Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[sancho]

^^^^

Brilliant info and thanks...

And its good to know about Rafale's plan for the future with its fighter.

Any news of Dassaults participation in AMCA programme?

No problem, it's not officially known what way they will choose for the future Rafale (might depend on exports of course), but Dassault has started developments long ago and the French government is willing to pay for it, unlike other European governments.
No, so far I only read about Saab and Dassault possibly on AURA, but if Rafale would win and the already cleared Kaveri - Snecma engine co-development, combining all thing to one big co-development would make sense. But as you know, I prefer FGFA!

 

[kingdurgaking]

Look buddy, LCA's main purpose or you can say only purpose was to take the place of Mig21 as a interceptor jets. Now if ADA calls it multi-role or even air superiority, then what can i say. Actually you can always use any fighter jet for any purpose but if that fighter jet is not made for that purpose then its performance won't be good in that field. DRDO chief even called it an air superiority fighter, what that means we can use it in place of Su30 ???

Thats the main thing man.. First of all have a clear view what is a multirole fighter and see if LCA has it.... dont go by once words...
secondly comparing MKI and LCA is not a ideal one.. one is from a matured product from a company having several decade of exp and other is a newbie product.. If LCA is able to perform half of all what MKI does it is a real damn good product....

 

[SpArK]

Hi Spark, we have to differ here between European countries that will develop a 5. gen fighter and manufacturers that has made some studies.
Apart from those countries that are commited to F35, the Europeans mainly aim on modern 4th gen fighters (Eurocanards) and later possibly UCAVs (2 to 3 different were under development, but could merged to 1 now). The vendors however have to do at least studies, or even tech demonstrators to develop an experience base for these NG technologies, that's EADS, SAAB and even Dassault made some studies:

MBB Lampyridae

Saabs offer for S. Korean KFX fighter

Dassault FACE concept

Not to mention that the Germans basically were (just like on many other high tech arms), the inventors of stealth fighters:

Horten Ho 229

Check these links:

:: Tecnogeek - Historia en Tecnogeek - Horten Ho 229 :: (the national geographic videos are very interesting!)

Stealth technologies - British, Swedish and French aviation projects and solutions

Meet the European Stealth Fighter…from 1981!


Btw, this is a stealthy Rafale concept that is rumored to be planed for the future, although it's not a real stealth fighter and more comparable to Boeings Silent Hornet:

However, Dassault is said to be developing "stealthy" changes for the Rafale, as well as for weapon pods and the weapons, or fuel tanks as well.
Europe is often seen as far behind the US in the aero, or arms field, which imo is plain wrong! The difference is simply that Europe neither wants to go for war as often as the US does, nor do they want to spend so much money on arms developments. If they would combined their financial budgets and develop aircrafts together instead of independent, they could easily compete with the US and the developments of the recent years are going that way (Tornado => EF => NH90 => NEURON...).

I have found the link

Stealth technologies - British, Swedish and French aviation projects and solutions

 

[angeldemon_007]

@ Sancho
Thanx for the information. But i think all these plans are just under studies. Just as you said Europeans are going with 4++ gen fighter and they have no plans to produce a fifth gen fighter. They will skip a generation because of the economic conditions.
Also i think its good that Saab has done some research in 5th gen fighter jets because they are also giving consultations in our AMCA project.
I am sure that Dassault will also be able to give us future up-gradation plan like Boeing if they have done research in that field.

Any news of Dassaults participation in AMCA programme?

I know this question was meant for Sancho but i would like to add that neither Indian govt. nor Dassault have contacted each other in this field. Also looking at the high development cost of Rafale i seriously doubt that France will join us in AMCA unless we pay most of the development cost.
Dassault have indicated that they might help in AURA if GOI ask for it but we cannot be part of NEURON project.

Thats the main thing man.. First of all have a clear view what is a multirole fighter and see if LCA has it.... dont go by once words...

Kya yaar....What did Sancho said. I will say again, LCA can do all the operations which a MMRCA fighter can do but not with the same level of success as those fighters because LCA is not meant for this purpose.

It was IAF's official requirement that LCA should be designed as 'multi-role'. That's what ADA guy has said. So, both are on same page.

First of all brush up your knowledge. LCA was meant for interceptor role because IAF wanted to replace their Mig21 fleet and hence they needed a fighter for that role. LCA was never a multi role fighter nor a air-Superiority fighter but yeah it can do that job but not so well as the job done by the fighters meant for that role. Its similar to like EF cannot do the same job SH in ground attack while SH cannot do the same job as EF in air to air combat. I hope its clear to you guys. I am going to search for a definition for multi role so as to please you. I know what is multi role and i hope you get my point.

Also nobody is on the same page, not IAF and neither IN but due to government pressure they are buying but no other aircraft producing nation practice this kind of thing, that their forces are forced to to induct lower quality product since it is indigenous.

ADA has come a long way and now they are closing on to the technological gap with rest of the world but this is just the beginning and no the end. Just look at Russia and see how many versions of Su27 and Mig 29 they have produced before reaching the Pak Fa and important thing is not everyone of them is inducted in their force.

 

[luckyyy]

Not for those parts that the partners don't want, or need, in that case co-producing and co-developing is not equal to co- funding!

For example the TVC which the partners don't want, because they are happy with the agility of the EF and don't want to fund the development and integration. So if we want it, we have to pay for it, but our industry will be integrated in the development (which is not possible in this case, because it is already developed) and parts of the production of the TVC will be diverted to our industry.
Same will be the case for the naval typhoon, possibly CFTs, or weapons that the partners don't want. AESA radar instead is not needed for the partners now, which is the reason why they don't want to fund it yet, but they will upgrade their fighters with it later. That means if we want EF with AESA, we have to pay a part of the development and can join the development (to some extend) and the production of it.

If we are realistic we know, that we can't contribute much to the developtment of upgrades, even absorbing the ToT will be a difficult issue (remember what Boeing said about HAL?) and will take time. So we mainly fund and co-produce possible upgrades of the EF, without a real co-development included.

co-producing and co-developing means co- funding!..that's my defination

you may have your own..

 

[Bang Galore]

French firm Dassault figures in complaint against IAF officer
Deeper conspiracy in Aero India’s bribe-for-display case?
Chandan Nandy and Chethan Kumar, Bangalore, March 8, DHNS:

An Indian Air Force (IAF) officer who allegedly took bribes from one or more foreign aircraft companies to provide them favourable positions at last month's Aero India 2011 could be the prey in a conspiracy to oust a European firm in the race to bag the multi-billion dollar medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA).

Investigations by Deccan Herald indicate that the name of P V Rao, a representative of French Dassault Systemes, manufacturer of the Rafael fighter aircraft, which is one of the planes being considered by the Indian establishment for the MMRCA, emerged in the bribes-for-display scandal involving Wing Commander A K Thakur against whom the IAF has initiated a Court of Inquiry (CoI) here.

Wg Cdr Thakur allegedly took Rs 20,000 from Rao to give the Rafael a favourable position on the static display area at Yelahanka airbase where the Aero India 2011 show was conducted. When contacted, Rao said: “An inquiry is on and I will make no comments at this point. Let the inquiry be over and only then will I make any comment.”

According to top defence sources familiar with the complaint against Wg Cdr Thakur, neither Rao nor any other Dassault representative complained against the errant officer either with the IAF top brass in Delhi or in Bangalore.

The sources said senior IAF officers in Yelahanka received a "verbal" complaint from an official of the Department of Defence Production and Supplies, saying that Wg Cdr Thakur had taken a bribe of Rs 20,000 from Rao. Incidentally, officials belonging to the Defence Exhibitions Organisation (DEO), which is under the Department of Defence Production and Supplies, had set the trap on Wg Cdr Thakur, as reported by Deccan Herald on March 6.

In this context sources said that Wg Cdr Thakur could only have come under the scanner if had taken bribes in the days before he was actually caught. "There are blacksheep in every organisation. The sources said that Wg Cdr was not senior enough in the hierarchy to make any huge difference to foreign vendors at the static display area. Besides, they said, decisions on placement of individual vendors would have been taken by the MoD at least a month in advance. However, due action in accordance with the IAF's procedures are on and he will be punished if there is sufficient evidence against him," a top defence official requesting anonymity told Deccan Herald.

On the day the complaint was lodged against Wg Cdr Thakur by the Assistant Provost Marshal, a joint secretary rank officer of the Department of Defence Production and Supplies, Satyajeet Rajan, was present. When Deccan Herald asked department's secretary Raj Kumar Singh whether Wg Cdr Thakur was a victim of a more sinister move, he refused to comment, saying only that the MoD spokesman would respond to all queries. The New Delhi-based spokesman, when contacted over phone, said he has "not been given a brief" by the ministry on this issue.

However, knowledgeable sources in the MoD suspect while Wg Cdr Thakur did accept the bribe, there could be a move afoot to push the French company out of the race by throwing in its name in the scandal that has hit the IAF and thereby scuttle its chances of bagging the ambitious multi-billion dollar contract that six foreign companies are vying for.

Deeper conspiracy in Aero India’s bribe-for-display case?

 

[MST]

Wg Cdr Thakur allegedly took Rs 20,000 from Rao to give the Rafael a favourable position on the static display area at Yelahanka airbase where the Aero India 2011 show was conducted.

What the hell. Hasn't 6th Pay commission reached this guy that he is risking his career for Rs 20,000. Either a zero or two is missing in this amount or this is all a set up.

 

[kingdurgaking]

self delete

 

[Tija]

Hi,
I am new to this forum but i following this thread around one year or so.

I got this from strategypage if it's true then it's better to go for F-18SH or EF .

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.

 

[SpArK]

Hi,
I am new to this forum but i following this thread around one year or so.





Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.

Thats a 2 year old report from strategy page.. Go through the threads.. There are plenty of answers lying around.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Thats a 2 year old report from strategy page.. Go through the threads.. There are plenty of answers lying around.

But still hold goods.. with AESA atleast... they are not that much capable with just 850 modules ... while i am not sure about others.. while RCS with fixed refueling probe is still vital..

 

[True Lies]

NEW DELHI: The United States today hoped India will pick one of the two American aircraft in the multi-billion dollar combat aircraft deal, saying it will be an "important indicator" of where the strategic relations between the two sides go in future.

"Hopefully the next step will be as India evaluates in the Medium-Multi Role Combat aircraft deal... that they will decide to pick one of the US aircraft the F-16 Super Viper ( Lockheed Martin )) or the F/A-18 ( Boeing ))," US Ambassador to India Timothy J Roemer said.

"This becomes the very logical next step in the relationship. This will be a very important indicator of where this relationship goes in the 21st century," the US Ambassador said while addressing a conference here on 'America and Asia-Perspectives on Peace, Security and Development'.

Russian MiG-35, French Dassault Rafale, European Eurofighter Typhoon and Swedish Gripen are in the fray for the USD 11 billion deal.

The Ambassador said as India goes to down select the companies in the race in the next couple of months, "We look at the finalisation of the civil nuclear agreement and the issuing of the A-10 licenses and India signing the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC)".

Asked if the ties between the two sides would suffer if India selects any other aircraft, Roemer said, "Across the board, US is elevating, raising India to a global partner. The M-MRCA seems to be a logical next step in building this strategic partnership on the defence side."

"We are optimistic and want to build strategic ties with India and M-MRCA is going to be a very vigorous competition. But we are confident and hopeful," he added.

The US Ambassador said "I am an optimist about what President Barack Obama announced when he was here and announced support for India for permanent UN Security Council membership, took India off the entities designations."

Claiming that the recently-delivered C-130J Super Hercules was "under budget", Roemer said, "In the defence world today, that's a very important factor for tight budgets."

 

[sancho]

What the hell. Hasn't 6th Pay commission reached this guy that he is risking his career for Rs 20,000. Either a zero or two is missing in this amount or this is all a set up.

That's what I thought at first again, but when I checked for other reports, I realised that there are no reliable reports about it so far and they all are stating different points:

IAF orders probe against Wing Commander for taking bribe

...The French company had informed the authorities when Thakur asked for an amount of Rs 20,000. On receiving the complaint, the defence exhibition orgainsation laid a trap and caught the officer red-handed.

IAF orders probe against Wing Commander for taking bribe | TruthDive

So Dassault complaint about it and helped to catch him?

Tainted’ IAF officer refuses to cooperate with inquiry

...Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources said Wing Commander A K Thakur, who was trapped by a team of officers from the Department of Defence Production and Supplies on February 12 for accepting Rs 20,000 from a decoy, is resisting questions on the possible involvement of senior IAF officers in the latest scandal to hit the armed forces.

Wg Cdr Thakur is alleged to have taken three lakh euro for better positioning of aircraft belonging to some of the foreign vendors in the static display area of Yelahanka air base.

http://idrw.org/?p=954


In another forum someone said 20 000 Rs are not bribes, but just a tip, because that's only around 300 Euros. Three lacks ion the other side would be a totally different point, but why should a vendor pay so much just for a better position on the static display. Which leads me to the next strange point! Dassault came to Aero India only with 2 Rafales and both were used for the flight displays, while EF (a mock up) and Gripen had also versions at the static display showing possible weapon systems. So when it really was for a favourable position at the static display, how should Dassault be inolved?

Lets wait for some official statements on this issue and not these unreliable media reports.

 

[sancho]

Hi,
I am new to this forum but i following this thread around one year or so.

I got this from strategypage if it's true then it's better to go for F-18SH or EF.

Welcome, always good to have new members!

Regarding that report / discussion, it's not only old but the source is known for such unreliable blame games.
The fact is just the other way around, Rafale like EF was designed with high agility and maneuverability in mind, that's why they chose the delta canard design, but also with low RCS and low detecability. Both EF and Rafale (just like LCA btw) contains high ammounts of composite materials, instead of more reflecting metall parts, what alone is a slight advantage in this regard, but more important is, that the reduction of weight allows to add more RAM materials!
Both fighters (again just like LCA) has ducted intakes, which means that the reflection of radar waves of the compressor blades is reduced to a minimum if at all.
The Rafale is the only fighter with canards, that uses saw tooth designs, made by RAM materials, to scatter, or reduce the radar waves hitting them and they did the same all over the airframe. The Mig 29K of IN has similar designs around the nose, obviously to reduce the frontal RCS and while saw tooth designs was effective at the F117 and still will be used at nearly any stealth fighter as an feature to reduce the RCS, but only for Rafale it is claimed to be a bad idea?

The fixed refuelling probe will add to the RCS of course, but you have to put it in the right context! We are not talking about stealth fighters without external loads and stealth shaped airframes here, but about 4th gen fighters, where even the wingtip missiles that many of those have, are bigger than this refuelling probe, let alone the fuel tanks. Dassault purposely went that way, because they thought the ammount of RCS reduction is not equal to the costs of developing and maintaining a retractable probe. We interestingly see the same decisions now at LCA and if I'm not wrong at J10B as well, that both seems to get fixed version.
It is debatable of course if that is a good decisions, but it's a fact that any external load will be a bigger issue in this regard, that's why the F18 Silent Hornet will never be stealthy as well, as long as it carries missiles at the wingtip stations, no matter if the other weapons will be placed in the weapon pod.
Another hint that Rafale was designed for beeing less detectable is the low IR signature and you will find several pics, or even videos comparing this on the net.

For all non 5th gen fighters, the overall size of the fighter, external loads/parts, amount of composite/RAM materials and ducted intakes are the most import points in regard to RCS during operational scenarios. The Rafale might compromise on some points, but is better on others as well, just make your own conclusion what ways more in this regard.

 

[shaktiman2010]

Whether its 300 euro or 3 Lakh euro, it doesn't matter. Corruption is corruption.

We should thank Dassault to taking a lead against corruption and IAF should clean its mess rather than ashaming the country more. Already, there is long history of its corrupt nexus with Russian weapon vendors, not to mention one case involved s-xual favours. That's pathetic!