What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
. .

As expected, but now we have an official confirmation for these things as well:

SLD: NETMA provides a forum then within which harmonization of the requirements is sorted out so that the contributions of upgrades generated by any of the member nations can shape an upgrade path?

Wells: That’s right. We get the customer agency’s future requirements and then we act on behalf of the partners on the industry side through the various contracts. The content of those requirements can come from one, two, three or four nations, depending on the funding routes, who’s in custody of the upgrade and what and when they require it, we will then propose packages of upgrades that will accommodate all of those requirements as far into the future as is required. We don’t develop single products individually across the four nations, but shape a common approach. And now we’ve got five and six nations with Austria and Saudi Arabia. The approach is to try to have a common approach for Eurofighter upgrades regardless of customer. We focus on generating high-tech solutions, help to develop new technologies across the Eurofighter partners and suppliers and develop an important economic impact to the partner nations.


So much for, we can upgrade the EF for our needs in future, the reality is that anything that India wants in future, has to be negotiated with all partners.


SLD: India would then come in as a new partner, with a new assembly line, and their requirements would shape new funding and new opportunities for upgrading the aircraft, and adding new industrial possibilities?

Wells: Exactly. If they’ve got money on the table to say we need this capability and this number of aircraft in this time frame, then those requirements would be dealt with, together with those of the existing partner nations.


SLD: Could you describe the immediate impact from Indian participation as a Eurofighter nation on the upgrade approach?

Wells: The immediate impact is that we will have a large set of operational requirements that we would need to fulfill in a pretty short time span. Currently, the only official future upgrade that is currently being funded is Meteor. There are indications that there will be additional new weapons, but funding is a problem. The list of requirements on the Indian RFP is considerable. And they would need to be worked through to this upgrade program. I think it’s fair to say that the proposal that we’ve made into India in terms of providing a Typhoon with the required capabilities is arguably 80 percent Indian requirements, 20 percent European requirements. So they would influence considerably the future direction of the Eurofighter program.


So far only Meteor confirmed as an upgrade funded by the partners, anything else is fully depending on our additional money, be it real multi role capabilities, be it additional techs, or even the AESA.
Also interesting is the fact that 80% of this:

DSC03645.JPG


is not required by the European partners!
 
.
.
I wonder how Eurofighter consortium ( EADS, Alenia Aeronautica and BAE ) will try to woo India. They will have to offer us alot otherwise they don't stand a chance against Team Dassault. Future of Rafale is no doubt better than EF because EF countries will be using F35 while France will rely on Rafale which means they will be upgrading it to the level of close to a 5th gen fighter....
 
.
I wonder how Eurofighter consortium ( EADS, Alenia Aeronautica and BAE ) will try to woo India. They will have to offer us alot otherwise they don't stand a chance against Team Dassault. Future of Rafale is no doubt better than EF because EF countries will be using F35 while France will rely on Rafale which means they will be upgrading it to the level of close to a 5th gen fighter....

and then they will try to recover the entire upgrade fund fron india when IAF go to them to upgrade rafale,..

it's far better that india fund the upgrade upfront on EF and get the PR on the tech along with the upgrade......
 
.
^^^
EF is trying to build the present version with Indian help forget about the future. Whatever they claim EF to be will be build by Indian money while Rafale is ready. We will have to pay for upgrade whether its EF or Rafale but we shouldn't be paying for the present one...
 
.
^^^
EF is trying to build the present version with Indian help forget about the future. Whatever they claim EF to be will be build by Indian money while Rafale is ready. We will have to pay for upgrade whether its EF or Rafale but we shouldn't be paying for the present one...

present version will be build by indian money been recived for supply of 126 jets....

future upgraded might be funded by india in EF.... but been paid in case of rafale..

funding a upgrade means getting a PR(property right) on technology..

far better then company try to recover the entire upgrade fund fron india when IAF go to them to upgrade rafale,..
 
.
and then they will try to recover the entire upgrade fund fron india when IAF go to them to upgrade rafale,..

it's far better that india fund the upgrade upfront on EF and get the PR on the tech along with the upgrade......

present version will be build by indian money been recived for supply of 126 jets....

future upgraded might be funded by india in EF.... but been paid in case of rafale..

funding a upgrade means getting a PR(property right) on technology..

far better then company try to recover the entire upgrade fund fron india when IAF go to them to upgrade rafale,..


Funny, first you favoured the Mig, because it was cheap and now you suddenly favour the most expensive one? :undecided:

Maybe we should get a clear picture of what upgrades we are talking here:

Eurofighter Unveils Future Roadmap For Typhoon

Livefist: Eurofighter Unveils Future Roadmap For Typhoon


ef2702815.jpg



So far the EF partners have funded and ordered the phase 1 enhancements till T3A and most likely will add the METEOR missile, although no partner country has ordered it so far.
To fulfill the requirements of MMRCA, the consortium companies decided to pre-fund the AESA development, because the partner countries don't have the money for the development, nor ordered T3B fighters, that would need AESA.
That means all other upgrades of the T3B are not funded and depending IAF requirements would have to be funded by India + parts of the AESA radar development!


The Rafale on the other side, like shown on the pic has nearly all these upgrades already available and proven, or funded by France for the F3+ version that they ordered will be delivered from 2013 onwards!

Rafale has no glide bomb, but the rocket propelled AASM that offers stand off ranges as well.
One, or even several new weapons on the lower end, for the anti amour warfare are under evaluation now. The 125Kg version of AASM and LGTR bombs are ready and just needs to be ordered, but the French forces also shows interest in guided rocket pods, or Brimstone missiles:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...f-rafale-mmrca-shortlist-114.html#post1866546

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...f-rafale-mmrca-shortlist-116.html#post1878218

Both capabilities will enhance the weapon package of the Rafale F3+, besides the already cleared GBU 24, L AASM, AASM 1000 and Meteor.
Range extention with CFTs was developed and tested in the early 2000s and is just waiting for an customer that pays for the final development and integration.
So from that list, only SATCOM upgrades would be leff for India to pay for (if required), while the integration of HMS (Topsight, or Gerfaut) would be necessary for India for sure.

It should be obvious that the Rafale is the better choice, because except of 2 things, all upgrades that the EF could get in future, are already available, or funded by France. That means IAF will get a capable fighter from the start, has no risks of delays, or cost increases during the development and don't have to pay that much more, to get the same features!
 
.
Let us not forget that MMRCA is a stopgap provision to take care of fast depleting aircraft numbers in IAF left by late induction of LCA.

Regarding the recent experience of the Mirage upgrade - Why can't we put some clause that allows us to upgrade ourselves. Or from a third party (maybe Jews or Christians)?

For ToT, we have FGFA right? With FGFA, and later AMCA possibly using similar/same systems; wouldn't that be our indigenous standard for targeting/communication links, etc? Introduction of those 5 gen systems (shared with AMCA/FGFA) in later upgrades of these 126 birds would be a cost effective and practical step.

So, I believe we should go for L1 and that too from a manufacturer who can send them fast, We needed them yesterday.
 
.
Funny, first you favoured the Mig, because it was cheap and now you suddenly favour the most expensive one? :undecided:

Maybe we should get a clear picture of what upgrades we are talking here:



Livefist: Eurofighter Unveils Future Roadmap For Typhoon


ef2702815.jpg



So far the EF partners have funded and ordered the phase 1 enhancements till T3A and most likely will add the METEOR missile, although no partner country has ordered it so far.
To fulfill the requirements of MMRCA, the consortium companies decided to pre-fund the AESA development, because the partner countries don't have the money for the development, nor ordered T3B fighters, that would need AESA.
That means all other upgrades of the T3B are not funded and depending IAF requirements would have to be funded by India + parts of the AESA radar development!


The Rafale on the other side, like shown on the pic has nearly all these upgrades already available and proven, or funded by France for the F3+ version that they ordered will be delivered from 2013 onwards!

Rafale has no glide bomb, but the rocket propelled AASM that offers stand off ranges as well.
One, or even several new weapons on the lower end, for the anti amour warfare are under evaluation now. The 125Kg version of AASM and LGTR bombs are ready and just needs to be ordered, but the French forces also shows interest in guided rocket pods, or Brimstone missiles:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...f-rafale-mmrca-shortlist-114.html#post1866546

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...f-rafale-mmrca-shortlist-116.html#post1878218

Both capabilities will enhance the weapon package of the Rafale F3+, besides the already cleared GBU 24, L AASM, AASM 1000 and Meteor.
Range extention with CFTs was developed and tested in the early 2000s and is just waiting for an customer that pays for the final development and integration.
So from that list, only SATCOM upgrades would be leff for India to pay for (if required), while the integration of HMS (Topsight, or Gerfaut) would be necessary for India for sure.

It should be obvious that the Rafale is the better choice, because except of 2 things, all upgrades that the EF could get in future, are already available, or funded by France. That means IAF will get a capable fighter from the start, has no risks of delays, or cost increases during the development and don't have to pay that much more, to get the same features!

I am agreeing on the fighter capability that Rafale is more developed than EFT... but what i cant agree is why India has to pay for the development that has been already quoted in the proposal by EADS?... in future if India needs a capability .... India will pay for its development then we are the owners of the property which we are developing...
 
.
I am agreeing on the fighter capability that Rafale is more developed than EFT... but what i cant agree is why India has to pay for the development that has been already quoted in the proposal by EADS?... in future if India needs a capability .... India will pay for its development then we are the owners of the property which we are developing...

Not sure what you mean by quoted by EADS, but if we wants to be a partner in the programm, we have to take parts of the development costs of course, they did it in the early development of the fighter, if we (Turky, or Japan) join now, we have to do it with the upgrades, or at least those that we want. According to the SLD report, we want 80% that the other partners don't want, which means that we have to pay for most of this alone, while the other upgrades costs (like AESA radar) will be shared.
 
.
Let us not forget that MMRCA is a stopgap provision to take care of fast depleting aircraft numbers in IAF left by late induction of LCA.

Regarding the recent experience of the Mirage upgrade - Why can't we put some clause that allows us to upgrade ourselves. Or from a third party (maybe Jews or Christians)?

For ToT, we have FGFA right? With FGFA, and later AMCA possibly using similar/same systems; wouldn't that be our indigenous standard for targeting/communication links, etc? Introduction of those 5 gen systems (shared with AMCA/FGFA) in later upgrades of these 126 birds would be a cost effective and practical step.

So, I believe we should go for L1 and that too from a manufacturer who can send them fast, We needed them yesterday.

MRCA was aimed as a stop gap procurement, M-MMRCA not! The MoD and IAF riked to have shrinking squad numbers, to get a maximum of advantages out of this deal, especially in terms of ToT, offsets and other industrial advantages that improves our industry. That IAF now gets an even more capable fighter, is a positive side advantage, but they would have been more than happy with Mirage 2000-5s, 5 years ago, be it new, or even 2nd hand.
Upgrades of foreing fighters depends on how comprehencive the upgrade will be, we could have got radar, or some weapons from the Israelis for the Mirage 2000, but the airframe overhaul, the addition of hardpoints and possibly even RCS reductions would have been done by France anyway, so it's not as easy as it looks. Also our own industry is years behind, so how should we upgrade such a fighter alone, when we have no coparable techs? It's the other way around, we need MMRCA to improve ourself and make LCA MK2, or FGFA more capable, but the ToT, or JV this competition might bring.
 
.
I am agreeing on the fighter capability that Rafale is more developed than EFT... but what i cant agree is why India has to pay for the development that has been already quoted in the proposal by EADS?... in future if India needs a capability .... India will pay for its development then we are the owners of the property which we are developing...

that's exrectly the point , india will be paying only as per the commercical quote on the tender for suppy of 126 fighters as per the tender current specifications and all future upgrades could be jointly funded and india will be the equal co-owners of the new property/systems..

anyway , it's upto EADS to spent the money they got from selling 126 fighter to india in which ever way they want , if they like to spent that money in funding any development of EF , why should we be bother about it...but few people still argue thast look EADS using indian money to fund their projects..
 
.
MRCA was aimed as a stop gap procurement, M-MMRCA not! The MoD and IAF riked to have shrinking squad numbers, to get a maximum of advantages out of this deal, especially in terms of ToT, offsets and other industrial advantages that improves our industry. That IAF now gets an even more capable fighter, is a positive side advantage, but they would have been more than happy with Mirage 2000-5s, 5 years ago, be it new, or even 2nd hand.
Upgrades of foreing fighters depends on how comprehencive the upgrade will be, we could have got radar, or some weapons from the Israelis for the Mirage 2000, but the airframe overhaul, the addition of hardpoints and possibly even RCS reductions would have been done by France anyway, so it's not as easy as it looks. Also our own industry is years behind, so how should we upgrade such a fighter alone, when we have no coparable techs? It's the other way around, we need MMRCA to improve ourself and make LCA MK2, or FGFA more capable, but the ToT, or JV this competition might bring.

Thanks for the perspective. It clearly is not as simple as it looks.

Let's hope the Babus who did not see this alarming decrease in Fighter numbers coming, get the best out of this purchase.

It hurts when the french and the Russians charge exorbitant prices for upgrades. But at least we get the best there is; and isn't that what National Defense is all about.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom