sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
It is a European Option.
its only down side is expense. which is better then the Russian and US problems.
Rafale , to expensive , but good plane meets out needs TOT plus AESA source code.
Eurofighter , very expensive , very good craft , i think it meets our need . ToT + plus euro-fighter partnership. Very interesting but also very long term investment into a very expensive plane. (you get more than just a plane with this one)
Saab Gripen , affordable , good craft , perfectly fits out needs , it has super cruise , tot.
People keep telling me Gripen fit's needs best , pilots say plane is very intuitive
I think politically Euro fighter would be best. Technically its also the most capable.
Rafale , i suppose it tries to strike a balance between the other two.
but not really , its a good strike fighter , similar to our mirages so easier to train and induct
But only Gripen And EF can Super cruise , so that will tell you what kind of craft they are.
the choice
Its really like Efficiency(Saab) versus effectiveness(EF) .
I agree with you that the choice must be a European, but I disagree about some other points. What exactly do you think is "our needs"?
You said all would fit it, but although EF, Rafale and Gripen NG are have similar delta wing / canard designs and are aimed on high manouverability as well as low RCSs, their roles are still different. EF and Gripen NG are mainly aimed on A2A, Gripen NG as an light weight interceptor and the EF as an air superiority fighter. That's why SC and maximum speed are more important for them, than payload, or range, but only the EF will have a radar with comparable long ranges like the Flankers for example.
The Rafale instead is aimed on omni role capabilitie, means same maneouverability, low RCS, to be good in WVR and BVR, but because it was designed as a carrier fighter too, range and payload was important too.
The only point where the Rafale lacks behind the EF is radar diameter, and top speed, but not in t/w ratios, manouverability, or technologies. That's why I always say, it is way closer to EF in A2A, than the EF would be to Rafale in A2G.
Imo, the focus of IAF can't be A2A, because we already induct numbers of ne fighters that has A2A mainly in mind too (LCA light weight interceptors and MKI/ Pak Fa air superiority fighters) and that's exactly the reason why neither Gripen NG, nor EF with less developed A2G capabilities would fit.
The other point is the EF partnership, it is not an equal partnership, it's only for the production of avionics. We won't have any say fur further developments, or upgrades, 3 of the 4 members have higher orders than our 126 fighters.
On the other side, there is no other competition where Rafale could get such a big order than in MMRCA, which means, even if they win Brazil, UAE and Kuwait like it seems, we still would have the second highest order besides France itself. So where are the higher chances of a partnership that would be worth it?
Kaveri-Snecma engine, Topsight HMD, MBDA partnership for weapons, Maitri SAM JV, not to forget that EADS is half French too, all strong points that shows the chances of a good Indo-French strategic partnership.
The last point is Gripen NG, because from the European fighters offers clearly the least ToT, economical, or political advantages. Saab is as depended on other companies, or assistance like we are on LCA. So both must be added as disadvantages for it, not as advantages.
Only Rafale offers advantages in all regards that would be important for us, be it A2A/A2G for IAF and IN, be it economical advantages with parterships, or JV, or even political advantages in strategic terms.