Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[Mani2020]

What happened to your MRCA deal? still running?

 

[angeldemon_007]

Have you guys read this :

Vendors have to provide aircrafts as per contract: IAF official

Senior IAF official who did not wanted to be named has told idrw.org that, any Vendor who will win the multi-billion dollar MMRCA deal will have to provide aircrafts as per the contract and IAF and HAL cannot be held responsible if the vendor is not able to clear any restriction from their respective governments on any of the technology that they have agreed for in the aircraft.

Official responded when he was asked if India will sign Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) with United States, if an American fighter is selected in the multi-billion dollar MMRCA deal, he also added that “MOD had asked and had taken advice from Indian air force on CISMOA and we have provided our suggestion on that”.

When asked if IAF will induct aircrafts if there are missing certain critical technologies like it happened with recently inducted C-130J, he responded “We all already looking out for using European and Indian devices which are missing in the aircraft (C-130J) and will source it soon but in terms of such a large number of aircrafts which will be purchased in MMRCA deal, we could ask original vendor to either provide the technology or source, test and certify it and only then deliver the aircrafts”

It seems that Indian air force have worked out a arrangement or a strategy if American fighters are selected by MOD, and have already provided their feedback on this matter, such agreement has been asked only by American government, this has put American fighters in a disadvantage position in the competition, since Indian government is not much serious in entering into such agreement with united states, which has the backing of its senior air force official .

Experts term it “classic case of who will blink first”, and India has the upper hand since it is the purchaser and with multiple vendor in the race from different countries ready to provide key Transfer of Technology, Americans either have to provide India with the technology without entering into such agreement or allow their fighter aircrafts to be fiddled with some other device manufactures, which Americans have not allowed to do to even their closest allies.

Boeing had failed to had clearance from us government and pentagon on providing consultancy service for India’s Tejas Program, this might have started alarm bells in Indian air force, officials from the air force when questioned on this matter in recently held Aero India, did agree that Americans will give them hard time in releasing TOT of key technologies like the radar which American vendors are tightlipped about.

One official also pointed out that it will be very difficult to base Russian (referring to FGFA and MKI) and American aircrafts in the same base if American crew comes to service radar and other components every now and then which will be not liked by Russia.

 

[angeldemon_007]

Many of you guys might know this that F16 block 60 and F16 IN Super Viper are not the same. Heres's a difference in their capabilities :

F-16E/F block 60
The Block 60 version is based on the F-16C/D Block 50/52 and has been developed especially for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It features :
1) improved AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
2) avionics
3) conformal fuel tanks (CFTs)
4) more powerful GE F110-132 engine.

F-16IN
For the ongoing Indian MRCA competition for the Indian Air Force, Lockheed Martin is offering the customized F-16IN Super Viper.[93] The F-16IN is based closely on the F-16E/F Block 60 and features :
1) improved AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
2) avionics
3) conformal fuel tanks (CFTs)
4) more powerful GE F110-132A engine with FADEC controls
5) electronic warfare suite & infra-red searching (IRST)
6) updated all-color glass cockpit
7) helmet-mounted cueing system

 

[dbc]

I read all this from official sources even from AF websites. Are you sure about this ??/
Also we just got carried away with the discussion on ASF, its not F16 vs MKI ...sorry to be off-track...

Information available on the internet isn’t reliable -this includes official sources. Take the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI's empty weight for instance, does the Sukhoi website account for the extensive work done in India to increase composite materials content, work that includes modifications to the wing, elevators and rudder etcetera? I don’t think it does, those figures reflect the modest 6% composite content on MKI’s originally made in Russia.

The same is true for the F/A-18, ECPs (engineering change proposals) and block updates including weight reducing change to the fuselage, wing, rudder and avionics. The APG-79 electronically scanned radar is much lighter than the mechanically steered APG-73 installed on earlier model F/A-18 E/F. The figure for engine thrust on ‘official’ websites isn’t what is available to the pilot in the air. Engine makers’ measure thrust at sea level on a test rack, real world performance depends on air intake design, nozzle design features such as VEN (variable exhaust nozzle) and FADEC software efficiency and environmental factors such as temperature, altitude and air speed.

I’ll conclude this post by saying that the only people qualified to assess the performance of each of the MMRCA contestants are the people who have performed a comprehensive evaluation of each of the MMRCA contenders and have access to accurate performance data. That’s right, wait for the IAF to announce its decision and have faith in the institute that was created to serve and protect your nation.

 

[jha]

Let me guess, you are still hearing those old news where Su30 beat F16. Let me tell you the last couple years update of Red flag.
After those previous losses in exercises USAF fielded their latest F16 which had aesa and all. The result were Su30 became to vulnerable. I just gave example, Rafale and EF were able to beat Su30 without aesa during the exercises not to mention the block 52 and block 60 F16 hs mny changes apart from aesa.

I hope you guys also understood that air superiority concept.

You really need to read ..A lot...

One more thing AESA Radar is not something which guarantees victory ...

 

[angeldemon_007]

One more thing AESA Radar is not something which guarantees victory ...

Look buddy...aesa does not guarantee victory but it increases vulnerability of enemy AF. In aesa the frequency at which your radar works is not fixed, it keeps on changing while the fighter jet without aesa will work on a fixed frequency and every AF work on a particular frequency. Now during war if you get hold of that frequency which is not a big deal would mean an easy kill for you as every other fighter of your enemy will be working on the same frequency while your fighter with aesa will keep changing its frequency and the enemy won't be able to lock down the frequency of your fighter.

Aesa is a game changer and thats why IAF made it a requirement and there are talks for installing it in Su30 also.

Information available on the internet isn’t reliable -this includes official sources. Take the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI's empty weight for instance, does the Sukhoi website account for the extensive work done in India to increase composite materials content, work that includes modifications to the wing, elevators and rudder etcetera? I don’t think it does, those figures reflect the modest 6% composite content on MKI’s originally made in Russia.

The same is true for the F/A-18, ECPs (engineering change proposals) and block updates including weight reducing change to the fuselage, wing, rudder and avionics. The APG-79 electronically scanned radar is much lighter than the mechanically steered APG-73 installed on earlier model F/A-18 E/F. The figure for engine thrust on ‘official’ websites isn’t what is available to the pilot in the air. Engine makers’ measure thrust at sea level on a test rack, real world performance depends on air intake design, nozzle design features such as VEN (variable exhaust nozzle) and FADEC software efficiency and environmental factors such as temperature, altitude and air speed.

I’ll conclude this post by saying that the only people qualified to assess the performance of each of the MMRCA contestants are the people who have performed a comprehensive evaluation of each of the MMRCA contenders and have access to accurate performance data. That’s right, wait for the IAF to announce its decision and have faith in the institute that was created to serve and protect your nation.

You may be right....I read that USAF pilots were saying that it was easy once we got hold of their frequency (Indians) and then the kill was easy. I thought they might have aesa then only they would have been able to lock down Su30 frequency without letting their own frequency revealed because normally Su30 radar is stronger.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

 

[Archie]

What happened to your MRCA deal? still running?

u can read the article posted on page 302
mmrca deal will be signed in july with shortlist being announced n april
thats according to airforce chief

 

[jha]

Look buddy...aesa does not guarantee victory but it increases vulnerability of enemy AF. In aesa the frequency at which your radar works is not fixed, it keeps on changing while the fighter jet without aesa will work on a fixed frequency and every AF work on a particular frequency. Now during war if you get hold of that frequency which is not a big deal would mean an easy kill for you as every other fighter of your enemy will be working on the same frequency while your fighter with aesa will keep changing its frequency and the enemy won't be able to lock down the frequency of your fighter.

Aesa is a game changer and thats why IAF made it a requirement and there are talks for installing it in Su30 also.

I know these things sir..All of this contribute to LPI..However you should not forget that AESA still does not guarantee Air-Superiority...
BARS in today's configuration in SU-30MKI outperforms many AESA Radars available ...

 

[kingdurgaking]

Don't just guess and speculate when the official Sukhoi site clears says 8000Kg payload and please think about it logically, because you are mistaken on several points!

1) Only stealth fighter has internal and external payloads, the one for the internal weapon bays, the other for the external wingstations.

2) Internal fuel and payload has no relation and that is pretty easy to understand, when you think about it logically.
The maximum internal fuel is 9640Kg, so if the MKI carries only 4 x AAMs (around 600Kg), does it mean that the internal fuel can be increased for 7400Kg?
Of course not, because the fuel tank is only big enough to carry 9640Kg, that's why it's called maximum internal fuel!

And you can turn it around as well, if you carry only half the fuel, does it mean you can carry a higher load on the wingtipstation?
Of course not, because it has a load limit that allows only AAMs on this station and no matter what the load on other hardpoints, or the internal fuel tank are, you can only carry this specific load on this hardpoint!

3) Here you can see the weaponload config of Su 30 versions and as you can see, the 32 bombs are located at the centerline, air intake and mid wing hardpoints:

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/production/military/Su-30MK2_sheme_b_eng.gif


Once again, the payload of the Flanker is 8000Kg, which is the addition of the load limit, from all 12 hardpoints!

Sancho as per the site payload is kept as 8tonne on the hardpoints.. while the maximum Fuel weight is 9 tonne... while 25 tonne of Empty weight already includes 4 missiles and 5 tonne of fuel.. which means a 4 tonne of fuel can be added more and 6 tonne of payload extra so the total comes around 36 tonne.. means in 6 tonne it can have enough A2A missile to take of number of Euro fighters... and you know at any time in BVR engagements having more long range missile and more fuel is always an advantage so that you can use more AB because of more fuel.. where EFT will loose there.. while in WVR you cannot always take the maximum load for engagements because in WVR pilots will try to engage on optimal configuration like use of half of internal fuel and less missile ... which actually increases the agility of MKI and which dramatically increased the advantage of MKI over EFT... how ever light and manuvarable it can be ... EFT cannot compromise on fuel because already it is very less of 4 tonne not it can compromise the load while it engages the MKI in WVR.... while MKI will do because of being a monster.. In either case MKI has more advantage on EFT or Rafale...

With Super upgrade it will be on different league totally outsmarting EFT and Rafale because of lot of changes from MC to structural hardening...

 

[sancho]

i never said that the wingstation paylaod can be increased by reducing fuel weight , but load on the centerline between the two air intake could carry addition load by reducing internal fuel load ,

Only till the weight limit of the centerline station, but that has nothing to do with the internal fuel, try to understand it, the one has nothing to do with the other and both has their own limitations!

means in 6 tonne it can have enough A2A missile to take of number of Euro fighters...

Oh boy
MKI has 12 x hardpoints, each can carry an AAM. Lets say 4 x R73 and 8 x R77 = 1820Kg payload. So when all hardpoints are already occupied, where do you want to add payload?

Start thinking about it logically and not mixing up all numbers please, the payload is limited by the number and the load limit of the hardpoints, not by the internal fuel!

more fuel is always an advantage so that you can use more AB because of more fuel.. where EFT will loose there...

But there is an important point you are missing, that EF can SC with an normal A2A weapon config + fuel tank. It don't have to use the AB, because it already has a speed advantage.

while in WVR you cannot always take the maximum load for engagements because in WVR pilots will try to engage on optimal configuration like use of half of internal fuel and less missile ... which actually increases the agility of MKI and which dramatically increased the advantage of MKI over EFT...
how ever light and manuvarable it can be ... EFT cannot compromise on fuel because already it is very less of 4 tonne not it can compromise the load while it engages the MKI in WVR.... while MKI will do because of being a monster.. In either case MKI has more advantage on EFT or Rafale...

Again you miss the important points, because EF will simply jettison the fuel tank to reduce weight and drag in dogfights, while MKI carries all fuel internally and will remain with most of the weight.
Not to mention that EF carries 5t of fuel internally as well, just like the MKI with normal take off weight and it should be clear that with the lighter weight and lower fuel consumtion, EF has even longer range than the MKI in this case.

I can only repeat it, don't confuse EF with light weight fighters like older Migs, F16s, or Gripens, that had not only less thrust, but also less radar range, internal fuel, or weapon carriage capability. EF in this role is a class above and way closer, if not superior to MKI.
In south Asia, only PLAAFs Flankers will be a real opponent in this situations at the moment, but EF and to some extend even Rafale offers better capabilities, that only a few other fighters have.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Oh boy
MKI has 12 x hardpoints, each can carry an AAM. Lets say 4 x R73 and 8 x R77 = 1820Kg payload. So when all hardpoints are already occupied, where do you want to add payload?

Start thinking about it logically and not mixing up all numbers please, the payload is limited by the number and the load limit of the hardpoints, not by the internal fuel!...But there is an important point you are missing, that EF can SC with an normal A2A weapon config + fuel tank. It don't have to use the AB, because it already has a speed advantage.

Boss i am very logical.. when all the external hardpoints have the capability to carry 8000 tonne payload..if need arises i repeat if need arises we can multirack missiles... please come out of page books... IAF already have done multiracking with Mig bison...

secondly with speed advantage how much speed it can overcome 3 missiles fired in ripples at it in BVR ranges? can it over come the speed of missile with supercruising.. in WVR you dont need super cruising as you need good manovoures to defeat the enemy.... while supercruise is an advantage for stealth fighters who can decide to engage or break the fight .....but in case of 4th gen it doesnt add any advantage.. these supercruise are advantage during peace time only..

Again you miss the important points, because EF will simply jettison the fuel tank to reduce weight and drag in dogfights, while MKI carries all fuel internally and will remain with most of the weight.
Not to mention that EF carries 5t of fuel internally as well, just like the MKI with normal take off weight and it should be clear that with the lighter weight and lower fuel consumtion, EF has even longer range than the MKI in this case.

Boss Adding fuel tank will reduce the payload of EFT which will be jettisonned when it is in BVR range otherwise it will be a tost.. which is not the same with MKI.. with 9tonne internal fuel it can carry extra load with out drop tanks.... secondly most of the engagements will happen in BVR where most of the fuel will be consumed by MKI and EFT ... when coming to WVR EFT will be in terrible disadvantage compared to MKI both in payload and Fuel.. how come you still arguing that it will toss MKI?

I can only repeat it, don't confuse EF with light weight fighters like older Migs, F16s, or Gripens, that had not only less thrust, but also less radar range, internal fuel, or weapon carriage capability. EF in this role is a class above and way closer, if not superior to MKI.
In south Asia, only PLAAFs Flankers will be a real opponent in this situations at the moment, but EF and to some extend even Rafale offers better capabilities, that only a few other fighters have.

i am not confusing EF is like Mig or F-16's but you are confused that it is in the category of MKI.. MKI is a heavy weight fighter .. which can eat one missile and still reach with one engine because they are widely spaced ... which is not the same with EFT.. your dreams EF and Rafale offer better capability in terms of avionics may be true.. but in case of weapons payload(which is very important for the fighter) is not the same... MKI at present still can take a lock on EFT and Rafale at the same distance they lock MKI... MKI carries Israeli avioncis to jam and posses a good counter measures like EF and Rafale.. i dont find how EFT and Rafale are good compared to MKI.. EFT and Rafale are good but they are not worth for the money... They are too costly.. I find NG is more than enough... though with less payload it has all the features of EFT and Rafale.... which i feel enough to put a sufficient deterent against enemy which is composed of Flankers and F-16

 

[MilSpec]

Let me guess, you are still hearing those old news where Su30 beat F16. Let me tell you the last couple years update of Red flag.
After those previous losses in exercises USAF fielded their latest F16 which had aesa and all. The result were Su30 became to vulnerable. I just gave example, Rafale and EF were able to beat Su30 without aesa during the exercises not to mention the block 52 and block 60 F16 hs mny changes apart from aesa.

I hope you guys also understood that air superiority concept.

#4511 check and reply

 

[luckyyy]

i think here we are missing the thinks too much...

don't know where and when SU-30MKI going to counter EF ?

i think MMRCA and other fighters with IAF should be compare to the real & visible threats only...

 

[luckyyy]

Washington, March 13: Indo-US friendship is facing its biggest test since Atal Bihari Vajpayee declared as Prime Minister 11 years ago that the two countries are “natural allies,” a declaration that was belatedly endorsed by US President Barack Obama.

At the bottom of this critical test is the determination by one senior minister in the UPA government to prevent another corruption scandal of the Commonwealth Games, 2G spectrum and the Adarsh variety, which he fears, is embedded in the current state of this friendship.

That minister is “Saint Antony”, as defence minister A.K. Antony is often known, because of his obsession with honesty and transparency not only in defence procurement, but also in any public position he has handled, from chief minister of Kerala to portfolios in current and previous central governments as a cabinet minister.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was all set to travel to India with a power-packed delegation in just over three weeks, but that high-profile visit has now been cancelled because of Antony’s insistence that he will not be pushed around by the Americans on the biggest military aviation deal in history.

Clinton’s visit, which was to have been built around a second round of the Indo-US strategic dialogue, has been in the making for more than six months.

At the first round of this dialogue in June 2010, Obama stunned Washington with an unusual gesture of driving to a reception for external affairs minister S.M. Krishna at the state department, where he formally announced his visit to India.

The military aviation deal involves India’s purchase of 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) at a cost of around $10 billion. Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is one of the contenders in the tender which may ultimately involve upto 200 fighter planes.

The ministry of external affairs on Friday announced the postponement of the dialogue which was to begin on April 6 in New Delhi, but offered the excuse of the “state elections in India and ongoing developments in West Asia and North Africa” for the delay.

“The Indians all along knew that state elections would take place at this time and the turmoil in the Middle East began in January,” a Pentagon official who did not want to be identified for fear of muddying the waters wryly said after the external affairs ministry put out its press release.

Indicating that the Pentagon’s irritation over the postponement is widely shared across the US administration, the state department did not make any announcement similar to South Block’s.

It is normal in diplomatic exchanges to concurrently make such announcements in both capitals involved in joint initiatives, even to issue identical press releases agreed between the two governments.

India’s ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar, had reiterated as recently as a fortnight ago that the New Delhi session of the strategic dialogue would take place as planned from April 6.

The postponement became inevitable after Antony firmly refused to meet US defence secretary Robert Gates who wanted to travel with Clinton to India for the dialogue and lobby on behalf of American bidders for the MMRCA deal.

Gates was not part of the first round of the strategic talks last year and Antony concluded that the defence secretary was injecting himself into the process only to influence the defence ministry’s procurement process.

A senior Indian official said the Americans never formally communicated that Gates would be part of Clinton’s delegation at any time but were in overdrive by activating US lobbies in New Delhi to get India to agree to their defence secretary’s inclusion in the strategic dialogue.

A senior Union cabinet minister told The Telegraph that Antony informed him that he would go away to Kerala during the duration of Gates’ stay in New Delhi if there was coercion on the defence ministry into agreeing to the US defence secretary's travel to India.

This was well before the election dates for Kerala had been announced and the outbreak of popular uprisings in the Arab world.

Last week, India’s defence secretary Pradeep Kumar, who was here for a meeting of the Indo-US Defence Policy Group (DPG), officially informed the US under secretary for defence policy, Michelle Flournoy, that Antony’s schedule next month did not allow him to meet Gates.

Of course, Kumar diplomatically cited the Assembly elections in Kerala as the reason for Antony’s inability to be in New Delhi in the first two weeks of April.

Kumar was given treatment fit for a head of government during his visit, born out of Washington’s mistaken belief after dealing with banana republics and client states that such red carpet receptions can influence decisions in a country like India.

But it is a signal of Washington’s determination to wrest the MMRCA contract that the Obama administration preferred to postpone the strategic dialogue instead of leaving Gates behind.

Signals from the defence ministry in recent weeks are that Sweden’s Saab JAS 39 Gripen and France’s Dassault Rafale have an edge in the Indian selection process at this stage of the MMRCA deal.

It is these signals which have made the Americans nervous enough to take the position that there will be no strategic dialogue without a Gates trip to India.

Not a week now passes without someone in New Delhi who can influence the process of decision-making in the deal being wooed and feted by an army of American defence contractors, their agents and lobbyists in a process that has the potential to be a scandal.

Antony is acutely aware of this and is determined that his snow-white image that has endured during half a century of public life will not be allowed to be sullied by shenanigans in India by America's notorious military industrial complex.

Antony has resigned on moral grounds as Kerala chief minister and as Union minister for civil supplies, consumer affairs and public distribution even when allegations of wrong-doing or corruption did not remotely touch him but were levelled by association against his ministry.

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | US friendship faces ‘St Antony’ test[/QUOTE]

 

[sreekimpact]

He is the MAN!!!!