India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 3

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Jan 2012 05:32

Philip saar ... very pertinent indeed ... but the question always linger did we have the money when these guys went bankrupt ... and who would have bought these companies?

Though I am quite sure that Russia would have never let go of MIG, I would have abdolutely loved Indian built 328s too

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Jan 2012 08:22

MarcH wrote:While I read quite often that Typhoon + American weapons would be a cost effective solution, I ask myself why not Rafale + American weapons ? None of those listed are integrated in either platform (or integrated in both, as is the case with older Paveway series bombs...). And both use the same Mil Std databuses.

Maybe French have their attitudes and charge an arm and a leg for spareparts but at least their aircraft is ready to go as it is.

If you want the Litening III, HARM, Maverick, JSOW, AMRAAM, JDAM and/or SDB integrated, the Rafale is no longer 'ready to go'. Not unless the IAF plans to stick to the AASM and Scalp-EG, which if the MICA buy is any evidence, are going to be unpleasantly expensive.

Which means as far as the time-frame is concerned, Eurofighter and Rafale are effectively starting off the block almost together (the EF may have a slight edge).

As much as I like the Tiffy, I think in a scenario that involves war with china I would prefer an aircraft with better endurance. Airfields close to the front will probably be under constant missile fire and thus unusable.

Cruise missiles aren't quite that effective - they're basically expendable rocket powered drones. The IAF is developing a comprehensive network of SRSAMs, QRSAMs, Aerostat and AEW&C radars to deal with that threat.

Besides, if the forward bases have been rendered inoperational, with most of the fleet including relatively short-ranged Jaguars and MiGs operating from the hinterland, then the war for supremacy in the air is over. The IAF needs to enforce local air superiority (if not air dominance) and that can't be done from rear areas.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jan 2012 09:17

have to agree with Viv S here...
US munitions are cheaper due to huge production runs (and huge usage rates in periodic wars)..they also have a diversity of stuff at various price and capability points in the chart and are constantly working to confuse us by introducing yet more variations!

if IAF is forced back into the hinterland the war is effectively lost (and IA left to the wolves) because
[a] our paltry number of refuelers (6 at last count, with 6 more in the works) can hardly keep a couple squadrons active over the front....none of the Jags/M2K/Mig27 have the kind of range to operate from central/south india and still loiter over front or undertake DPSA...if you recall around 170 AAR birds were used in the kosovo war to support ops from Italy just a hop away across the adriatic sea. we cannot run a war using AAR for sure..

we hardly have a few big bases in the interior away from china border like pune, jamnagar, nagpur, bidar, kalaikunda....most of our bases are within easy cruise missile GLCM range from the tibet border...we have no option but to defend these fwd bases and remain operational

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 09 Jan 2012 11:45

Philip wrote:Does the MICA deal represent a pay-off for the French,or when seen in the context of the M-2000 upgrades a converging of procurement policy towards French wares? The Brits are inside already with the Hawk extras deal.It is only the "poor" Germans who have yet to be "fed"! I strongly recommend that they be fed a deal for U-boats,which would ensure that our knowledge gained operating German subs will not be lost forever.

I don't understand; but perhaps you are being sarcastic? Why is it necessary to curry favor with losing bidders by giving them sweetheart deals?

indranilroy wrote:the question always linger did we have the money when these guys went bankrupt ... and who would have bought these companies?

It is not a given that India would have gotten unfettered access to the crucial technological bits even if we had purchased a MiG or a Dornier. Indian owners would have only been entitled to market operations and profits (which were dismal, hence the bankruptcies). The sensitive technology would still have been under rigorous export control laws. We would still have to jump through hoops to get them, but conceivably it could have worked out cheaper.

The best ToT still remains tempting leading lights from these failed outfits with "offers they can't refuse" and embedding them amongst peers of the homegrown variety. China did an operation paperclip after the end of the FSU. We have lost interest after Kurt Tanking.

Viv S wrote:The IAF needs to enforce local air superiority (if not air dominance) and that can't be done from rear areas.

Are we still thinking of "Air Dominance" or even "local air superiority" vis-a-vis the Chinese? Is that a realistic or likely objective? Is anything more than "contested airspace" a realistic outcome from the IAF?

IOW, is IAF : PLAAF :: PAF : IAF?

(i.e. IAF isto PLAAF, as the PAF is unto IAF). Anybody has anything to argue for or against this formula? Is this true in 2012? Will it be true in 2020? What about 2030?

Will · Post by **Will** » 09 Jan 2012 11:54

The posts these days on this thread indicate the height of boredoom that we are all experiencing while we wait for the MOD to get of their butts and announce the winner

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jan 2012 13:44

Badar,no sarcasm,.Due to difficulties in servicing some Soviet/Russin weapon systems,and the fact that in certain areas,wstern tech was better/more reliable,the GOI cast its net far and wide in searching for alternatives,from Israel,Europe,even unto the US.A galaxy of foreign heads of govt. have visited India all touting their wares and promising a "quid pro quo" (backscratching) if they got a "bone".The beleagured Euro has made it essentila that the EU nations get as much business from us which will/may enable them to sustain their defence industries.All parameters being equal,if the service coioncerned happy with either shortlisted system,we do have options in discreetly directing a decuision that bring us soem political mileage.For example support for a UNSC seat,nuclear tech,whatever the GOI would like and can get from the opposite side.

In the current orderbook,the poor Germans (the powerhouse of Europe) have got nothing from us,barring a few miserable tank engines for Arjun and such like.The M-2000 upgrade,MICA decision,all point towards an IAF preference and convergence upon French wares in the western part of its combat inventory.Would it want to create further MRO issues with inducting yet another type/species,or would it prefer to have mainly Russian and French aircraft for convenience of operations? Critics could say in return that since the UK is lead nation for the EF,and since the IAF have bought the Hawk and have operated Gats,Hunters,Jags,etc. are familiar with British aircraft,the EF is perfect for it,despite having so many foreign partners and that the GOI would need to deal with only one nation,Britain,for any procrment/after sales issues.It is going to be a photo-finish,isn't the tension mounting gloriously? Paws sweating,knees knocking,voices stammering,repeated rushes to the loo! Who said that this winter is one of the coldest ever in Delhi? The heat generated by this deal is enough to warm the city!

The current breathlessness reminds me of headlines used to generate sales by vernaculr papers,which used to trumpet from the mast,
"X cabinet minister resigns",in bold front page headklines,with the fine print saying "rumour in Delhi"! The last time,when the DFSA deal was on the verge of being announced,there was a headline in one eminent national paper saying ,
"Its Mirage!",only to announce a couple of days later,"It's Jaguar!".
Following that grand Indian media tradition,let me now also be the first to say....
"It's the Typhoon!"....rumour in Delhii.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 09 Jan 2012 14:37

Philip wrote:Badar,no sarcasm,.Due to difficulties in servicing some Soviet/Russin weapon systems,and the fact that in certain areas,wstern tech was better/more reliable,the GOI cast its net far and wide in searching for alternatives,from Israel,Europe,even unto the US.A galaxy of foreign heads of govt. have visited India all touting their wares and promising a "quid pro quo" (backscratching) if they got a "bone".The beleagured Euro has made it essentila that the EU nations get as much business from us which will/may enable them to sustain their defence industries.All parameters being equal,if the service coioncerned happy with either shortlisted system,we do have options in discreetly directing a decuision that bring us soem political mileage.For example support for a UNSC seat,nuclear tech,whatever the GOI would like and can get from the opposite side.

I am agreed hundred percent on the diversification of our procurement lines. If galaxy of foreign heads have been paying visits and hawking wares in India, does it not then imply that this is a buyers market? I had assumed that the quid pro quo for the West giving us the wares would be that we would give them our hard earned foreign exchange? Why is that suddenly not sufficient?

What I am saying is that I am entirely unconvinced of the efficacy or the necessity of "curring favor" with sweet heart deals with a view to getting nuclear tech or UNSC seat or whatever. Probably the best thing that can happen in the medium term is that India gets no nuclear tech from outside and continues to develop its own. If the west is so desperate for money and India as desperate for the nuclear tech, then we will see another troop of visiting dignitaries hawking reactors to shore up their faltering economies. Ten billion for missiles etc will get one nothing, zilch.

As for UNSC seat: What value is that? Would we get a veto? If the SC is so devalued that it can be 'purchased' by flinging a 10 billion here and another 10 there, why do we even want it? If the hoi polloi can purchase seats with cash then the real seat of power will shift elsewhere and UNSC will become a moribund talking shop.

The only way UNSC seat will have meaning is if we are so large and so powerful that UNSC without us will have no credibility whatsoever (and we are "this" close to it anyways).

"India ko kar buland itna ke har resolution se pehle
Security council India se ye poche, bata teri raza kia hai"
- with apologies to Iqbal

West plays coy with its tech and refuses to sells specific items we might desire like Meteor or a particular AESA? Double the stakes and order a squadron of Hongdu JL-8 and see the mad scramble that ensues with people falling over themselves to sell stuff to us.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 10 Jan 2012 02:08

Breaking news (or not).. EF Closes in on victory.

Govt to soon close deal for fighter jets
LiveMint

New Delhi: The Eurofighter Typhoon may have emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) in the multi-billion dollar deal to procure 126 fighter jets for the Indian Air Force (IAF), according to people familiar with the matter.

Mint could not independently verify this.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2012 02:35

so Thursday 12th Jan 2012 ....it is!

some numerologist/astrologists here in the forum please verify!. tia

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Jan 2012 02:53

From LiveFist

I'd been very wary all weekend about posting about a very strong rumour that's been doing the rounds specifically for the last five days or so, but now a mainsteam Indian business newspaper (Mint) has a piece today leading with precisely that -- word that the Eurofighter Typhoon has been identified by the Indian MoD as the lowest bidder (L1) in India's monumental $20-billion medium multirole combat aircraft (M-MRCA) competition. Obviously, there is no official confirmation of this, and there is unlikely to be any until a formal announcement is made either way. The competition has been marked by hearsay and rumours right through its life (sometimes, vendors have leapt in to correct them), and I'm only putting this post up since a mainstream newspaper has put it down in print (and that I'd heard the rumour as well). It's delicate right now.

The brief report goes on to say that representatives of EADS Cassidian and Dassault are to be summoned to the MoD on Thursday (Jan 12). So is this it? We'll know soon. Stay tuned.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jan 2012 02:57

So are the financial markets reflecting the rumor?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Jan 2012 03:00

This news of the Typhoon being L1 is huge- albeit its still a rumour and is unconfirmed.

I do agree with VivS and Singha about the US munitions for the Typhoon being a big plus point as will the LDP (Litening III) whereas the IAF uses the older Litening LDPs, but the IAF will be familiar with the type.

Considering the cost of the MICA for the Mirages and the scale of the MRCA order, a large purchase of AIM-120Ds or C7s and AIM-9X/Iris-T/ASRAAM might make sense, coupled with a smaller order for the Meteors. Add a large order for Paveway II/III/IVs, JDAMs and Brimstones and a smaller order for the Storm Shadow cruise missile. Even the Rafale can use the Paveway II..Would be far more cost effective than the AASM which is built in far smaller numbers which increases unit costs.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 10 Jan 2012 03:02

Shades of Tejas engine deal rumors ...

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Jan 2012 03:28

Kartik wrote:
Considering the cost of the MICA for the Mirages and the scale of the MRCA order, a large purchase of AIM-120Ds or C7s and AIM-9X/Iris-T/ASRAAM might make sense, coupled with a smaller order for the Meteors. Add a large order for Paveway II/III/IVs, JDAMs and Brimstones and a smaller order for the Storm Shadow cruise missile. Even the Rafale can use the Paveway II..Would be far more cost effective than the AASM which is built in far smaller numbers which increases unit costs.

I suppose the cost of potential weapons for the aicraft will have been taken into account when the life-cycle cost was calculated and evaluated. This might reflect in the decision.

As an aside, the Typhoon seems to lack an Anti-Ship missile (including planned weapon integrations). I'm not aware of a any plan to integrate the Harpoon. The Rafale of course has the air-launched Exocet. The other issue of course is that most a-to-g weapons integration including the Brimstone and Storm Shadow is still ongoing or planned unlike for the Rafale.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2012 03:40

But I guess US munitions would have to come under a separate deal? directly with raytheon.. some time back they were going gung-ho! on supplies ++ (ToT/local production).

nachiket, no typhoons have advertised use of harpoons, but it would be integrated later.

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/weapons.html

This particular section covers Air to Ground (AG) weaponry. Only a small number of weapons are currently examined, further weapon systems will be added later.

but, but, it could be just like the signal from troposphere meaning - losing like they did with EJ200 for Tejas.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2012 04:11

Remember well all ye pundits,ye heard it first from "moi" and not "Mint"!

Less seriously speaking,two air shows ago,at the airport,I was in conversation with the Vayu team and asked them who they thought might end up winners.They said then that the EF team were the most confident.At the chalet,the EF exec.,a pilot who had flown all the rivals' aircraft (MIG-29,not 35 though),said that the sensor fusion of the EF was the best by far.

PS:As to the political aspects of the deal,it's not my opinion whether a sweetheart deal for a UNSC seat or whatever, is worthwhile or not.But the GOI seems to value such a position even without veto immensely,and our honourable PM can see little beyond nuclear tech being the magic ingredient for India's fortunes.Frankly I feel and have stated before, that the UN is a lavish bordello,where the P-5 "patrons" get to screw the rest of the world ,nations of the General Assembly in the UNSC (some even for free),which by rotation inducts "eunuchs" from the GA who can only watch the sado-masochistic orgiastic humping like voyeurs ,while the entire establishment is run by a suitable and servile (preferably dark-skinned) "adam"!

PPS:"$20 Billion"! The equivalent of 20 Akula SSGNs/ATV SSBNs or 5X65,000t carriers! That's the magnitude of the deal.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 10 Jan 2012 04:40

Viv S wrote:If you want the Litening III, HARM, Maverick, JSOW, AMRAAM, JDAM and/or SDB integrated, the Rafale is no longer 'ready to go'. Not unless the IAF plans to stick to the AASM and Scalp-EG, which if the MICA buy is any evidence, are going to be unpleasantly expensive.

Which means as far as the time-frame is concerned, Eurofighter and Rafale are effectively starting off the block almost together (the EF may have a slight edge).

Well, that is exactly my point. No real advantage for Eurofighter by picking US weapons.

Viv S wrote: Cruise missiles aren't quite that effective - they're basically expendable rocket powered drones. The IAF is developing a comprehensive network of SRSAMs, QRSAMs, Aerostat and AEW&C radars to deal with that threat.

Besides, if the forward bases have been rendered inoperational, with most of the fleet including relatively short-ranged Jaguars and MiGs operating from the hinterland, then the war for supremacy in the air is over. The IAF needs to enforce local air superiority (if not air dominance) and that can't be done from rear areas.

Not necessarily. Rafales (and MKI's) are less dependant on tanker support. Therfore ramp space on the forward bases can be used for the sorter ranged types. I see that as advantage.

But nevermind, if the rumors are true and the Tiffy wins I'm happy as well. I still hope to see that ingenious ITP nozzle on an operational Tiffy + apex strakes and the fully developed electronic attack capability of the Captor E. An Indian order increases the likelihood of such upgrades.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2012 04:48

MarcH wrote:Not necessarily. Rafales (and MKI's) are less dependant on tanker support. Therfore ramp space on the forward bases can be used for the sorter ranged types. I see that as advantage.

Tankers don't use forward bases.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2012 04:50

But there are many Raffy supporters here who would be disappointed. I am sure aurthuro is one of them. He had a great run in the MRCA thread, actually I would visit just to read posts from him and Viv. It does not look peachy that he is not posting a line or two now after the rumor.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 10 Jan 2012 05:40

GeorgeWelch wrote:Tankers don't use forward bases.

No, but MiG-29's, Jag's and MiG-27's do. In the end more available sorties. If the more expansive assets can operate from safer bases, that's a plus.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 10 Jan 2012 06:16

So, if the EF is selected as rumored, which aircraft will fly the strike missions for the IAF after the Jags and the Mig-27s retire -- EF or the MKI?

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 10 Jan 2012 06:22

I think LCA Tejas

nash · Post by **nash** » 10 Jan 2012 07:11

Kakkaji wrote:So, if the EF is selected as rumored, which aircraft will fly the strike missions for the IAF after the Jags and the Mig-27s retire -- EF or the MKI?

I would say MKI..it is a true multi-role fighter in IAF inventory and after Super 30 upgrade it will be far more effective in strike mission than any other fighter.

may be in coming years we might see further order of MKI if EF get selected and MKI is going to perform strike role.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Jan 2012 07:40

nachiket wrote: As an aside, the Typhoon seems to lack an Anti-Ship missile (including planned weapon integrations). I'm not aware of a any plan to integrate the Harpoon. The Rafale of course has the air-launched Exocet. The other issue of course is that most a-to-g weapons integration including the Brimstone and Storm Shadow is still ongoing or planned unlike for the Rafale.

EADS has been looking at the feasibility of integrating the Marte-ER anti-ship missile with the Typhoon.

Aviation Week article

The Eurofighter consortium and MBDA are looking at the feasibility of integrating the Marte-ER air-to-sea missile on the Typhoon fighter to meet an Indian requirement that is part of the Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft program.

The work includes a recent fit-check of missiles on the fighter, says Stefano Chiatti, a special adviser to MBDA. A Typhoon would be able to carry three Marte-ERs under each wing, rather than merely a total of two RBS-15s, he notes. The missile, to be known as the Marte-ERP in this configuration, would also have less effect on the fighter’s handling, he asserts.

A typical load would see a Typhoon carry four missiles, on the inner and outer wing stations, with a fuel tank on the center wing station, although it also could feature a Marte-ERP if desired.

The Marte-ER would not feature the folding fins associated with the helicopter-launched version of the missile. It also would shed the booster, which is not needed to get the missile up to speed, and that, in turn, permits the use of a larger warhead. The Marte-ERP warhead would weigh about 120 kg (265 lb.) rather than around 70 kg and have penetrating and sector-blast properties.

Chiatti says there is still time to complete development work because the anti-ship requirement does not have to be met until 2017.

MBDA would work closely with the Indian Defense Research & Development Organization on the concept, in particular the warhead, which also would have the advantage of helping Eurofighter meet part of its industrial offset package should it win the MMRCA competition over the Dassault Rafale.

One of the advantages of using six slightly smaller missiles rather than two RBS-15s is the ability to better overwhelm ships’ air defenses. Chiatti notes that the Typhoon and Marte-ERP would be used against larger, well-protected ships such as Chinese vessels with the HQ-9 air defense system. By firing six missiles, the chances of saturating the radar in one sector increases. Moreover, he notes, the use of a turbojet allows an operator to stagger the missiles’ arrival to take advantages of times the radar is shifting between different modes, such as tracking, scanning and uplinking.

The baseline Marte-ER has a range of more than 100 km (62 mi.) when launched from a rotorcraft and replaces the Marte Mk2 motor with the turbojet.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Jan 2012 07:56

MarcH wrote:
Well, that is exactly my point. No real advantage for Eurofighter by picking US weapons.

Well, in a way it is an advantage- the weapons are a good deal cheaper than what we'd get from France..for instance, Pakistan bought more AMRAAMs than India bought MICAs, and bought them for nearly half the price that we're going to pay. the MICAs are great missiles no doubt, but they will be far too expensive for a fleet of 126 (and possibly 63 more) MRCAs. The same goes for the AASM.

But nevermind, if the rumors are true and the Tiffy wins I'm happy as well. I still hope to see that ingenious ITP nozzle on an operational Tiffy + apex strakes and the fully developed electronic attack capability of the Captor E. An Indian order increases the likelihood of such upgrades.

Yes indeed, if the Typhoon wins, it will finally gain the impetus that was lacking and as a result, the maturity that it has lacked so far.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2012 08:31

has the martel been updated? its a old missile of early 80s vintage and its airframe was used for the sea eagle and armat projects.

to me air launched harpoon looks like the most contemporary option having undergone N number of updates surely. weight of 700kg is not hugely over the Martel 550kg and less than RBS15 800kg.

if they want a small rocket powered precision attack weapon to salvo fire and overwhelm defences by numbers I have one word - AASM

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 10 Jan 2012 08:40

idrw.org few days ago had Indicated Euro might have won as per their sources

So who won the big contest ?

Well as per rumors , its Eurofighter !!

http://idrw.org/?p=6276#more-6276

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Jan 2012 08:48

I remember reading the newsreports when the IAF first exercised with the RAF's Typhoons. I think it was love at first sight - or maybe at first flight, for the IAF. It seemed then that the IAF really wanted the Typhoon, and it looks like it's got the aircraft it wanted all along.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2012 08:56

given the funding is there a reason why AASM cannot be integrated into typhoon? (if EF wins and for some reason we do not want SDB2 as the extended range weapon....for instance it might use mil grade GPS signals which are denied to us and the US will likely not refit our SDB with a glonass signal receiver....)

the only mil grade signal we officially can get is glonass, so long range weapons have to work around that idea.

same thing might affect the JDAM...sure the pakis have got themselves JDAM but will it use the civilian grade 10m res signal or the mil grade 1m signal? during georgia war unkil arranged to 'offset' the gps signal over that region by a few 100 mts to throw off russian navigation and weapons that relied on gps (the glonass was not available then over that area probably)

I would rather for the dal-roti LGB work, we mass produced Sudarshan and test it with glonass receiver rather than be at unkil's mercy with a huge Paveway purchase.

likewise for our ER missile , develop the Astra/AAD into local weapons quickly than go big on the storm shadow or crystal maze. they may not be as great immediately but atleast they will work when we need them to - 100% better than shiny but subject to 'issues'

nash · Post by **nash** » 10 Jan 2012 09:43

so it seem like eurpoean platform with American weapon, clearly a political decison to make unkill happy by sharing the pie to him.

Now in week time we need to change the name of thread to Typhoon news and discussion...

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 10 Jan 2012 10:24

^^ well it is still rumours ... lets wait & see. Hope to see a decision soon.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2012 10:26

so, if cassadians wins this deal, the dassaulters will think and learn lessons that even if they enjoy a prime share, for big daddy deals, they have to chew up and reduced costs, and not d-assault on price-jacking of parts, components and services and upgrades.

the big players always make profit on economy of scales, and longer RoI, but thereby establish very long relationship as well.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jan 2012 10:41

Badar wrote:
Viv S wrote:The IAF needs to enforce local air superiority (if not air dominance) and that can't be done from rear areas.
Are we still thinking of "Air Dominance" or even "local air superiority" vis-a-vis the Chinese? Is that a realistic or likely objective? Is anything more than "contested airspace" a realistic outcome from the IAF?

IOW, is IAF : PLAAF :: PAF : IAF?

(i.e. IAF isto PLAAF, as the PAF is unto IAF). Anybody has anything to argue for or against this formula? Is this true in 2012? Will it be true in 2020? What about 2030?

Instead of outcomes over the battlefield as a whole, its better to look at it in terms of sectors or zones of influence. While maintaining air dominance or air supremacy, of the sort exercised by the USAF, is obviously out of the question, the IAF can enforce air superiority over friendly troop positions extending to the FEBA, and total checking of enemy air activity in a region... say 75 km from its forward air bases.

Coming to the PAF-IAF, IAF-PLAAF analogy, I admit I've mused over the similarity often, but I'm not convinced by it.

Firstly, the disparity in forces isn't as lopsided - in terms of fourth generation fighters the IAF's inventory is roughly speaking 4:1 against the PAF and 1:2 against the PLAAF.

Secondly, there's the technological superiority that the IAF maintains vis-a-vis both forces - the PLAAF because it can't access western tech and the PAF because it can't afford it.

Thirdly, the IAF is clearly the better trained force and by a considerable margin. While there's been an improvement in Chinese standards over last two decades (before that they were truly abysmal), its still constrained by being a very insular force. That PAF too while placing a strong emphasis on pilot training, is hampered by budgetary concerns - flight hours logged are still a function of the amount of imported jet fuel the service can afford (making foreign exercises too an expensive proposition).

The IAF on the other hand, not only trains hard but also extensively exercises with numerous friendly air forces. Also, Indian military as a whole remains more open and thereby more amenable to change. That often results in allegations like the CAG jeopardizing national security, but on the whole is preferable to the state prevailing in our neighborhood where uncomfortable facts are swept under rug.

Finally and possibly most importantly, the geography has not been a good friend to the PAF. Most of its assets are concentrated in a thin belt running along the length of the country 50-250km from the border. The IAF-PLAAF front on the other hand, spans a massive area with challenging terrain, making it harder for the superior force to concentrate its resources for a decisive result (as opposed to a slugging war of attrition).

All in all, at least in a single front war I'd expect the IAF to be able to fight the PLAAF to a stalemate - prevent it from significantly influencing the ground war while clocking a superior attrition rate. I don't believe the PAF has the capacity to do the same vis-a-vis the IAF.

(BTW this line of discussion is mostly off-topic, so its best pursued on a different thread.)

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Jan 2012 10:50

This seems to be the logical conclusion.

Firstly, the technical/functional decision had recommended both Typhoon and Rafale, so the final selection is not a reflection of technical/functional superiority of one versus the other.

Secondly, this is a commercial decision. The French government has mandated that any future development and French procurement needs to be subsidized by foreign sales. This automatically puts Rafale and Dassault at a commercial disadvantage.

Thirdly ToT. The French have some amazing stuff like radars and sensors, however they’re reluctant sharing them, unlike Eurofighter consortium. The Mirage deal and the Kaveri JV was the best ToT we could possibly get from the French.

Fourthly, from what I’ve heard, the Gripen NG was the flyer’s choice. Gripen is what the pilots want Tejas to be. It was shot down because technocrats saw 1. Competition to Tejas 2. IAF didn’t want to increase percentage of fleet with sanction prone US engine, with Tejas already using one.

This good aircraft will win wherever competition is truly open without any other non-technical/functional considerations.

Fifthly, sanction prone and rider-ridden US fighters were always out of contention, IAF may use US helicopters & transports, but never core fighters. Its IAF & GoI’s answer to CISMOA.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/wi ... orses.html
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/10/ex ... heyre.html

Lastly, MiG-35 never offered any advantages over Su-30MKI. Infact, it had performance deficiencies over Su-30MKI. Instead of selecting MiG-35, India would rather order more Su-30MKI. This plane will see play in competition with J-10 & JF-17, offering dual engine advantages.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 10 Jan 2012 11:05

Nothing comes close!!! (watch in full HD)

In anticipation

Goodbye Katrina! (will eat crow soup if decision otherwise)

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 10 Jan 2012 11:05

Livefist updates Eurofighter has been identified as the lowest bidder(L1) by the MOD, but still in rumour phase.....

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2012/01/eu ... ndian.html

nash · Post by **nash** » 10 Jan 2012 11:09

keshavchandra wrote:Livefist updates Eurofighter has been identified as the lowest bidder(L1) by the MOD, but still in rumour phase.....
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2012/01/eu ... ndian.html

If it is rumour then i like the rumour of split order 126 to tiffy and 63 odd to raffy, then later(end of decade) IN order another 40-50 Raffy for IAC-2....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Jan 2012 11:14

>> Goodbye Katrina! (will eat crow soup if decision otherwise)

don't worry, this Gov promised France a compensation and some believe it will be few sqd of Katrina after this deal.

Actually i thought this selection drama will be nail biting till the climax. But due to several leaks for the past several months, it has already emerged that Tiffy is going take the cup.

Now interest is more on why this selection. Based on various voices,

1. Tiffy has still room for growth and can be adapted to Indian needs.

2. American influence.

3. in terms of industrial partnership and off-sets.

4. Chinese threat.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jan 2012 11:17

MarcH wrote: Well, that is exactly my point. No real advantage for Eurofighter by picking US weapons.

Well there's an advantage in that their integration on the EF is slightly ahead, while nullifying the much touted Rafale advantage of having a spectrum of air to ground weapons already operational.

Even the very capable Exocet for example appears less than attractive - with the IAF and IN employing (or set to) it with the Jaguar IM, Sea Harrier and P-8I, it makes more sense to persist with the Harpoon.

Not necessarily. Rafales (and MKI's) are less dependant on tanker support. Therfore ramp space on the forward bases can be used for the sorter ranged types. I see that as advantage.

With two external fuel tanks the EF already has a range comparable to the Su-30MKI (on internal fuel). Now if the Sukhoi's range is considered adequate, there's no reason why the EF should be saddled with additional fuel.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 10 Jan 2012 11:26

Well we know it certainly can dance when fully loaded.