What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Active Aeroelastic Wing has not been incorporated into production F/A-18 E/F, this technology will likely debut on Boeing's 6th generation tailless design.

boeing-6th-generation-concept.jpg


The point I was trying to make and perhaps I didn't emphasize it was that the F/A 18 has one of the thinnest wing on a production fighter contributing to its exceptional L/D score. F/A-18's thin wings made it an ideal candidate for AAW studies. AAW technology is an option that Boeing can explore in the future if F/A-18 customers wish to expand the aircrafts capability.

I have to admit AAW is an interesting concept. But its surprising that since the tests concluded in 2005 the US air force, navy or RAF's (largest and only operators) have not even requested one squadron or even tech demonstrator to attract future customers. I have my doubts this tech getting approved for India sale as she is yet to sign CISMOA or LSA (India has already purchased C-130J without many imp. tech).
1) The US congress has to approve any defense tech transfer.
2) US can use such tech transfer as a carrot to intervene between India and Pakistan.
3) The 6th gen. aircraft is an conceptual drawing far away reality and beyond the current scope of MMRCA.

The ability to alter wing shape in flight and eliminating the horizontal tail has several benefits, reducing drag, reducing radar cross section and weight are some of the key benefits of incorporating AAW. To answer your question, the design goal was to improve on aerodynamic performance without compromising existing capability so while maneuverability is improved by AAW the ability to fly and fight carrying asymmetric loads remains the same.

1) The Super hornet is bigger in dimensions than Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen and also has a bigger RCS.
2) If you are talking about an empty jet or with internal weapons bay, I agree. But even if the aircraft has radar absorbing paint, with weapons its RCS is bound to be a lot more.

NASA - NASA Dryden Fact Sheet - Active Aeroelastic Wing

About 25 research missions were flown in the second phase, covering 18 test points ranging from speeds of Mach .85 to Mach 1.3 and altitudes ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 feet.
Isn't the normal flying altitude/height (service ceiling) for a jet in a mission/war about 40,000-50,000 ft or more?
 
Last edited:
.
I have to admit AAW is an interesting concept. But its surprising that since the tests concluded in 2005 the US air force, navy or RAF's (largest and only operators) have not even requested one squadron or even tech demonstrator to attract future customers. I have my doubts this tech getting approved for India sale as she is yet to sign CISMOA or LSA (India has already purchased C-130J without many imp. tech).

CISMOA is misunderstood by many, C-130J's communication gear was stripped of its encryption component to be replaced by Israeli or European ones.

CISMOA entails the laying down of protocols for interoperability and assuring the security of communication between the armed forces of the two countries

"Government had asked us about our opinion on these agreements and we told them that this will not make any substantial difference to our operational capabilities"
-- Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik


Refusing CISMOA, LSA not to Impact Operational Effectiveness says Indian Air Force Chief P.V. Naik | India Defence


1) The US congress has to approve any defense tech transfer.

Our intellectual property is valuable to us but whenever we agree to transfer technology the recipient nation has benefited immensely by it, Brazil and Israel have made significant contribution to the aerospace industry with US assistance. India on the other hand is struggling with LCA and Kaveri engine despite receiving European and Russian ToT for over forty years -why?

A former IAF officer shares his thoughts.

Transfer of Technology (TOT): Myth or reality?
Posted by vkthakur on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 (EST)

Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.


Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

I have heard the phrase being bandied by politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats, since my school days, nearly 40 years ago.

India has been manufacturing MiG-21 variants since the 70s. Let alone developing a new aircraft based on the MiG-21, HAL was never able to even improve the aircraft in any way - Adding a dorsal fuel tank, for example, as in the MiG-21 Bis.

India designed and developed the Marut HF-24 in the late 1960's with assistance from German designer Dr. Kurt Tank and a lot of British help. HAL could never come up with a follow up.

We license produced the Jaguar? What good did that do? Where did the technology that was transferred go?

Whether transfer of technology works or not is linked to the technology base that a country has developed.

Talk to any DRDO official and they tell you the Russian never transfer technology.

At Aero India 2009 the DRDO chief publically termed Russian TOT as a farce.

What DRDO officials mean is that the Russians don't tell us how to build their products from scratch. The question is not only - Should they be telling you how to do so? - but also - Can they effectively tell how to do - considering that we do not have a technological base matching theirs?

A large amount of metal alloys and composites goes into an aircraft. The alloys used differ from each aircraft component. The strength of the metal varies with the manufacturing process used to produce it. When transferring technology should the manufacturer tell from where to source the metal or how to manufacture it? If your country hasn't mastered the manufacturing processes what good would that do?

Recently someone referred to the possible French and Swedish readiness to part with source code for their AESA radars. (I am not aware this is true.)

While getting the source code along with the radar helps, it cannot be construed as transfer of technology.

Anyone who has worked with software knows the complexities of imbibing code.

Any code is based on thousands and thousands of lines of library code. Is the library source also being offered? Even if it is being, you will need to spend months, possibly years, to understand its flow and logic.

How generic is the code? How much generic can it be? Hardware specific code tends to be less generic to facilitate faster development and processing. Reuse of code is also limited by continuous improvements in hardware and software.

Code that took 100 person years to develop cannot be mastered within one or two months, even if you deploy 2,000 people for hacking it, assuming the cost of deploying 2,000 top notch software professionals on the project makes economic sense.

The example, is applicable to most electronic components fitted on a fighter aircraft, each of which uses software.

No transfer of technology allows you to copy manufacture. You can only license produce the quantity negotiated. So the vendors hold back a lot of data, like wind tunnel and flight testing data that would make it easy to modify the aircraft.

Broadly speaking, with a TOT agreement in place, the manufacturer will share with you just enough information to allow sourcing non critical components from the domestic market, or certain acceptable foreign markets.

If we buy the Rafale, the French are not going to teach us how to build a fifth generation version of the Rafale.

Talking about French friendliness, here is a detail that I have mentioned elsewhere on this site. When they supplied us the Durandal runway denial bombs for use on the Jaguars, they missed out on a small detail that prevented the Jaguar from dropping it.

The IAF discovered the flaw years after acquiring the bombs, when Jaguars attempted to test fire them on a target runway in Pokharan for the first time.

Pre acquisition trials were conducted in France and since the bomb was so expensive IAF waited for the life of the first lot of bombs to nearly expire before testing them. Three Jaguars unsuccessfully attempted to release the bombs in front of the Defense minister, COAS and other top officials.

There were a lot of red faces that day, not just in the squadron tasked with the trials but right up the chain of command.

The software patch, when it arrived from France, took minutes.

Oh! Did I mention the squadron tasked was flying HAL manufactured Jaguars.
http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/58870.aspx

1) The Super hornet is bigger in dimensions than Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen and also has a bigger RCS.

The B-2 Spirit is much larger than Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen yet has the RCS of an insect. Do you have proof for this? Or are you propagating BS spread by Rafale fan boys?
 
.
mig-35 is least capable only in the views of internet activists...

specification by specification , mig-35 scores among the best...

radar , weapon load , range , IRST , weapons.........

you name it , it has everything..

1) Least range (3000Km with 3 drop tanks, while all other offers 700 to over 1000Km more)

2) Least number of weapon stations (9)

3) Second least payload (6.5t, only the light Gripen has lower with 6t)

4.) One of the highst RCS

5) Low number of available weapons (and not a single new one that IAF don't have yet)

And that are only the operational problems, the Mig is an air superiority fighter with some added multi role capabilities and this latest version is just slightly upgraded, not more. If you want a real multi role fighter, with the potential to be useful for up to 40 years it is clearly a no go!


4. India will be the only 2nd country flying Rafale.

5. Rafale's overseas sales being NIL, price discount should be on cards.

I think there will be at least one export customer before we fix MMRCA and the highest chance for a discount, comes through the high numbers that we will procure (166 including IN at least, 200+ likely)

6. Rafale is the sexiest beast of the lot.

I 2nd that! :D
 
Last edited:
.
1) Least range (3000Km with 3 drop tanks, while all other offers 700 to over 1000Km more)

2) Least number of weapon stations (9)

3) Second least payload (6.5t, only the light Gripen has lower with 6t)

4.) One of the highst RCS

5) Low number of available weapons (and not a single new one that IAF don't have yet)


1)fuel tankers are high value targets , mig-35 is the only aircraft in the compitition with aircraft to aircraft airial refueling capability...
2) maximum AESA radar range , 200km , the next are the amaricans with 148km....
3) maximum OLS/IRST range...
4) the amarican aim-9x and europion aim-132 developed only after 10 years russian developed their R-77 , they always follow russians , their weaopns are new coz russian has those much earlier , so you can say russian didn't has any new weapon....btw , which weapon system russian didn't has which europian/amarican has ..?
ok , russians going to have a hypersonic a2a missiles in next 4 year , which the europians/amaricans not even thinking..
5) even if mig-35 has RCS of 1.2m2 , which might be lesser then others but these RCS are of clean aircraft , aircrafts won't enter enemy lines on clean confugration , they might be coming back clean , but not entering , so , RCS of a loader aircraft should be taken , which is almost same for all..
6) do you think 6.5t pay load is less , i think it's quit high , these are fighter aitcrafts not bombers....they will most probability will carry more missiles , so , if you distribute this 6500kg payload whicheven way , you will still got few kg payload free ...
7) and this weapon stations is not something that you can't increase...if f-16 with lower wing span/wing area could have 11 ,..

but the best think i like with russian system is availability & affordability....the best in line weapons are always available to IAF from russia and they are available at affordable price.......so , it's like having the cake & eat it too...
 
.
Raytheon’s offering at Aero India

US defense systems manufacturer Raytheon plans to exhibit a wide range of products and programs in the areas of Intelligence, Surveillance And Reconnaissance (ISR), Command, Control And Communications (C3), integrated air & missile defense, missile systems, radar and homeland security (including coastal/maritime security), at Aero India 2011 in Bangalore next week.

APG79_AESA_3936-150x100.jpg

The APG-79 APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.

For the F/A-18IN being pitched by Boeing for the 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender of the Indian Air Force (IAF), Raytheon is offering ‘an integrated sensor suite that is comprised of the combat-proven APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, ALR-67(V)3 Advanced Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), ALE-50 towed decoy, and the ATFLIR targeting pod’. Raytheon says these systems comprise the baseline equipment on Block II Super Hornets for the US Navy, F/A-18E/F and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18F aircraft.


Side-on-view-of-APG-79-radar-in-SH-small-file-Jul-07.jpg


The APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar on board the F/A-18 Super Hornet.


Raytheon says it has delivered more than 250 APG-79 AESA radars, adding that ‘ongoing radar upgrades and technology advancements will continue in the future due to a robust roadmap in place for radar development and further expansion of capabilities’.

Raytheon is also offering an advanced electronic warfare suite and towed decoy system, for the F-16IN, Lockheed Martin’s entry in the MMRCA contest.

The company is exhibiting a suite of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons specifically for the MMRCA contest, including, Advance Medium Air-to-Air Missile, AIM-9X Sidewinder, High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, Joint Standoff Weapon, Enhanced Paveway™ II and Maverick at the show.

Raytheon officials point out that its range of weapons systems are compatible with five of the six aircraft competing in the MMRCA.

“Raytheon’s MMRCA weapons have baseline integration on multiple platforms, including all the western aircraft being offered for MMRCA,” says Harry Schulte, Vice President of Raytheon Missile Systems’ Air Warfare Systems product line. “This translates into significant cost avoidance and also means the IAF won’t need to wait on weapons integration before their aircraft are operational,” he adds.

His company also plans to exhibit maritime surveillance capabilities like the Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems for use on SH-60R and SH-60S helicopters, the APY-10 and SeaVue surveillance radars.

Raytheon says the SeaVue XMC radar family has expanded new capabilities that provide a ‘significant increase in the ability to perform wide area surveillance and sort out and identify threats quickly and efficiently’. The company says the SeaVue XMC radar is known for its proven ability to detect small maritime vessels in high sea states, and has been ‘acknowledged for detecting stealthy Self Propelled Semi-Submersible crafts’.

Raytheon says it is now considering establishing manufacturing in India and partnering with India to be a global supplier. “We’ve established strong ties with organizations such as Larsen & Toubro, Data Patterns, Astra Microwave, and Precision Electronics, among others. In the future, we will seek to expand our relationships in both the defense and civil security markets,” says the company.

Raytheon's offering at Aero India | StratPost
 
.
Our intellectual property is valuable to us but whenever we agree to transfer technology the recipient nation has benefited immensely by it, Brazil and Israel have made significant contribution to the aerospace industry with US assistance.
See Brazil (South America) is not surrounded by Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and China so lets leave it out. Israel is a natural ally of the US (and vice a versa). In the middle east, Israel against Iran, Iraq and Syria has only the support of US. And perhaps its USA's ulterior motive by meddling in every affair and maintain its dominance. Is it why the dispute between Israel and Palestine not over yet?
With India, US is a friend of Pakistan too (its a nuclear state too). US has much to gain from Afghanistan (getting rid of Taliban and Al qaeda). For this, it needs Pakistan's help more than it needs India's. And who is to say if India submits to US what will US make her do (to make Pakistan happy and help in return)? One of the reason Kashmir is India's internal matter because her defense does not depend on US and has Russian's and France to her help.
It was Mirage that was modified (without prior approval from France) in Kargil to fire the LGB's.

Refusing CISMOA, LSA not to Impact Operational Effectiveness says Indian Air Force Chief P.V. Naik | India Defence
This was quoted by Mr. Naik in regards to C-130J, C-17 and the ultra-light howitzers. NOT MMRCA. So it is YOUR assumption IAF will not mind it for MMRCA too.

India on the other hand is struggling with LCA and Kaveri engine despite receiving European and Russian ToT for over forty years -why?

It took the Tejas 1,500 test flights and 23 years of development to get to this point. Isn’t that too long?

You have to see that it started as a thought process in 1983 and there was no funding at that point. For the next ten years, we firmed up the requirements and then went into project definition phase. We went to France and Germany and took their expertise in fixing up the aerodynamic configuration. Post that we were ready with a firm proposal and the funding finally started from the second half of 1992. It did take time, but we had to go through the proper processes.

Then there were the sanctions after Pokhran II. How did that affect the development of Tejas?

Let me be clear — we perhaps got delayed by two years. On the day the sanctions came into force, our team was in the US offices of our partners there (Lockheed Martin and BAE Inc.). The team was working on integration of software with the hardware of the LCA. Suddenly we were asked to leave the offices, and we were not even allowed to take back the designs we were working on the systems there, and those were almost ready to be tested. We had to again develop it from memory, because we weren’t allowed to copy our own stuff, which delayed the whole thing.

You are saying that you had to spend some time recovering what you had already worked on and then build on it?

Exactly. But the sanctions also spurred us on to do better, and to make the entire fighter aircraft on our own. So in the next few years, we did not just recover what we had lost back then, but also went some steps ahead and achieved the expertise that we had tied up with the US companies for. So now we had what they had but need not rely on them anymore. So ultimately that did delay us, but also made us stronger.
We never had a single failure in 1,500 flights of Tejas: ADE - The Economic Times

The last and most crippling impediment for the project was posed by the denial of crucial technologies by the West. Post-liberalisation advice and consultancy in certain key areas of the LCA design, notably the FBW system, was obtained from aerospace firms in the US and Britain
A beam of light


The B-2 Spirit is much larger than Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen yet has the RCS of an insect. Do you have proof for this? Or are you propagating BS spread by Rafale fan boys?
Don't you know B-2 Spirit bomber has internal weapon's bay? Doesn't that help in reducing the RCS? It has several other components that contribute towards its stealth characteristics, I don't want to discuss in this thread.
B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg

I'm no fanboy of Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen and neither do I hate the US planes. I admire them but what I fear is the US strategy once India gets Super hornets or F-16.
What did I say in my last reply about RCS?
If you are talking about an empty jet or with internal weapons bay, I agree.
So even if a fighter jet has a smaller RCS once the weapons and conformal tanks attached externally, the RCS increases drastically (it is true for Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Mig-35, F-16 and Super hornet).
 
Last edited:
.
Raytheon’s offering at Aero India

For the F/A-18IN being pitched by Boeing for the 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender of the Indian Air Force (IAF), Raytheon is offering ‘an integrated sensor suite that is comprised of the combat-proven APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar,

Does anybody have a source how many targets it (also the Raven AESA of the Gripen) can detect and how many of them can be engaged at the same time?
 
. .
I'm no fanboy of Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen and neither do I hate the US planes. I admire them but what I fear is the US strategy once India gets Super hornets or F-16.
What did I say in my last reply about RCS?

I didn't say you were a fan boy I asked if you believed what Rafale fan boys falsely claim and pointed out an exception to your own claim linking RCS to the size of the aircraft.

As for Rafale's RCS claims, take a look at the below image of the Rafale, the canard, refueling probe, OSF, air intake ,diverter, vertical stabilizer, panel gaps, spectra antenna and surface discontinuities all contribute to the Rafale's radar cross section. The picture speaks for itself, claims of low RCS by Rafale fan boys is hard to believe.


1726647.jpg
 
.
I didn't say you were a fan boy I asked if you believed what Rafale fan boys falsely claim and pointed out an exception to your own claim linking RCS to the size of the aircraft.

As for Rafale's RCS claims, take a look at the below image of the Rafale, the canard, refueling probe, OSF, air intake ,diverter, vertical stabilizer, panel gaps, spectra antenna and surface discontinuities all contribute to the Rafale's radar cross section. The picture speaks for itself, claims of low RCS by Rafale fan boys is hard to believe.


1726647.jpg

I Agree!:tup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbc
.
More speculations..... Still can't ignore them?

A Russian splash in Bangalore, sans MiG-35
Viktor Litovkin. Source: PhotoXpress
Aero India-2011, which opens in Bangalore on 9th February, will host as usuall the leaders of Russia’s aircraft industry, including Sukhoi Company, IRKUT Corporation, Ilyushin Aviation Complex, United Industrial Corporation Oboronprom, and others.

Their products will mainly be exhibited as scale models, stands, various equipment and existing models. Rosoboronexport experts say that bringing real prototypes to the other end of the world is not economically feasible. Russian aviation technology and air defense systems are well known in India. The cooperation between the two countries is several decades old totaling over $40 billion in sales. India accounts for up to one third of Russian defense exports. Unlike other countries, Russia generously transfers licenses and technologies as well as arms and weaponry to India.

Many types of Russian weaponry and equipment are used by the Indian air force, in particular, Sukhoi SU-30MKI fighters produced by Irkut Corporation and assembled under the Russian license by HAL. In any case, they will enjoy an extensive presence at Aero India-2011. Indian aces of aerial aerobatics are to demonstrate their superior flight skills above Bangalore. Why would Russian manufacturers send yet another similar aircraft there?

The same is true of the following: MiG 29K seaborne fighting aircraft that Moscow delivered to Delhi for the INS Vikramaditya currently being retrofitted in Severodvinsk; the Russian AWACS А-50 equipped with the Israeli 360-degree Phalkon early-warning radar that was transferred to the Indian air forces; and KB Mashinostroeniya products that along with DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation of the Indian Ministry of Defence) developed the BrahMos supersonic anti-surface missile for the Indian armed forced. The latter can be fired from submarines, ships or land. Now the Russian-Indian BrahMos joint venture, named after the Brahmaputra and Moskva Rivers, is to retool the missile to make it Su-30MKI-launcheable.

However, Aero India-2011 will see a whole new splash, and a very odd one at that.
The aerospace exhibition in Bangalore will not host the MiG-35 prototype, a modern Russian fighter. The strange part is that Russia announced this combat aircraft as part of its bid to provide 126 medium range multifunctional fighters under the MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) programme to Delhi. Six combat fighters - American F/A18E/F Super Hornet by Boeing and F-16IN Super Viper by Lockheed Martin, French Rafale by Dassault Aviation, European Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon by EADS, Swedish Gripen NG (Saab) and Russian MiG-35 – will participate in the bid for the $11 billion long-term contract. It was MiG-35 that the sponsors of the air show in Bangalore did not hesitate to call “the absolute best” while speaking on the radio two years ago during Aero India-2009.

Can the absence of Russia’s main hope to win this promising tender be explained by the pragmatism of cost cutting? Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG confirmed that. They say that MiG-35 passed all necessary tests, including armament tests, in India. Aviation experts from Delhi spent many weeks in Moscow and at the MiG facilities, familiarised themselves with the technology and manufacturing equipment and received all the documents required for them to make the right decision. Therefore, there is no point in spending more money to demonstrate its excellent flight and handling qualities yet again at the Bangalore exhibition. We would not be able to show anything fundamentally new.

Yet, there is another point of view that has recently been voiced by Strategic Affairs, an Indian military publication. In its January issue it referred to an advisor to the Minister of Defence of the country, who spent several weeks in the United States and allegedly guaranteed Boeing that its F/A18E/F Super Hornet aircraft would win the MMRCA tender. Moreover, the observers explain the no-show of the Russian aircraft at Aero India-2011 by the loss of the confidential tender documents that were first misplaced several months ago, and then suddenly found, as well as the tender short list not including MiG-35, that, as the rumour goes, was neither confirmed nor denied.

Well, it is an open question whether this is true. Although it is clear that the sensational absence of the Russian fighter MiG-35 at the Bangalore exhibition will not affect the long-term military and technical relations between Moscow and Delhi, it will leave a bitter aftertaste. However the military cooperation between the two countries has never been better. The recently signed contract for building a 5th generation one-seated aircraft on the 5th generation T-50 platform that will ensure high technology contracts for dozens of Indian enterprises within HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) and unique air power for the Indian air forces, is a sign of genuine trust between Russia and India.

At the same time, the Russian design bureaus and defence enterprises should keep their eyes open. Competition for the Indian arms market is growing by the day. American firms are particularly active there. As soon as the US Senate lifted a number of restrictions on cooperation with Delhi, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, as well as other major corporations such as Northrop Grumman, Sikorsky, McDonnell Douglas, etc., headed to Delhi and opened their representative offices there, looking for and finding approaches to senior public officials and local movers and shakers to promote their companies in Hindustan. It is particularly relevant now when India is striving to diversify its defense supply base in order not to put all its eggs in one basket.

Washington is not only seeking to conquer the Indian arms market, but also to create a powerful competitor to China (which is developing by leaps and bounds, including in the national defence area) on the Hindustan Peninsula. According to experts, Delhi is not ready to “sink into Washington’s arms” though, and is still resisting closer military and technical cooperation with the United States. India knows that the White House and the Senate could, at any time and at the slightest pretext, impose sanctions against its enterprises, whereas Moscow has never done and will never do anything of the such. Moreover, the United States, while cooperating with India, never stopped their arms and weaponry supplies to Pakistan – a rival and a headache for India. Again, this is not the case with Moscow.

Therefore, exhibitions are exhibitions, and a splash, in the end, is nothing new, but India knows the value of long-lasting and reliable military and technical cooperation with Russia, regardless of any obstacles.

Viktor Litovkin is the Editor-in-Chief of the “Independent Military Review”
A Russian splash in Bangalore, sans MiG-35 | Russia & India Report
 
Last edited:
.
British aerospace firms eye partnerships at air show

2011-02-03 20:50:00
Bangalore, Feb 3 (IANS) About 40 leading British aerospace firms will participate in the Aero India 2011 trade expo from Feb 9-13 in this tech hub to forge partnerships and joint ventures with Indian companies, the UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) office said Thursday.

British Minister for Defence Equipment Support and Technology Peter Luff will lead a large defence and business delegation to the five-day air show at the air force base near Yelahanka on the city's outskirts, where the British firms will showcase their cutting edge technology in the defence, aviation and security sectors.

'Forging industrial partnerships and joint ventures between our defence industries, air force and defence scientists and Indian counterparts will be high on our agenda during the visit to Aero India, a world class show and best in the region,' Luff said in a statement.

The delegation will also discuss with the Indian authorities prospects of the Eurofighter Typhoon as a multi-role medium combat aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) fleet.

Typhoon, a product of the European consortium, including Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, is in race with five other global aerospace majors for the 126 fighter aircraft order from the IAF at an estimated $10 billion.

'Our strategic relationship with India is important and we are keen to engage in both the defence and security sectors to enhance the relationship,' Luff said.

Other British aerospace firms with business interests in India are Cobham, Hampson, Magellan, STG and Preston.

'British aerospace firms are developing their business across India. Our representation at air show spans a wide spectrum with business interests here such as BAE Systems and Rolls Royce,' British High Commissioner to India Richard Stagg noted.

According to UKTI's defence and security organisation (DSO) head Richard Paniguian, the British industry is keen to identify opportunities in the Indian sub-continent for long-term industrial partnerships in air, land, maritime and security sectors.

The delegation will include Air Marshal Kevin J. Leeson, chief of material, Royal Air Force; Air Vice Marshal Nigel Maddox, UKTI-DSO military adviser and Alan Malpas, UKTI regional director for India, the Middle East and Northern Africa.
British aerospace firms eye partnerships at air show
 
.
i have no problem with american jets but problem is with your chased agreements like cismoa,euma(which we signed ), etc.
i fear america can listen to indian communications which goes through US supplied com equipments.weapons using gps are at mercy of americans mood.america will come to know each and every target prior to attack..true or false ?i need some clarification on this matters..
 
.
EA-18Glarge.jpg


MILITARY AVIATION AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY NEWS: U.S. Navy, Pentagon Debate EA-18G Growler
While the U.S. Navy has continued to make improvements to its F/A-18 electronic attack variant — the EA-18G Growler — the service has yet to prove the aircraft is suitable for operations, says a recent report by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).

At the same time, DOT&E notes another Navy electronic warfare aircraft, the EA-6B Prowler, is suitable, despite testing limitations faced by the program.

DOT&E notes “suitability problems” that were identified during Growler testing in 2008. The Navy conducted Verification of Correction of Deficiencies (VCD) testing on the EA-18G from September 2009 to January 2010 to resolve those issues.


“The VCD test results did confirm significant progress on improving suitability, but additional development and testing are needed,” DOT&E notes in its most recent report, released in January. “The EA-18G is operationally effective, but still not operationally suitable.”

In DOT&E’s parlance, “operationally effective” simply means the system can perform its mission. “Operationally suitable” means the system will be practical and supportable in the field.

As far as the Navy is concerned, the Growler’s initial operational test and evaluation proved it is both operationally effective and suitable. “From what we understand, DOT&E included items outside the specific scope of [the] test for the EA-18G program into its findings,” the service says in a statement. “Although these items were outside the scope of the development program, they are items DOT&E felt important enough to address from a Department of Defense perspective.

“No program ever enters IOT&E [initial operational test and evaluation] perfect or ends without identification of anomalies,” the Navy says. “None of the anomalies were showstoppers.”

Prime contractor Boeing acknowledges seeing “software anomalies” during testing. Company spokesman Philip Carder says “the majority of those anomalies were resolved through a previously planned system software update.”

DOT&E agreed the Navy has been making improvements. “The VCD test results provide strong evidence that aircraft software stability is improving,” DOT&E says. “But additional development and flight testing is required to confirm the problems have been resolved.”

The scheduled testing for the first quarter of this year should provide the Navy an opportunity to “assess efforts to fix these suitability issues, particularly with the latest software load that indicated significant progress with fixing maintainability problems,” DOT&E says.
 
.
i have no problem with american jets but problem is with your chased agreements like cismoa,euma(which we signed ), etc.
i fear america can listen to indian communications which goes through US supplied com equipments.weapons using gps are at mercy of americans mood.america will come to know each and every target prior to attack..true or false ?i need some clarification on this matters..

Your post seems to indicate that you have not been following the news closely.
The first underlined part; India has not signed CISMOA.And does not intend to.

About the second underlined part; since India has not signed CISMOA, the US supplied aircraft will be deprived of secure communication equipment (administered by them), SATCOM and IFF. These equipments will be sourced by India. Hence the possibility of US listening in to the communications is minimal. About GPS: USA controls GPS unilaterally, but GPS is not the only Navaid on aircraft so again there are alternatives.

Does that clarify?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom