter B fires his missile at his max off bore-sight. Fighter B's missile doesn't have the to make a 180 degree turn and has an advantage if launched before or couple of seconds after the Python missile is launched. While the Python missile makes its turn, fighter B will also try to turn because it knows it is being painted. It becomes a tail chase in no time. Meanwhile missile fired by fighter B is also in a tail chase behind fighter A.

So it is not as rosy as they show it in the video.

However, in operational exercises, the IAF has demo'ed the R-73E + helmet sight to be very effective, thanks to their TVC. Victories against USAF aggressors (complete whitewash) speak for themselves. So IMO, HOBS + Helmet Sight + very speedy nose pointing capability = substantial advantage.

Definitely.

[Philip]

"Whiter shades of pale"...

There are only two countries currently supplying Pak with fighters,China and the US.Pak gets cheap less capable aircraft from China,but in large number,and quality F-16s from the US.Russia is squeezing the PRC over engine supplies,putting PRC exports of JF-17s in serious doubt,as Russia sees it as a competitor to MIG-35s in tenders for Egypt,etc.
Rewarding a country that forces us to spend billions to counter the enhanced Paki threat is like slitting your own throat!

The JSF for India is aalmost the equiv. of the DoDo,delays,cost,etc. which is making it extremely difficult even for its allies to acquire.It's why we now have the F-18SH being offered to the IN! Here,in sheer cost terms,it will come a cropper against the MIG-29K,not to mention even cheaper LCA-Ns,and for later acqusitions for any larger carriers,the IN would prefer a stealth fighter,either a naval version of the FGFA ,or a naval version of the AMCA of which it has shown interest according to reports.The bird that flies in service first will get the nod methinks.If AMCA dev. is delayed,then one must look at a naval version of the FGFA.

PS:More JSF woes.Oversight.Engine too large to be transported at sea!
Cost ,Congressional estimate:$133m+

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/11/n ... g-112910w/

PS:George,not AAMs,ASMs,as in GW 1,there was hardly any action from the Iraqi air force.The speed at which Tomahawks were expended was another fact.Had the Iraqi's possessed an air force as effctive as say the N.Vietnamese,then even AAMs would've been expended very fast.In an Indo-Pak-China long war,missile inventories will become depleted very fast especially in the first phase of conflict.

[Kanson]

>>The 360 degree FOV is very interesting. I don't know how they implement it though.

Have you read anywhere it is written as 360 deg FOV?

Python 5 provides revolutionary full sphere competence, achieved by a combination of Lock-On-After-Launch (LOAL) and excellent acquisition and tracking capabilities. Its dual waveband Focal Plane Array (FPA) seeker and sophisticated algorithms enable acquisition of even small, low signature targets in Look-Down, adverse background and cloudy environments.

http://www.rafael.co.il

It is just the extension of Python 4 and say probably Aim-9x in overall capabilities .


Have this seen before...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QGvK4Tw ... re=related

[Singha]

the off boresight HMS gives that target data to python5 before launch. presumably once the missile completes its 180' turn incase of a over shoulder shot , its LOAL capability is used. for frontal targets LOBL could also work.

[Gaur]

Have this seen before...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QGvK4Tw ... re=related

What the hell was that? I read the uploader's profile to make sense of what I saw...I am still having trouble believing my eyes. The world is truly full of wierdos.

[Indranil]

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.

[saptarishi]

sorry if this was posted before
but this is an interesting stuff,,if true,,it might make the wishes of BR jingos including me come true

MMRCA rumors : rafale at the top ?
Do the indian and Brazilian air forces converging to the same conclusions ?
According to Mr Pepe Rezende, yes, definitely. The man is a former Brazilian journalist currently working for the Brazilian Senate's Foreign Affairs and National Defence Committee.
He recently shoke the aviation forums by revealing hard facts detailed in the brasilian air force repport for FX-2 contest. his motivation was apparently to stop some false rumors on this repport.

So what all this has to do with the indian competition. Well, it seem that Mr Rezende had the opportunity to talk with some indian air force officials about the MMRCA trials : The Rafale would have won the technical evaluation by succeding in all the tests asked by the IAF :

Mr Rezende :

"Rafale WON the performance tests. It completed all IAF missions using only half of F/A-18E/F flights. Rafale destroyed a target 50km far with a 2 meters margin of error. At performance point of view, it won all bidders, including in AtoA missions but, in my opinion, your [indian] choice will be a political one favouring Boeing."


Rafale C101 drops an AASM smart bomb
It is very likely that the 50km range strike he reffers to was a test using the AASM-IR smart bomb.

It is also interresting to note that the Rafale would have [once again] outperformed the typhoon during the Air to air trials : The planes sent to India were fitted with the brand new Thales AESA RBE-2AA which seems to work rather well against air targets.
He also wrote on Keypublishing about the Leh high altitude trials :

"According Indian officers, two planes failed: MiG35 and F/A-18E/F. Gripen Demo takes off with the required load (only two tanks, four air-to-air missiles and a cargo of 1900kg bombs). Typhoon and Rafale takes off with full cargo but EADS bidder failed at some attack missions"

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/ ... t-top.html

Leh is the highest commercial airfield (3000 m) thus some aircraft can have difficulties to power their engine(s) on.

[Viv S]

Again Viv, please don't speculate only, let the EF partners first decide about which capabilities and weapons will be added till 2013 in T3A (when production for Indias first squad has to start), as long that is not cleared, EF offers only A2A and some CAS capabilties, nothing more!

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

But, here's what we know for certain - the current A2G missions are carried out by the Tornado IDS/GR4.

-Italy will be retiring two more squadrons by 2014. Leaving them with just two upgraded squadrons.
-Germany will be re-equipping two Tornado squadrons by 2012. Leaving only about 70 aircraft that will be progressively retired until 2020.
-RAF: Originally intended to retire entire force by 2015. With the Harrier force axed, 4 out of 7 squadrons will be retired by 2015.

Each government has stated on record that the EF was intended to carry the Storm Shadow/Brimstone/Taurus. Every piece of literature on each of these munitions affirms categorically that they are intended to be integrated to the Eurofighter. I have never heard it said or implied that Brimstone/Storm Shadow integration was 'optional'. The uncertainty is more to do with the TVC and EJ-220.

From where did you read that it will not be integrated on the Tranche 2, let alone Tranche 3? At best the claim can be made that its not been integrated yet. Not too worrying, considering that Tranche 2 deliveries will continue till 2013.

You are assuming way to much, JDAM was never integrated for the Saudis EF, because they get EFs from the original order of UK, which are the most developed EFs, but still offer only Paveway and Litenting pods. I would request to check the official Eurofighter website for press releases about weapon tests, or even check the image library and you will find numerous pics of test with Paveway LGBs, but no one of any A2G missiles test:

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/image-library.html

I'll see if I can dig up the link(from 2007 I think). It quoted someone from EF confirming that the JDAMs were to be integrated onto Saudi Eurofighters.

When you say 'additional cost!' how much are we talking? In Euros? Its necessary to see those figures in perspective...

I can't give you exact figures of course,

Ballpark figure will do. Just trying to understand the range. Are we talking in terms of hundreds of thousand euros or millions or over 10 million euros per type?

but to offer the same capabilties, for the same roles as Rafale F3+, EF has to integrate:

- AESA radar
- Meteor
- JDAM (the equivalent to AASM, Rafale can use Paveway LGBs too)
- Strom Shadow, or Taurus (the equivalent to Scalp)
- Harpoon (the equivalent to Exocet)
- Upgrade the EW capabilities
- CFTs for more range (check arthuros post on the last page)

- AESA: Captor-E
- Meteor: will be available
- JDAMs: are or will be integrated with Saudi EFs. Should be available to India as well. (Rafale will not be configured with the Paveway-IV)
- Storm Shadow: part of Tranche 2
- Harpoon: Probably not.
- EW capabilities - I've seen no evidence to suggest that they're short on range or discrimination vis-a-vis the Rafale
- CFT - only the RAF has expressed interest in CFTs. They're currently under development with BAe.

Hoever, so far only the first 2 are cleared and if the partners don't fund the rest, we have to do it to get a useful and capable EF. On the other side, the only capability that needs to be funded for Rafale, that the EF offers is HMS.

Again... what scale of funding are we looking at for just the integration of cruise missiles?

Again you are very mistaken!

- MICA IR
- MICA EM
- Exocet
- AASM
- Scalp
- Paveway LGB
- Damocles pod
- if I'm not wrong the same 2000l fuel tanks
- Topsight HMS for Mirage (and Mig 29Ks) could be integrated into Rafale too
- DDM MAWS (although Rafale will get even the improved version)

and other avionic parts like the IFF transponder that we also bought for upgraded Mig 29s, Mig 29Ks and maybe Su 30 MKIs (not sure about that though)

MICA - maybe. Scalp, AASM, Damocles and MAWS on the other hand are not a part of the Mirage upgrade deal. Maybe fuel tanks, jamming pods and TopOwl (though the latter isn't the kind of equipment typically counted among commonalities). I haven't heard about any common IFF transponder.

The only other MMRCA contender that can offer so much commonality is the Mig 35, all that EF can offer are Paveway bombs kits and the Litening pod so far.

Paveway IV + Litening vs MICA + Jammer + possible fuel tanks. I don't think either makes a substantial difference.

So once again the facts of EF and Rafale in MMRCA:

- EF T3A weapons and capabilities still undecided, while Rafale F3+ techs are mainly ready now

- delays in the development of EF T3A are already confirmed, while Rafale F3+ will be available from 2012 onwards

- EF so far offers only CAS capabilities in A2G, while Rafale is already fully multi role capable which makes it useful for IN and SFC

- The only thing left to be decided for the Tranche 3 is the TVC and EJ-220. EF Gmbh's bid is for an AESA equipped aircraft. Meteor has been cleared for integration as well. Also, the UK will be integrating the Storm Shadow and Germany will be integrating the Taurus. The ranges of both missiles are expected to exceed the MTCR.

- EF offers limited range in strike roles only, which makes it not useful for deep penetration, or nuclear strikes, while Rafale shows his excellence exactly in these roles

The EF's range is more than sufficient for strike mission in Pakistan. Deep penetration missions (as Shiv pointed as well) are hardly going to be the bread and butter of the IAF's MRCA squadrons. The size and sophistication of Chinese air defences (to say nothing of the sizeable Flanker fleet) makes it a very high risk approach. Especially vis-a-vis an air launched Nirbhay using the MKI as a launch platform.

- according to the official Eurofighter website (or like Danell showed you too), EF T3 costs around $107 million each, fly away (for the basic fighter with engines, but no weapons, or spares) and for partners (so excluding R&D costs), while the official website of the French senat says, Rafale costs between $84 and 92 millions each (depending on version), again fly away and excluding R&D costs, that means Rafale is around $20 millions cheaper than the EF (I don't think you will find more reliable sources than these)

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

How can it be compared to a 2009 Rafale? For reference EF Tranche 2 Saudi Arabia sale (2007) was €70 million including relevant spares and support.

- if EF partners don't fund all needed features to make EF as capable as Rafale, we have to fund them, which means additional costs, while Rafale needs only HMS

My contention is except perhaps for the absence of CFTs, the EF is already as capable and more. The only thing worth funding (for the record I'm yet to learn what's the scale we're looking at) would
be the JDAM-ER, which would make the EF far more economical than the Rafale. And that's only if the Saudi plan falls through.

- EF offers only very limited commonality to present IAF fleet, while Rafale offers high commonality, which reduces costs, eases logistics and maintenance

Seeing as most of those Mirage upgrades will not indeed take place, the commonality is just as limited.

- with high unit and additional costs, as well as limited multi role capabilities, more than an order of 126 EFs is unlikely, while Rafale is a very good option for SFC and IN too. That would bring up the order to 126 + 40 + 40 = 206 (+ 64 optinal for IAF) and higher numbers reduces the unit costs again.

Its unit cost is at worst equivalent to the Rafale and at best a good deal cheaper. The Rafale would be an excellent choice for the IN if and only if it wins the MRCA race. By itself the best choice given the limited number to be acquired is the F-35C with EMALS (the naval PAKFA seems to be a long way off), and the IN seems to be leaning in that direction. Of course all that's a different issue (and we'll go off-topic with it - unless you'd care to hop over to the naval disc. forum). As things stand the IN has only issued RFIs and the IAC-2 is still on paper.

With regard to the SFC argument, like I said before - the proposal from the SFC is for 40 Jaguars and its NOT likely to be cleared by MoD (the IAF will definitely veto it). The existing Jaguars are more than up to the task. And a nuclear strike, deep in enemy territory delivered conventionally simply doesn't make sense. Not with the Agni, Prithvi, Brahmos, Nirbhay, Su-30MKI, Jaguar all available. In addition we're NOT getting the Rafale-D and the Rafale C will have to be modified in India to carry a nuclear payload. No point really.

As I said before, the Rafale is the most suited fighter for Indian forces and compared to the EF also more cost-effective! The only real advantage of EF are the offsets, although I disagree on the ammount of influence we might have in the consortium (UK/BAE and GER/EADS will clearly remain the leaders) it is still a big offer for India. But is that enough to justify the expenses and to compromise on so many operational points, doubtful! We will have to wait and see.

India's influence should be enough to over-rule Spain and Italy who've been the real brakes on the project. The RAF and IAF have more or less similar views - to extract the most out of the aircraft.

Its better than the little influence we'll have with Rafale. The Mirage upgrade cost India $40 million per aircraft. To repeat myself, can we reasonable expect a more balanced offer when its time to upgrade the Rafale?

[SaiK]

but EADS bidder failed at some attack missions

what kind?

[Craig Alpert]

Mirage upgrade deal may not be ready during Sarkozy's Visit

NEW DELHI: Days ahead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to India, the government on Wednesday said the $2.1 billion Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft-upgradation deal will not be signed during the trip. Foreign ministry officials said negotiations were still under way and it wouldn't be possible to finalize the deal in the next few days.

Sarkozy will arrive in India on December 4 and is scheduled to hold talks with PM Manmohan Singh two days later. India and France are currently negotiating upgrade of 50 such fighter jets.

"It will not be signed during this visit but I am sure negotiations and discussions are still going on. It doesn't require an agreement to be signed during the visit," said joint secretary (EW) T P Seetharam. The two sides were earlier said to be trying to time the inking of the deal with Sarkozy's visit to India.

...................

[Philip]

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.

[koti]

The EF's range is more than sufficient for strike mission in Pakistan. Deep penetration missions (as Shiv pointed as well) are hardly going to be the bread and butter of the IAF's MRCA squadrons. The size and sophistication of Chinese air defences (to say nothing of the sizable Flanker fleet) makes it a very high risk approach. Especially vis-a-vis an air launched Nirbhay using the MKI as a launch platform.

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.

With regard to the SFC argument, like I said before - the proposal from the SFC is for 40 Jaguars and its NOT likely to be cleared by MoD (the IAF will definitely veto it). The existing Jaguars are more than up to the task. And a nuclear strike, deep in enemy territory delivered conventionally simply doesn't make sense. Not with the Agni, Prithvi, Brahmos, Nirbhay, Su-30MKI, Jaguar all available. In addition we're NOT getting the Rafale-D and the Rafale C will have to be modified in India to carry a nuclear payload. No point really.

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.
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.

[Cain Marko]

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

[Craig Alpert]

^^ Doubt Rafale for 40 SFC fighters. Remember the comment where they specifically said that they wanted a "tried and tested" aircraft. No doubt that it is going to be SU-30MKI. It was flown down specifically to evaluate it strategies for it. I believe it could either be the 126 or something more to be added in the Mirage upgrade deal and probably negiotate on the price factor on that..

[Cain Marko]

^^ Doubt Rafale for 40 SFC fighters. Remember the comment where they specifically said that they wanted a "tried and tested" aircraft. No doubt that it is going to be SU-30MKI. It was flown down specifically to evaluate it strategies for it. I believe it could either be the 126 or something more to be added in the Mirage upgrade deal and probably negiotate on the price factor on that..

It could be argued that the Rafale is quite the tried and tested aircraft. Afterall it has been in service for as long as the MKI if not more. And it does carry the ASMP for nuke striek. Plus, the Frenchies seem to have the pulse of Indian procurement needs - remember how they keep pushing the 40 birds. First time they pushed this 40 bird deal jingoes dismissed it as bakwas, only to find out that a 40 a/c deal was around the corner in the form of the MKI. Now again they have been talking about 40 birds, and the SFC puts forth its requirement.

IIRC, Aroor's blog (FWIW) did mention that the Rafale has kept a low profile mediawise but at the same time the Indian establishment has been constantly kept aware of the a/c capabilities.

Let us see what this brings - something new and good one hopes. The IAF needs fighters to come in quick, they just can't have inordinate delays without promise of a better and equally quick deal. JMT of course.

CM.