IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

[Austin]

No the initial purchase IIRC was for 16 29K ( 12single + 4 dual seat ) plus choppers and when Vikrant was coming up they purchased additional to total 40 most will be delivered when Vikram is near as per agreement , in interview in F mag the gent was sure of 29K being pruchased for Vikrant and Tejas addition to it.

Also I think the carrier with ski jump means you cant fully exploit the Rafale , so options are limited to what IN has purchased

[GeorgeWelch]

Also I think the carrier with ski jump means you cant fully exploit the Rafale , so options are limited to what IN has purchased

Everything, including the 29K, is limited by the ski jump

[Karan M]

No the initial purchase IIRC was for 16 29K ( 12single + 4 dual seat ) plus choppers and when Vikrant was coming up they purchased additional to total 40 most will be delivered when Vikram is near as per agreement , in interview in F mag the gent was sure of 29K being pruchased for Vikrant and Tejas addition to it.

So they purchased more even before all the problems were resolved. And by the look of things, the IN would rather have a reliable Rafale.

Also I think the carrier with ski jump means you cant fully exploit the Rafale , so options are limited to what IN has purchased

Lets see.

[Viv S]

Also I think the carrier with ski jump means you cant fully exploit the Rafale , so options are limited to what IN has purchased

Everything, including the 29K, is limited by the ski jump

Not the F-35B. 850 km combat radius on internal fuel. Also, unless the aircraft is bringing back a heavy load (requiring a rolling landing), they'll be able to carry out simultaneous launch and recovery, something that's not possible with our two STOBAR carriers.

In any case, with the PLAN almost sure to operate a naval variant of the J-31 in the coming years, I don't see the IN willing to settle for the Rafale-M, though no doubt they'll hear out Dassault politely.

New Chinese stealth fighter heightens dilemma for Indian Navy

[Viv S]

Adm Arun Prakash had also originally made statements to the same effect (vis a vis the ski-jump). Same logic will likely apply to the Rafale-M as well.

The Navy is interested in the F-35 fighter aircraft than the F-18, as our aircraft carrier [the first indigenous carrier being built at the Kochi shipyard] will not have the steam-catapult with which the F-18 takes off," according to Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash said here on Monday.

"We are keen on the F-35 as they are operated with the ski-jump facility and are more compatible," he said. - Link

[NRao]

Would not the Rafale be good for both STO and CAT? No saying they are interchangeable on the fly.

BTW:

Mar, 2015 :: Indian Navy Submitted an RFI to Dassault about the Rafale M Carrier Capable Variant

Indian Navy's current (INS Vikramaditya, INS Viraat) and near term (INS Vikrant) aircraft carriers are all fitted with a ramp for STOBAR type operations (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery). While likely capable of STOBAR operations, the Rafale M capabilities would be maximized with a CATOBAR type aircraft carrier (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) like the US Navy aircraft carriers or the French Navy aircraft carrier.

A Rafale M with an AM39 Exocet Anti-ship missile is launched from the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Archive picture: French Navy

[brar_w]

It will also work from a ski jump but the issue is with range/payload as is the case with most fighters in that scenario. The CDG uses cats...

[NRao]

The idea to keep commonality is neat. F-35 seems to be a good fit all around. Get more subs - that may mean that Dassault will need to morph into making space ships or the like, but that is a French headache.

As great a plane the Rafale is, I just do not see it worth the while. Not to speak of costs. Chalk this boo boo on the PMO.

[GeorgeWelch]

Everything, including the 29K, is limited by the ski jump

Not the F-35B. 850 km combat radius on internal fuel.

It depends on how long your flight deck is.

F-35B needs about 800ft + ski jump + wind to take off at max weight. Anything less and it will be limited and weight (fuel and/or ordnance) will have to be removed

the Vikramaditya is 930ft long overall, but the launching lines don't use that full length, so it's not clear.

[brar_w]

The UK QE class is 280 m (920 feet) in length with an 800-850 foot flight deck with a 200 ft. ski jump. With WOD they expect to do MTOW launches. Unless the deck is substantially shorter its not going to make a lot of difference with the Vik.

Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump, and land either vertically or using the novel UK-developed Short Rolling Vertical Landing [SRVL) technique.

http://content.yudu.com/A219ee/ETSWin12 ... ces/20.htm

[member_27581]

Everything, including the 29K, is limited by the ski jump

Noob Pooch? Why is that so. The ramp should help in the lift off. I think Shiv Sir has a video for the same too.

Are we comparing with assisted takeoffs. As unassisted take off would be better on a ski one.

Researched and Found this on wiki "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck".

Happy to be corrected.

[Viv S]

It depends on how long your flight deck is.

F-35B needs about 800ft + ski jump + wind to take off at max weight. Anything less and it will be limited and weight (fuel and/or ordnance) will have to be removed

the Vikramaditya is 930ft long overall, but the launching lines don't use that full length, so it's not clear.

The KPP specifies a combat radius of 450 nautical miles requiring a 600 ft of length from the USN LHDs but just 450 ft when launched from the RN's (ski-jump equipped) QE class. The Vikramaditya's 'runway' is about 600 ft at the 'long' position. Longer still for the Vikrant.

[Indranil]

I have an internal tussle.

- In terms of performance, I don't think the Rafale or F-35 outperforms the Mig-29Ks by much. Call it my bias, but I have equal faith in the makers of all these planes and they all work under the same laws of physics.
- In terms of availability, Mig-29K does suffer. But, somebody has to convince me that if we are proactive in stocking the parts of the Mig-29K and ready to spend even half the money that we are ready to shell out for Rafale, we can't bring up the availability. Obviously, there is way more leg work to do for the Mig-29K, but big savings to be made as well. At what point, does cost becomes prohibitively expensive to maintain availability?
- I can't buy the commonality aspect. One, Airforce and Naval planes are very different. Two, IAF/IN don't share a depot. Three, the part manufacturers are neither Indian, nor are driven by Indian priorities. So, I am not convinced. Four, having 100 Mig-29Ks in IN provides more commanality than 45 Rafales in IN and 45 Rafales in IAF.

[brar_w]

In terms of performance, I don't think the Rafale or F-35 outperforms the Mig-29Ks by much.

Performance in take off? Combat performance etc? The F-35B uses the same level, size and capability sensors, sensor fusion as the CTOL and CVN variants. Similarly, the RCS requirements were similar as well for the F-35A and B. That alone will give a tremendous advantage to the F-35 in terms of sensor performance on account of both strict RCS reduction, and a large 1500+ 3rd generation module AESA. Physics shows a clear relationship between RCS and detection range and how order of magnitude reduction in RCS gives a tremendous sensor - reach advantage that an opponent can simply not make up by increasing a fighter antenna or power (not that you can put an Su-30 radar on a Mig-29 anyways).

This is before we talk about the weapons system performance aided by networked operation between F-35's which are enabled and enhanced by its low-observable materials, shaping and electronics... In an naval capacity the F-35 can execute a coordinated stealthy, attack on a ship using medium-long range weapons that it can carry internally. The mig-29K would have to adopt a completely different approach.

Basing an approach on giving equal weight to different OEM's may work better if you are comparing similar systems in terms of design timelines. The Mig2-29 was designed before the days of low-observability being a factor in aircraft design, particularly fighter aircraft nor was it weapons system designed with the level of integration that the JSF has aspired to achieve by using the F-22 as a stepping stone. There are few differences in performance between the F-35A and B especially in handling and range/payload however there is ZERO difference in weapons system capability..

Even the Rafale brings tremendous weapons system advantages over the Mig-29K. An AESA radar, both the MICA-RF, and Meteor as long range BVR weapons, Spectra that covers both RF and IR and reliability and availability. Only drawback is cost however that could potentially be offset by domestic support over the lifetime if an increase in the IAF order accompanies a potential IN order. Even at a higher cost, a limited deck space on a carrier does somewhat justify a higher per unit cost.

The Marine version of the Rafale is a far better multi-role aircraft than the Mig-29K or even the Mig-35 in almost all metrics important from a weapons system perspective (performance, reliability, maintainability, sensor performance, weapons, networking range/payload etc). Against the Mig-35 which had many features onboard that would have made it superior to Mig-29K's, the IAF judged it to be so!

[Viv S]

Brar, just an aside. Please try to break your posts into slightly smaller paragraphs. I'm reading this on a 1080p screen; lots of clutter. So when I reach the end of one line, and move back to the left margin, its a bit hard to locate the beginning of the next line. Much easier if the 'text block' has just 3-4 lines (say.. 200 words or so).

Thanks.

Edit: Perfect!

[JTull]

A mixed flight of Rafale-M and Mig-29K would be interesting, if they can be data linked. Rafale with AESA and excellent avionics could be great addition. Together they would have an element of surprise that no adversary dare take lightly.

I think this news is all about GoI gathering potential requirements in course of encouraging Dassault to setup an assembly line in India.

Added later: This would mean de-risking IAC-1 complement until LCA-Navy Mk2 became operational (in 2022+). The logistics to embark two (potentially 3 - if you count LCA) types of aircraft and pilots and support staff for each would make it impractical though.

[brar_w]

^ Done !

[Vipul]

With Ajit Doval involved, and the very high price being paid for the 'deal', i am sure the NSA was finalizing some very Strategic stuff.

[NRao]

aided by networked operation between F-35's

And, a boat load of other assets. Having said that one has to wonder how India would leverage such techs. That is phase I.

Phase II: And, how about once the door is kicked open?

Finally, commonality does not mean 100%. It could mean 50% or whatever - as long as it is more economical than the alternative/s.

[brar_w]

@Nrao, I am not even getting to data sharing with other assets since that would make it unfair for the purpose of an evaluation. 4 F-35B's can coordinate a strike on land or sea or conduct air to air operations while exercising emission control utilizing their sensors sparingly and relying on their Low probability of intercept, directional data-links that share sensor fused data. Moreover, the sensors onboard can work with other sensors on other F-35B's to jointly develop situational awareness (as opposed to a simple back and forth exchange of data). All this has a bearing on how far your enemy sees you from, and on how you approach a mission whether that is a2a, or a2g etc.

A mixed flight of Rafale-M and Mig-29K would be interesting, if they can be data linked. Rafale with AESA and excellent avionics could be great addition. Together they would have an element of surprise that no adversary dare take lightly.

How would that be better than a flight of all rafale's? . The Mig-29K, LCA-N, Rafale and and Su-33 would be even better .

[NRao]

unfair for the purpose of an evaluation

Oh, OK.

Cool. So, is the idea to dumb down the F-35 to match a MiG-29K? Just asking. Maunam wakyam is an option.

[brar_w]

Oh, OK.

Cool. So, is the idea to dumb down the F-35 to match a MiG-29K? Just asking. Maunam wakyam is an option.

No, but a fighter to fighter evaluation in terms of which performs better in different missions a carrier aircraft is likely to perform. Interoperability with other assets is a big plus, and especially if you can develop extremely strong networking capability however that is on top of the basic ability of each aircrafty to perform the multiple missions these aircraft are likely to be tasked with. One can certainly make an argument from an aspirational perspective that there are going to be large opportunities to develop integration between P-8's and F-35B's for example using LOS data links or SATCOMS but a lot can be done with the mig-29 as well although it would be harder.

[Indranil]

@Brar,

I know what you are saying. We just belong to two different school of thoughts. Which is more prudent:
1. Paying three times for the "absolute cutting-edge" vs having numerical superiority with a "just-behind the cutting-edge" solution?
2. Does India need "absolute cutting-edge" to beat its opponents vs numerical supremacy and financial management with "Just behind the cutting-edge" in lieu of the global financial situation?
3. In modern air-wars, how much has having the "absolute cutting-edge" swayed the outcome?
4. Given that our defense is spread so thin, i.e. the number of aircraft to the area to protect, how do we best plug these holes. Gold-plated aircrafts or earth movers.

We both know the arguments from both sides. And we both have our beliefs. It's just difficult for me to buy the efficacy of gold-plated parts, when my armour is missing large chunks elsewhere.

[ramana]

3. Detecting the opponent first and getting into favorable firing position. Failing that getting behind the opponent into the third quadrant has helped the most.

[NRao]

Comparing one-on-one is nice, but impractical. Perhaps OT for this thread, but, IN will not go it alone - especially into a truly dire situation. And, one has to look at EMALS and carrier help being provided in this light - they are all integrated. I suspect that this is a dimension that in the calculus of the IN. The cost of a plane, when considered in this framework will be different than one without such a framework.

[NRao]

One reason and some basic logic:

New Chinese stealth fighter heightens dilemma for Indian Navy

Was last week’s inaugural flight of China’s second stealth fighter linked to the ongoing 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party? Was President Hu Jintao demonstrating his relationship with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), a powerful lever for elevating his protégés to the apex Politburo Standing Committee?

Several unanswered questions surround the October 31 debut of the J-31 Shenyang fighter, which the pathologically secretive PLA took unusual pains to publicise. Having already unveiled the J-20 Chengdu stealth fighter in January 2011, China is the only country that is developing two separate stealth fighters. The US is developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, albeit in three versions; Russia is working on a single design, the PAK-FA, to which India has hitched its wagon. Separately, Japan is developing the ATD-X demonstrator.

Other intriguing questions include: Given the J-31’s close resemblance to the US F-35 fighter, has China reverse-engineered it from blueprints that Lockheed Martin had reported stolen in 2009 from the computers of six American aerospace subcontractors? Is the J-31 for export only, which would explain the publicity that the PLA is giving it? Or will the PLA use the J-31 as an air superiority fighter while the larger J-20 strikes ground targets, an allocation of roles that mirrors the employment of the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 by the US Air Force? Or is the F-31 a competitor to the J-20, with the better of the two designs destined to go into production?

But the question that most worries the Indian Navy is: does the sturdy landing gear that experts have spotted on the J-31 indicate that the new fighter will operate from Chinese aircraft carriers, giving the PLA Navy, or PLA(N), an aerial combat capability that would outmuscle India’s in the Indian Ocean?

China is focusing keenly on naval air power. Just a month ago China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, had joined the PLA(N) fleet. The 58,500-tonne Liaoning — bought as scrap from Ukraine for a floating casino, but then renovated in Dalian shipyard into an operational carrier — is the PLA(N)’s first attempt at learning the complex skills of aircraft carrier operations. This is difficult learning. The US Navy lost some 12,000 aircraft and 8,500 airmen from 1949-1988 in developing its naval aviation skills. But Indian planners believe the Chinese will learn quickly, especially when the Liaoning is joined by more modern aircraft carriers that are already being built in China.

Indian Navy planners tell Business Standard that the PLA(N)’s three-pronged process — learning aircraft carrier operations; building one or two modern carriers; and inducting the J-31 — could take a decade or more. But after that, PLA(N) aircraft carrier battle groups could operate in the Indian Ocean, fielding fighters that are superior to India’s.

The Indian Navy’s 45 Russian MiG-29Ks, purchased for two new aircraft carriers, are capable fighters today, but would certainly be outclassed by the stealthy J-31 whenever it enters service. The navy’s new carriers — the 44,000-tonne INS Vikramaditya that could join the fleet next year; and the unnamed, 40,000-tonne Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) that will be ready only by 2017 — are both fitted with ski-jumps that are custom-built for the MiG-29K to take off.

If the navy wants a more capable fighter, e.g. the Dassault Rafale, which the Indian Air Force is buying, or the F-35C, which is the naval version of the Joint Strike Fighter, it will need an aircraft carrier with a catapult rather than a ski-jump. If the navy designs its second IAC (a 60,000-tonne vessel that is still being conceptualised) with a catapult on the flight deck, a fifth-generation stealth fighter could soon follow.

The navy has already signaled such an interest. In 2006, and again in 2007, New Delhi asked Lockheed Martin (which runs the F-35 programme) for briefings on the F-35B, a short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant that the US Marine Corps will fly off its smaller aircraft carriers called Landing Helicopter Docks. While the F-35B could operate from a ski-jump, the F-35C needs a catapult to propel it off the flight deck.

Will the J-31 push the navy towards more advanced fighters and a second IAC with catapult assisted launch? All options remain on the table. Then naval chief, Admiral Nirmal Verma, speaking in Delhi on August 7 shortly before he retired, did not rule out “having an entirely different carrier with a different complement of aircraft.”

That decision, however, would be a difficult one, keeping in mind that two carriers would already be fielding the MiG-29K, and a new fighter would complicate training and logistics.

“I can’t rule out anything or rule in anything. It is something at the concept stage and it will take a couple of years before we firm up our ideas on this,” said Admiral Verma.

The navy’s eyes will be focused on the Zhuhai Air Show, in China, in mid-November for more details that might emerge about China’s new stealth fighter.

[brar_w]

Paying three times for the "absolute cutting-edge" vs having numerical superiority with a "just-behind the cutting-edge" solution?

I see that point in the case of a land based figthers, however on your carrier you can't field three times the aircraft.

Does India need "absolute cutting-edge" to beat its opponents vs numerical supremacy and financial management with "Just behind the cutting-edge" in lieu of the global financial situation?

The Mig-29K would need quite a bit of work to be 'just behind the cutting edge'. In today's time AESA radars and considerable integration in avionics and varying degrees of sensor fusion is showing up in advanced versions of existing fourth generation aircraft. The Super Hornet fielded such capability years ago and the rafale has it in decent numbers too now. The Mig-35 attempted to do a bit of that however it was considered technically unacceptable by the IAF. Then comes the weapons packages that enhance the weapons system capability. Even here the Mig-29K needs quite a bit of work to offer flexibility and performance advantage to fit nicely in the second tier. The Mig-35 may as long as it can meet the reliability and mission capability of other 4.5 generation aircraft on offer.

In modern air-wars, how much has having the "absolute cutting-edge" swayed the outcome?

How have modern air-wars been a representation of what the IAF or IN are likely to see? Let me put this in another way. Would you rather fight a Su-33, J-10, J-31 and perhaps even a J-20 attacking a carrier with an F-35 or a Mig-29? You can move this argument to strike and other roles an aircraft is tasked to do...

Given that our defense is spread so thin, i.e. the number of aircraft to the area to protect, how do we best plug these holes. Gold-plated aircrafts or earth movers.

Actually a STOVL stealth fighter with cutting edge avionics at $100-$150 million is a bargain if you ask me when mixed with much larger amounts of more affordable multi role aircraft that are owned and controlled by India such as the N-LCA.

It's just difficult for me to buy the efficacy of gold-plated parts, when my armour is missing large chunks elsewhere.

I understand your argument. Its always about prioritization when finite resources are available and never do you have all the money to get everything you want and must live with acceptable levels of risk where you have to or can afford. However is a multi-role carrier aircraft, on top of a multi-billion dollar carrier strike group, with finite real-estate really where you want to make that trade, especially when the main threat to the carrier and its accompanying surface ships is an Air Force and Navy that is setting itself up for much larger threats?

[TSJones]

well there is a certain, short and stubby somebody starting to fly off US mondo carrier ships...........and it hauls and drops just. all. kinds. of. gear. internally. ...........

[Indranil]

Fair points Brar.

Just, one rebuttal. We can't take IAF evaluation as a remark on the capability/maturity of avionics of the Mig-29s. Otherwise F-16/F-18 avionics are not capable/mature enough.

[brar_w]

We can't take IAF evaluation as a remark on the capability/maturity of avionics of the Mig-29s. Otherwise F-16/F-18 avionics are not capable/mature enough.

F-16's and F-18's had performance issues because they had lopsided capability enhancement because their primary customer wanted it that way. I doubt that the AESA capability was under dispute especially when multiple mature solutions have been delivered worldwide. Same applies with levels of sensor fusion as outlined in UAE's F-16, and more importantly in the various block developments of the USN's F-18E/F. The problem was that the US decided to convert its multi-role strike aircraft into bomb trucks, choosing to ignore and not fund capability enhancements that would have brought back some of the performance lost over the years as other capability was prioritized. At the time of the MMRCA final RFP, both the radar suppliers for the US fighters had multiple, combat fighters with AESA radars in front line service unlike any other OEM in the competition.

The F-16U would have been an extremely strong contender against the euro-birds and would have brought a ton of performance back into the system. But it wasn't on offer. What was offered was a fat, low-growth capability version of the F-16 that had plusses in its avionics and PGM package but negatives in performance. On the Rhino side, it offered risk in getting capability lost as its weight increased. Had an EPE engine been available from the start at no added risk, perhaps it would have done better. I am deliberately focusing on the technical angle and ignoring the political one where a US combat fighter would be tough.

The Mig-35 however showed up with a system that had no single customer order, had no demonstrated industrial base to deliver the sort of avionics capability that existed in certain prototypes. It was a significantly larger risk vs. other options that were available. Even now, unless someone orders the Mig-35 pretty soon, Russia would wait till the PAKFA to field a mass produced fighter AESA radar. High MTBF and high mission reliability is a hallmark of advanced aircraft and here too the Mig needs to do a lot of work, or so it seems.

It was fairly clear where each submissions strengths and weaknesses lay. The Euro birds came with their own set of risks but they were more balanced fighters by far on account of being clean sheet 4.5 generation designs (as opposed to enhanced 4th generation aircraft) that allowed their designers to think about future missions and drive it into their designs. The only problem I have with the Rafale, is the cost where the IAF/MOD is paying almost 5th generation prices (if not exactly 5th generation prices) without some of the benefits of that capability. Technically (performance and acquisition) it was hands down a winner in that competition and the IAF structured its competition that way i.e. Technical performance and then best value through cost. I don't agree with that process, but that's what they did.

[Viv S]

No, but a fighter to fighter evaluation in terms of which performs better in different missions a carrier aircraft is likely to perform. Interoperability with other assets is a big plus, and especially if you can develop extremely strong networking capability however that is on top of the basic ability of each aircrafty to perform the multiple missions these aircraft are likely to be tasked with. One can certainly make an argument from an aspirational perspective that there are going to be large opportunities to develop integration between P-8's and F-35B's for example using LOS data links or SATCOMS but a lot can be done with the mig-29 as well although it would be harder.

There's also the E-2D, which is almost certain to equip the IAC-2 aside from providing land-based support. Also, the IN has displayed a more than fair bit of interest in a Global Hawk derivative. Link 1. Link 2. Hasn't materialized yet, most likely due to funding crunches but a Triton-I purchase will happen somewhere down the line.

Integrating multiple platforms will be major focus of attention for the IN.

[Khalsa]

Guys can you tell me if we have bashed the Rafael vs Su-35 somewhere on the forum before.
if so could you point me to link please

[Cain Marko]

^ would be a v.v. interesting matchup - a2a, Su-35 is probly the very best you can get below 5G (stealth) aircraft. It is the pinnacle of russian design - make up for any deficiencies with massive size, for e.g. huge, powerful pesa, big ass tail stinger with rear facing radar, 2000 ltr EFT capable on 3 hps over and above an already huge internal fuel volume, greater than even the MKI, ultra manevereable with tvc, RCS reduction measures claiming a size of 3msq or less, very powerful engines making it perhaps the best TWR around. Bigass jammers to boot. All in all, I don't think there is any 4 gen bird around that can easily top this.

Comes with a variety of upgraded munitions - A2G and A2A

Otoh, Rafale is much smaller but v.capable nevertheless:

A2A - highly optimized airframe designed to supercruise with EFTs, 14 hps that allow carriage of 9 tons of weapons - top notch AESA (although deliberately kept small), some in built RCS optimization, excellent close in and mraams - Mica EM/IIR, and Meteor. Good TWR and highly maneverable but not comparable to the above flanker, supposedly exceptional sensor fusion and EW through Spectra (GaN module AESA used). The one edge it does have over the Su-35 is its A2A weapons suite.
IAF seems very very impressed with the bird and it has performed exceedingly well vs. comparable peers and even the raptor in exercises. Has also won every technical competition vs. peers - there is something about this bird that has had every AF giving it top marks vs other 4.5 gen birds such as the F-15, F-16, EF-2000, Gripen and F-18.

[Cain Marko]

Btw, a recent article posted here suggested that one of the niggles in negotiation has been that Fra is unwilling to install the Israeli Dash V HMS. I don't see why this should be an issue considering that France already has the Topsight hms that the IN uses on its 29s. So why not the same for the Rafale? Won't this integration be easier?

[Cain Marko]

One has a feeling that India will bite the bullet and buy uber priced French hardware so as to maintain its relatively independent foreign policy position - it is reluctant to get involved with either the US or the Russians, and this is going to prove expensive, but probably worth it in the long run.

Much was being made of Modi's visit to Roos, supposedly was going to result in largest Indian buy from the Russians, ever. Never materialized, not even close - no Akula, no Kilo, no Talwar follow on, no S-400, no Pakfa, no MKIs - nada....Saurav Jha got it wrong this time, way wrong imho. If there was anything meaningful left in this relationship, at least something would have been purchased out of the long list.

Otoh, now there is noise being made that more hardware will likely be bought from the French. Will India's $$s now head towards the French instead?

[Austin]

Any Naval Aircraft purchased in future to be based on bigger CBG would also deploy nuclear weapons as part of triad so we need to make sure be it Rafale ,F-35 or something else we can integrate Free Fall bomb/Cruise missile with nuclear warheads suitably hardware it for the role and integrate with C&C of SFC but thats like 10 years from now we will get a big 60K+ carrier

[brar_w]

The fighter aircraft market 10 years from now will also be a lot different. Out of two large Euro-Canards, one will most likely be gone and it is entirely possible that production for both the rafale and the typhoon would have seized at that point. The Gripen-E would probably still be in production but would have been made redundant by the LCA-N. The PAKFA would be in production but it isn't clear whether a Naval PAKFA would have been designed and tested and available for off the shelf purchase or licensed production without committing to development. The choices therefore would be F-35B,C , Moving Rafale production line to India, Buying Rafale from Dassault if production line is still open, Buying more Mig-29K's or simply buying more N-LCA's while the AMCA/N is developed. Given the acquisition time it takes to complete major purchases I feel that a Rafale M program needs to start now for the IN if it wishes to sign the dotted line before the production line closes sometime next decade.

[Viv S]

Any Naval Aircraft purchased in future to be based on bigger CBG would also deploy nuclear weapons as part of triad so we need to make sure be it Rafale ,F-35 or something else we can integrate Free Fall bomb/Cruise missile with nuclear warheads suitably hardware it for the role and integrate with C&C of SFC but thats like 10 years from now we will get a big 60K+ carrier

How would a naval fighter employ a free-fall nuclear weapon in practice? All of coastal Pakistan is already within range of our Jamnagar-based Su-30MKIs. And an Indian CBG isn't likely to make it to within strike range of the Chinese mainland without incident. N-tipped cruise missile can be integrated on any fighter jet including the MiG-29K.

Any customization requiring the OEM to be involved is a non-starter - no outsider will be allowed any level of access to India's nuclear weaponry or associated hardware. Especially when plenty of viable alternatives are available to perform the same task (read: MKI, sub/surface-launched Nirbhay).

[member_27581]

Which deal are you talking about? The deal to conclude the talks for the part of the deal that will allow the deal? Or the deal before that which got rolled up into the other deal?

This has to be a sticky note or xl frame for this thread! The saga goes on

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 686128.cms

France's envoy to India, Francois Richier, said the two sides were holding talks in New Delhi but he could not say for sure if they would strike a deal ahead of, or during, Hollande's visit, which begins on Sunday.

France's envoy to India, Francois Richier, said the two sides were holding talks in New Delhi but he could not say for sure if they would strike a deal ahead of, or during, Hollande's visit, which begins on Sunday.

A French diplomatic source said Rafale was far from being the main reason for Hollande's visit, but it would provide an opportunity to move the deal towards completion

These unknown sources.

[SaiK]

..Moving Rafale production line to India, Buying Rafale from Dassault if production line is still open, ..

brar sahib joking eh?.. at what cost?

we rather invest in developing from first principles. it is okay to lose investment to gear up. example kaveri. we need to get that puppy up to the requirements table of LCA Mk3.