Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[SU-57E]

with eurofighter advantage is that germany has decided to cut back its need and to export 37 aircrafts... so there is a chance that we can have those in very less duration...

 

[gogbot]

The New Deal of +40 ACs will definately make companies rethink.
Its a win win situation for All Sides.

The Companies will get a huge Cash even in recession era as of now, and will get even more for spares and future support.

IN will have a Cheaper buy, IAF can go for even better arm twisting and negotations and get what they really want.

IMO, since im a big Rafale Fan..
if we are going for 240 ACS we should have...

124-200 - SH18 [ for IAF ]
40 - Rafale [ for IN ]
[ So ONE platform for Each Arm ]

So Its SH18 or Rafale or Both.

Economies of scale wont apply if its two different platofrms.

The IN is only issuing he RFI so that it can get cheaper sot planes. from the MMRCA winner.

 

[vnomad]

It is already with combined deals of EADS (Eurocopter) and Dassault (Rafale) in Brazil and as I said, the French Gov directly is a shareholder of EADS, so no doubt about support for me.

Well since France is a major part of EADS, I suppose they would support Eurofighter's bid.

France is a veto power in the UN, just like US, Russsia, or Britain and one of the leading countries in the EU. So it is not comparable to Sweden, the only problem is that France already supports India.

France supports everyone. Point is how would an Indian order change the status quo of relations; it wouldn't. India can't expect any strategic decisions(esp. with regard to arms exports) by France, that would improve/support India's position in South Asia. If it weren't for US pressure, China would have been fielding well over 126 Rafales in the PLAAF.

That's why I said, F18SH for IAF would mainly be a political decision, to get the US on our side for a permanent UN seat.

Well permanent seat with a veto isn't going to happen(not with four nations in the running), and truth be told its no longer all that important in the post cold war world.

Going with the US makes sense on a strategic level because it is ideologically close to India and shares similar concerns vis-a-vis China.

It's not only for the speculated 36 fighter, the real need of Brazilian air force is nearly equal to the MMRCA tender around 100 fighters. That's why so much ToT and other benefits are in the game, even from Boeing.

Need aside, AFAIK the stated intent has been for the purchase of 36 aircraft.

EADS already said that India can't be an equal partner, but could be a partner in production of avionics.

Depends on what you mean by equal partner. India gets full ToT plus a share in manufacturing. I'm pretty sure if the DRDO would like to participate in the further development cycle of the aircraft, the EF consortium would probably be amenable to that.

True, but technically it will be inferior to LCA MK2 and the upg per fighter cost more than buying a new LCA MK2.

The Tejas MkII from all indications so far, isn't likely to enter service till after 2015. In any case, the Israelis have offered to upgrade the Mirage-2000 for half the cost of the French proposal.

Has it? I know that there was a RFP issued and Harpoon and Exocet are the contenders, but never heared that they bought it.

Harpoon Block II; August-Sept. last year.

Because the Rafale is not primarily a stealth air superiority fighter! F22 techs like stealth, supercruise, TVC, long range radar are nearly useless in Afghanistan and you don't need a $300 million dollar fighter, if F15s and F18s can to the same too.

That applies to the Eurofighter as well. The RAF's present contingent of Harriers and Tornado doesn't need any increments. Its not like EF are deployed only in Europe(they've been deployed in Falklands for example).

The only need for fighters their are for strike missions and because the Rafale can do this kind of missions now it is there and EF is not.

Like I mentioned before the F-22 in a strike role is as good as any fighter including the Rafale, yet its not deployed in Afghanistan.

And as I told you that is not correct, most of it only in testing stage.

You mentioned Tranche 2 in general. I specifying the block(the last one AFAIK) of Tranche 2 which included the upgrade required to employ all the weapons I mentioned.

By 'most of it' specifically what munitions are you referring to?

CESAR was only a tech demonstrator of the coming Captor E which is not developed now!

The Captor E is the designation it will be operationalize under. The CAESAR 'demonstrator' designation is simply because the AMSAR program was still in the works the CECAR program being an alternative. The primary technological challenge of mastering MMIC technology and overcoming cooling problems has been proven. The CAESAR is a working AESA on the EF, functionally no different than the RBE2 AA trialled. And the program is still under development, again no different than the RBE and Selex AESAs.

Even the Gripen NG Demonstrator had a AESA tech demonstrator for a long time, but now they made the first flight of the new Selsex AESA radar. As you can see, the EF is even behind the Gripen NG in this field and as long Italy is against the AESA development, it will be more delayed.

Italy isn't against the AESA development, it has production issues with the Tranche 3, since its already getting an AESA equipped F-35. The focal point is that the IAF if it were to order the EF, would get a version equipped with the Captor E(as specified by the EF bid).

That's 3 years before the Cesar tech demonstrator made its first flight in the nose of a test aircraft.

Ground tests yes, but the first flight test took place in 2009.

As simple as it is, they brought AESA to the trials, because the competiton is for fighters with AESA radars and they have their radar ready!

Its ready now, but will it enter service in the AdA only in 2012?

Even Euro Radar officials has stated, if the final decision about the Captor-E won't be taken till dec, it will be more than difficult to have the radar ready for export customers like India and that the first versions for the consortium members could only be ready by 2013.

Assuming its all accurate, that roughly about a year after the RBE2 AA enters service and about the same time as India's first batch of fighters is due. I don't see a problem. Seeing as the Captor-E will field 1400+ T/R modules as opposed to 1000+ on the Rafale and will probably(judging from what I've read) field GaN modules before the French do.

That's why I said, the EF is a great fighter, but way too delayed in development that IAF can't take the risk and pay such high costs. Rafale instead is more mature now and offers good performance in all roles where IAF needs it. It might be inferior to EF in air superiority missions, but for this role IAF already has MKI and is developing FGFA.

Well the only disadvantage in a strike role that the EF has vis-a-vis the Rafale, is that it relies on an external Litening pod for target designation. It will comfortably supplement the Jaguar, that will remain in service till 2030-40.

 

[brahmastra]

The Indian Navy has issued an RFI for 40 naval aircraft (read Yahoo), which unfortunately as per guidelines issued earlier is not available on the internet, so we are restricted in distributing it. Our sources indicate that the Navy may just be looking around for information and may only put in a follow on order with the MMRCA winner, if they have a suitable offering. This may be great news for Boeing's Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale and bad news for Saab's Gripen and Lockheed's F-16.

 

[sancho]

Well since France is a major part of EADS, I suppose they would support Eurofighter's bid.

By the fact that no other French companies are involved in EF, it should be clear that the Dassault bid is way more beneficial for the country and where their focus is.
Btw, just think about how good the EF would be, if France still would be in the project! EF with FSO, Spectra EWS, AASM an european bomb kit, less funding problems. One more reason why I hope for a French – German co-development after EF and Rafale with combined power of EADS and Dassault and other German and French companies.

France supports everyone. Point is how would an Indian order change the status quo of relations; it wouldn't. India can't expect any strategic decisions(esp. with regard to arms exports) by France, that would improve/support India's position in South Asia. If it weren't for US pressure, China would have been fielding well over 126 Rafales in the PLAAF.

First of all, are the other countries not selling everyone? Russia sells arms to China and engines to Pakistan. US is a prime supporter of Pakistan and only turns to us, because of more money to earn and India as a counter weight against China. Even our number 1 weapon supplier Israel, sold several techs and weapons to China and even our Phalcon AWACS was originally sold to them before US vetoed.
We can't stop anybody to sell arms, or techs to Pakistan, or China, the point for us is, as long as we get the better stuff and the better deals that brings more advantages, we can live with it!
Secondly, France can even be a bigger and better arms supplier for us than Israel, because they can offer us way more different techs that Israel can't. Fighters, helicopters, ships including carriers, subs, also space and civil nuclear techs. There should be no doubt about the stratigic benefit of France as a long term partner of India.

Depends on what you mean by equal partner. India gets full ToT plus a share in manufacturing. I'm pretty sure if the DRDO would like to participate in the further development cycle of the aircraft, the EF consortium would probably be amenable to that.

Full ToT is only proposed by France and Russia and equal partner means that India should have some amount of incluence to guide the project (or future developments of it) in directions that are important for us. But that's not gonna happen, because 1 we wasn't in from the start and 2 we only get a minor part of production. In short term it might get our companies some deals and some more experience, but we should take the chance and see MMRCA as a key to future co-developlents and long term stratigic advantages!
And in Europe, I see only France to be politically, militarily and financially powerful enough to be such a long term partner for India .

In any case, the Israelis have offered to upgrade the Mirage-2000 for half the cost of the French proposal.

But for what? Most likely for radar and avionics, but they can't upgrade the airframes, or the engines right? So if we want to upgrade them, we have to go to France.

Regarding EF, Check this site please:

Eurofighter Typhoon

It is in german, but I think you won't have a problem to see that only the RAF EFs hardly gets some a2g capability with the integration of litening targeting pod and older Paveway 2 bombs, what is not even better than IAF Mirage 2000. As far as I know only a few of RAF EFs get such a targeting pod so far, which also is a reason why they are not deployed in Afghanistan. In comparison, RAF Harrier and Tornados have Paveway 4 operational now and using it there. This weapon is only in testing and integration stage for EF of Tranche 2 so far and might be operational somewhere next year. As you can see in the geplant für Tranche 2, Block 15 (2010 - 2013) EOC 2 part, weapons like Taurus, Storm Shadow and Brimstone are planed to be integrated till 2013, however because of delays in the development and the split into Tranche 3A and B it is not sure what exactly will be included in 3A. So a fully developed EF with all weapons and techs integrated, might only come from 2015 onwards.

Italy say they don't need it, because they see EF only as an air superiority fighter and already working on F35 as the main strike fighter with next gen techs like AESA and stealth. That's why they are not really interested in funding AESA development and if even the consortium members have doubts that it will be ready in time, India as a export customer should be warned don't you think?

And now think about the IAF requirment! With upg MKI by 2014, long range Bars AESA radars and several AWACS aircrafts, is another mainly air superiority fighter with another long range radar, but less developed multi role capabilities for such high costs really what they need?

 

[sancho]

Maybe not the most important feature for IAF, but good if IN really is interested in Rafale:

Rafale M with 4 droptanks and a centerline buddy refueling pod

 

[Chanakyaa]

With a second crash of Su30 MKI, I think Indian Buyers wil think twice before they go for the Mig 35.
IMO, Mig 35 is Now Totally Out.

Its an Open war between Rafale and SH18.
See the Service of Mirage 2000s, Expensive but Durable.

 

[vnomad]

By the fact that no other French companies are involved in EF, it should be clear that the Dassault bid is way more beneficial for the country and where their focus is.

That's exactly where their focus is. EF GmbH's pitch is a completely independent offer. With respect to getting them to pitch for the Rafale (why?), France has minimal influence with EADS Deutschland and EADS CASA.

Btw, just think about how good the EF would be, if France still would be in the project! EF with FSO, Spectra EWS, AASM an european bomb kit, less funding problems.

Yes, but I guess it wasn't a bad decision in retrospect(except for France). France wanted to be the project leader, which wasn't acceptable to UK and Germany who wanted a more equitable distribution of work. Also, a naval Rafale didn't appeal to countries like the UK and Italy, since they were a part of the JSF project. Opting for the F-35 instead of the N-Eurofighter was a smart decision.

One more reason why I hope for a French – German co-development after EF and Rafale with combined power of EADS and Dassault and other German and French companies.

Well France has stated its next fighter will be a co-development with Europe(including UK, Italy and Spain I'm guessing).

First of all, are the other countries not selling everyone? Russia sells arms to China and engines to Pakistan. US is a prime supporter of Pakistan and only turns to us, because of more money to earn and India as a counter weight against China. Even our number 1 weapon supplier Israel, sold several techs and weapons to China and even our Phalcon AWACS was originally sold to them before US vetoed.
We can't stop anybody to sell arms, or techs to Pakistan, or China, the point for us is, as long as we get the better stuff and the better deals that brings more advantages, we can live with it!

Difference is India can influence decisions made by Russia, UK/Germany and the US. US has held back from selling state of the art equipment(AESA particularly) to Pakistan, Russia has shifted to co-development with India as a priority(though it was primarily due to Chinese indigenization efforts) and India now has sufficient pull with Israel to make sure its security concerns are kept in mind.

Within a year of finalizing a contract for six Scorpene-class subs with India, France was advocating a sale of Marlins to Pakistan, with emphasis on it being an improvement on the Scorpene. An Indian order for the Rafale wouldn't prevent the PAF(if it so wished), from purchasing it.

Secondly, France can even be a bigger and better arms supplier for us than Israel, because they can offer us way more different techs that Israel can't. Fighters, helicopters, ships including carriers, subs, also space and civil nuclear techs. There should be no doubt about the stratigic benefit of France as a long term partner of India.

In matters of business yes, as an partner no. India and France's strategic aims don't coincide. As matter of fact, while it attempts to keep away from the US, I doubt if France has any clearly defined geopolitical aims outside of the EU(except for 'lets make money'). Israel and India have more common interests(besides just military sales) and its inevitable it will be far closer strategic partner than France.

And in Europe, I see only France to be politically, militarily and financially powerful enough to be such a long term partner for India .

In my opinion the UK is a better partner and more importantly a more reliable partner.

But for what? Most likely for radar and avionics, but they can't upgrade the airframes, or the engines right? So if we want to upgrade them, we have to go to France.

True, and France could still be involved in the airframe(which is basically a lifetime extension) and engine upgrade. The avionics which form the core of the upgrade can be sourced from Israel. Ofcourse, it would have been a better option to get a comprehensive all French upgrade, but as things are..... well the outlook isn't promising.

Regarding EF, Check this site please:

Eurofighter Typhoon

It is in german, but I think you won't have a problem to see that only the RAF EFs hardly gets some a2g capability with the integration of litening targeting pod and older Paveway 2 bombs, what is not even better than IAF Mirage 2000. As far as I know only a few of RAF EFs get such a targeting pod so far, which also is a reason why they are not deployed in Afghanistan. In comparison, RAF Harrier and Tornados have Paveway 4 operational now and using it there. This weapon is only in testing and integration stage for EF of Tranche 2 so far and might be operational somewhere next year. As you can see in the geplant für Tranche 2, Block 15 (2010 - 2013) EOC 2 part, weapons like Taurus, Storm Shadow and Brimstone are planed to be integrated till 2013, however because of delays in the development and the split into Tranche 3A and B it is not sure what exactly will be included in 3A. So a fully developed EF with all weapons and techs integrated, might only come from 2015 onwards.

Tranche 3 aside, I see nothing in the development schedule that is an unfavorable prospect from India's perspective. From your link: Employment of JDAMs and Paveway IV has been included since 2007, the Litening pod has been integrated and the Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Taurus will be available in a few months time. None of which should be a worry for the IAF which will receive its first batch by earliest 2012(more likely 2013).

Italy say they don't need it, because they see EF only as an air superiority fighter and already working on F35 as the main strike fighter with next gen techs like AESA and stealth. That's why they are not really interested in funding AESA development and if even the consortium members have doubts that it will be ready in time, India as a export customer should be warned don't you think?

The current AESA development has been funded by the industry(AFAIK), hasn't suffered any significant delays(that I know of) and is a part of EF's pitch for the IAF's contract. I don't think India needs to be very concerned.

And now think about the IAF requirment! With upg MKI by 2014, long range Bars AESA radars and several AWACS aircrafts, is another mainly air superiority fighter with another long range radar, but less developed multi role capabilities for such high costs really what they need?

Well the MKI has a very robust air-to-ground capability, and a payload that exceeds every other aircraft in the world(incl. the F-22). Also, India still has dedicated strike aircraft in the MiG-27(till 2015) and Jaguar(for a long long time). And finally, the Eurofighter if and when it enters service in the IAF, will have an air-to-ground capability comparable to that of the Rafale. With respect to price, the Eurofighter and Rafale have almost the same fly away cost(for domestic orders).

 

[sancho]

That's exactly where their focus is. EF GmbH's pitch is a completely independent offer. With respect to getting them to pitch for the Rafale (why?), France has minimal influence with EADS Deutschland and EADS CASA.

Of course these parts of EADS won't help in Rafale development, but it should be clear that they will never block any sale of a common products like Eurocopter helicopters, or Airbus aircrafts, neither would France.

Yes, but I guess it wasn't a bad decision in retrospect(except for France). France wanted to be the project leader, which wasn't acceptable to UK and Germany who wanted a more equitable distribution of work. Also, a naval Rafale didn't appeal to countries like the UK and Italy, since they were a part of the JSF project. Opting for the F-35 instead of the N-Eurofighter was a smart decision.

Wrong! With France in the consortium, they would have way less funding problems, more independent a2g weapons. UK only went for F35, because developing N-EF alone was far too expensive for them, with France it would have been no problem.
Also with only one main fighter from Europe, the export chances against US fighters would have been way better. But it only shows the old stupid problems between those 2 countries, France wanted a EF with Snecma engine and UK is ready to take an inferior carrier config, just because they don't want to take Rafale M.
For all parties it was a clear disadvantage!

Well France has stated its next fighter will be a co-development with Europe(including UK, Italy and Spain I'm guessing).

How should that happen with UK and Italy already partners in F35 development? The only Countries left are Germany, Spain and Sweden. Spain has to take F35B for their carriers, Sweden is planing something own, if they will be able to sell Gripen NG, so only Germany could be left.

Difference is India can influence decisions made by Russia, UK/Germany and the US. US has held back from selling state of the art equipment(AESA particularly) to Pakistan, Russia has shifted to co-development with India as a priority(though it was primarily due to Chinese indigenization efforts) and India now has sufficient pull with Israel to make sure its security concerns are kept in mind.

Isn't Germany is selling state of the art AIP subs to PN? US couldn't sell AESA to PAF, because AESA upg for F16 is not ready so far (by 2016 countries like Korea, or Greece might get it), Russia is the only country we have some influence and mostly because they have no other option, but even they are selling to Pakistan.

In my opinion the UK is a better partner and more importantly a more reliable partner.

You mean that UK that is nearly bankrupt, is only a lapdog of US foreign policy with no own political power and highly reliable in any terms on US?

Tranche 3 aside, I see nothing in the development schedule that is an unfavorable prospect from India's perspective. From your link: Employment of JDAMs and Paveway IV has been included since 2007, the Litening pod has been integrated and the Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Taurus will be available in a few months time. None of which should be a worry for the IAF which will receive its first batch by earliest 2012(more likely 2013).

Again,

Entwicklung abgeschlossen 6/2007 = development finished:
Paveway II / GBU16 / GBU 10 and Rafael Lightning III Laser Designator Pod.
All this only for RAF EFs!

geplant für Tranche 2, Block 10 (7/2007 - 2009/10)
EOC 1 = development planed:
Laser Designator Pod (not decided which type)
Paveway IV (tested by Spanish and German EFs this year, but still not integrated)
GBU 32 JDAM (might come after paveway4 integration)

Development unclear so far:
Paveway III
ALARM
TAURUS/ Storm Shadow
Brimstone

In comparison, Rafale is already using Paveway II, III and the AASM (french JDAM) in Afghanistan, has Scalp integrated in 2004, also Exocet anti ship missile. These weapons are operational and tested in war missions, not only in tests and simulations. There is really no way you can't admit a clear advantage in development and integration of these weapons for Rafale!

Well the MKI has a very robust air-to-ground capability, and a payload that exceeds every other aircraft in the world(incl. the F-22).

??? 8t payload, equal to F18SH, Rafale 9,5t.

Also, India still has dedicated strike aircraft in the MiG-27(till 2015) and Jaguar(for a long long time). And finally, the Eurofighter if and when it enters service in the IAF, will have an air-to-ground capability comparable to that of the Rafale. With respect to price, the Eurofighter and Rafale have almost the same fly away cost(for domestic orders).

That's based on pure hope, but not on facts! Not a single IAF a2g fighter can compete with the any of the MMRCAs and I compared MKI and Mig 35 with Rafale before, if you search for that post you will see the advantages of Rafale in a2g. Rafale has anything for strikes ready now, EF has nearly anything of it only under development. In this field, it simply can't compete at the moment.

I am not saying Rafale is a perfect fighter, but it clearly suits IAF at best and give us the most benefits and future prospects to get rid of this unreliable buyer seller relationship!

 

[Novice09]

With a second crash of Su30 MKI, I think Indian Buyers wil think twice before they go for the Mig 35.
IMO, Mig 35 is Now Totally Out.

Its an Open war between Rafale and SH18.
See the Service of Mirage 2000s, Expensive but Durable.

@XiNiX

I always advocate to chuck out MIG 35 and F16 from MRCA and competition should be between EF, SH, Rafale.

leave grippen and work on Tejas instead.

 

[gogbot]

@XiNiX

I always advocate to chuck out MIG 35 and F16 from MRCA and competition should be between EF, SH, Rafale.

leave grippen and work on Tejas instead.

despite my own reservations. The Mig-35 is also a good deal, we get full TOT, Only plane to offer TV.

But because we have such good offers from other nations, we usually Ignore it.

frankly all Single engine fighters should have been told to take a hike.

But India wants to scope out the f-16, and Griphen was only invited so it would not look suspicious.
My speculation anyway.

Mig is our fallback alternative. Kind our safety net.


Eurofighter offer's a good deal, and i was in-favor of it at the start, but when u think about it. you cant afford to wait for the Eurofighter to be ready. Plus getting the Eurofighter gets us nowhere with the Kaveri engine.


The race in fact is only between the Rafeal and Boeing.
And frankly speaking. Given that Dassault offer's us full TOT plus AESA source code. and SCHEMA will also help us with the Kaveri Engine.
the Rafael would be the best choice for IAF technologically and Performance wise.

But inlight of the US-India strategic ties, getting the F-18 can go a long way in increasing defense cooperation.

 

[vnomad]

Of course these parts of EADS won't help in Rafale development, but it should be clear that they will never block any sale of a common products like Eurocopter helicopters, or Airbus aircrafts, neither would France.

Block?! That's pretty obvious. India can buy pretty much anything in the world as long as it is within international laws and norms and is non-Chinese. I'm not sure where the question of blocking comes in.

Wrong! With France in the consortium, they would have way less funding problems, more independent a2g weapons.

From a British perspective: why all the emphasis on independent air-to-ground weapons?

UK only went for F35, because developing N-EF alone was far too expensive for them, with France it would have been no problem.

Its the other way around. The Future European Fighter Aircraft program collapsed with UK, Germany and Italy leaving because France wanted design leadership and wanted a carrier capable version. UK had been in talks for quite a while with the US with regard to the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program(which on merger became the JSF program)

Also with only one main fighter from Europe, the export chances against US fighters would have been way better. But it only shows the old stupid problems between those 2 countries, France wanted a EF with Snecma engine and UK is ready to take an inferior carrier config, just because they don't want to take Rafale For all parties it was a clear disadvantage!M.

Well why should Britain and Germany have ceded design leadership to France?

Also, 'inferior carrier config'?!! If the F-35 even approaches the F-22 in performance, its a far better option than the Rafale.

How should that happen with UK and Italy already partners in F35 development? The only Countries left are Germany, Spain and Sweden. Spain has to take F35B for their carriers, Sweden is planing something own, if they will be able to sell Gripen NG, so only Germany could be left.

Well France can hope and pray can't it.

But unless Europeans can cooperate and move away from domestic champions, they will suffer in the race to supply the next generation of fighters, said Mr. Kogan from the Vienna-based institute.

Dassault appears to be thinking along the same lines. Eric Trappier, executive vice president at Dassault Aviation, said that Rafale’s “successor will probably be designed through a European cooperation, from 2025.”
Westchester NY

Isn't Germany is selling state of the art AIP subs to PN?

True, but then India's purchase of the U-209s happened over two decades ago.

US couldn't sell AESA to PAF, because AESA upg for F16 is not ready so far (by 2016 countries like Korea, or Greece might get it),

Not for the MLUs certainly, but the AN/APG-80 was available for the new build block 52+.

Russia is the only country we have some influence and mostly because they have no other option, but even they are selling to Pakistan.

Well they were bound under contractual obligations to supply the RD-93.

You mean that UK that is nearly bankrupt, is only a lapdog of US foreign policy with no own political power and highly reliable in any terms on US?

Britain didn't toe the US line in 1998 and refrained from sanctions against India(though it did criticize them). Even when Indian relations with the US were at its worst, India had pretty cordial relations with the UK.

With respect to national policy, its true France doesn't follow anyone least of all the US. It prefers to do nothing at all, about anything and everything.

Again,

In comparison, Rafale is already using Paveway II, III and the AASM (french JDAM) in Afghanistan, has Scalp integrated in 2004, also Exocet anti ship missile. These weapons are operational and tested in war missions, not only in tests and simulations.

They're not flying against any air defence or ECM. Getting these weapons 'validated' in Afghanistan isn't much of an improvement over validating them at test ranges back home.

In either case, the weapons onboard the Typhoon namely the JDAM, Paveways and Brimstone are operational and in the case of the first two, have been tested in war missions.

There is really no way you can't admit a clear advantage in development and integration of these weapons for Rafale!

Well for what its worth, Rafale did integrate them before the Eurofighter, so kudos I guess. Shouldn't have a bearing on the MMRCA competition though.

??? 8t payload, equal to F18SH, Rafale 9,5t.

I'm sorry I should've been clearer. Not higher payload in absolute terms ofcourse. At extended ranges, the MKI's massive fuel capacity allows it to carry more, for a longer distance and faster(the pilot can afford to be less stingy with the afterburner).

That's based on pure hope, but not on facts! Not a single IAF a2g fighter can compete with the any of the MMRCAs

Its not question of competing with them. Its about getting the job done. With dedicated strike aircraft available, the MMRCA can afford to be used for air superiority, air patrol and interception missions.

and I compared MKI and Mig 35 with Rafale before, if you search for that post you will see the advantages of Rafale in a2g.

Haven't seen it, but I can guess. Higher maximum payload and better air-to-ground munitions. But, then again better is a question of degrees. The F-22 is better at A2G than the F-16, but its still not replacing the F-16 in Afghanistan.

The point I'm trying to make is that the IAF isn't hampered by limited strike capacity while having a good air superiority potential. It is a quite well balanced force, and whichever aircraft wins the MMRCA contract will be expected to do both.

Rafale has anything for strikes ready now

Well fortunately India isn't ordering the aircraft now.

, EF has nearly anything of it only under development. In this field, it simply can't compete at the moment.

The weapons aren't under development, its the integration that hasn't been achieved. And that's for the Taurus(which India wouldn't be getting I'm guessing) and the Storm Shadow. That'll be done next year.

 

[sancho]

Block?! That's pretty obvious. India can buy pretty much anything in the world as long as it is within international laws and norms and is non-Chinese. I'm not sure where the question of blocking comes in.

We already saw blockings in MMRCA! France blocked their AESA techs for Gripen NG, US blocked Israeli AESA co-development for Gripen, because they use US techs too (that's could be an issue on Eltas 2052 for Tejas too btw!). But my point was, Germany wouldn't block any combined airbus sales with Rafale, aswell as France wouldn't if EF is combined with Eurocopter.
They went for different fighter developments, but still sell mainly the same arms.

From a British perspective: why all the emphasis on independent air-to-ground weapons?

To be self-reliant, or to use techs that was developed in britain too. Isn't that also the reason why Britain developed and uses ASRAAM, instead of AIM9, or ALARM instead of HARM? Metor will phase out AMRAAM and the Europeans already have several cruise missiles and are not limited to US weapons.

Well why should Britain and Germany have ceded design leadership to France?

As far as I know the main issue was the engine.

Also, 'inferior carrier config'?!! If the F-35 even approaches the F-22 in performance, its a far better option than the Rafale.

Carrier config, skijump vs. catobar! They evaluated different configs and mainly for EF and even for Rafale, befor they decided to go for F35. That's why I said, if France didn't leave the consortium, they would have developed a N-EF jointly, just like they develop the new carrier jointly.
Btw UK will use F35B on their carriers, which is less capable than the C version and only a2a , or small a2g weapons can be carried internally so far. Harpoon, or cruise missiles must be carrierd externally, what makes the F35 not so stealthy anymore and more comparable to Rafale again.

Not for the MLUs certainly, but the AN/APG-80 was available for the new build block 52+.

For UAE, who payed for the development and integration, not for PAF.
Also only derivates will be available to retrofit F16:

The South Korean air force will likely issue a request for proposals in 2010 or early 2011 for an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for its F‑16C/D aircraft. The air force has around 40 Block 32 aircraft and 140 Block 52-standard aircraft....
...Either country could make the first selection between Northrop Grumman’s SABR, which is a derivative of the APG‑80 in the F-16E/F, and the Raytheon RACR, which has been developed from the APG-79 fitted to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

AESA Radar Competition For S. Korean F-16s | AVIATION WEEK

US not rejected AESA for PAF, there simply wasn't one availble. Moreover, I think they will offer PAF the same new CFTs with refueling probe, that they offered with F16IN. It is already stated that this new tech is nothing exclusive for IAF, but can be available for other F16 customers too. PAF has ordered IL78 tankers that will be compatible to these system and getting these CFTs will be cheaper than buying totally new tankers just for the F16s.

Britain didn't toe the US line in 1998 and refrained from sanctions against India(though it did criticize them). Even when Indian relations with the US were at its worst, India had pretty cordial relations with the UK.

Could be wrong, but aren't our Sea Harriers and Sea Kings in such a bad shape, because we didn't get the spares from UK?

They're not flying against any air defence or ECM. Getting these weapons 'validated' in Afghanistan isn't much of an improvement over validating them at test ranges back home.

In either case, the weapons onboard the Typhoon namely the JDAM, Paveways and Brimstone are operational and in the case of the first two, have been tested in war missions.

So the confidence of having a war proven platform and weapons (what btw is one of the main advantages of US fighters) means nothing to you?

Well for what its worth, Rafale did integrate them before the Eurofighter, so kudos I guess. Shouldn't have a bearing on the MMRCA competition though.

As I said before, IAF can't wait till their new high tech and costly toy will be ready in all capabilities. They need a ready and proven fighter, that could be in service as soon as possible, to reduce the sqadron shortage, and new threats like J10, so any risk of delays must be a big disadvantage in MMRCA.

I'm sorry I should've been clearer. Not higher payload in absolute terms ofcourse. At extended ranges, the MKI's massive fuel capacity allows it to carry more, for a longer distance and faster(the pilot can afford to be less stingy with the afterburner).

That's right of course in the field of long range and heavy weapons MKI will remain the best.

The point I'm trying to make is that the IAF isn't hampered by limited strike capacity while having a good air superiority potential. It is a quite well balanced force, and whichever aircraft wins the MMRCA contract will be expected to do both.

IAF might have a balanced a2a and a2g fleet at the moment, but most of them will be phased out soon. Only 40 Mig 27 will remain in service, all Mig 21 M/MF will be phased out in nearly 2 years. The number Jags that will be upg is not decided so far and even if, how comparable will their performance be against actual multi role fighters and ground threats?
On the other side, with over 200 Flankers, all Mig 29 to be upg and FGFA under development, IAF already had done their work for air superiority. That means MMRCA must add capabilities in the a2g role, especially with good western a2g weapons.
Again that makes Rafale and F18SH to frontrunners!

The weapons aren't under development, its the integration that hasn't been achieved. And that's for the Taurus(which India wouldn't be getting I'm guessing) and the Storm Shadow. That'll be done next year.

That's right, it's still the fighter

 

[vnomad]

We already saw blockings in MMRCA! France blocked their AESA techs for Gripen NG, US blocked Israeli AESA co-development for Gripen, because they use US techs too (that's could be an issue on Eltas 2052 for Tejas too btw!). But my point was, Germany wouldn't block any combined airbus sales with Rafale, aswell as France wouldn't if EF is combined with Eurocopter.
They went for different fighter developments, but still sell mainly the same arms.

Well the MMRCA contract is for 126 aircraft and in the interests of fairness I pretty sure the contract doesn't admit modification of terms of procurement.

In any case, if theoretically it was possible to club the sale of the Rafale with Eurocopter or the like, then the very same would have been possible for the Eurofighter as well. Which means the Rafale wouldn't have any relative advantage.

To be self-reliant, or to use techs that was developed in britain too. Isn't that also the reason why Britain developed and uses ASRAAM, instead of AIM9, or ALARM instead of HARM? Metor will phase out AMRAAM and the Europeans already have several cruise missiles and are not limited to US weapons.

Well domestically produced is an advantage, but it doesn't have to over-emphasized, especially in the case of NATO militaries. Having more independent air-to-ground weapons isn't a valid reason for pursuing a course that was unacceptable to not just the UK but Germany and Italy as well.

As far as I know the main issue was the engine.

Nope. The engine development was just one facet of the FEFA program. If the French were so adamant on not joining a Eurojet program with Rolls Royce, Fiat and Avio they could have integrated an independent Snecma engine into French produced aircraft while still being a part of the overall project.

The main hurdle was France's insistence on design and development leadership and on the inclusion of a carrier capable version.

Carrier config, skijump vs. catobar! They evaluated different configs and mainly for EF and even for Rafale, befor they decided to go for F35. That's why I said, if France didn't leave the consortium, they would have developed a N-EF jointly, just like they develop the new carrier jointly.

Well the ski-jump vs CATOBAR argument is only as relevant as the aircraft launched from it. That's the eventual kicker.

Btw UK will use F35B on their carriers, which is less capable than the C version and only a2a , or small a2g weapons can be carried internally so far. Harpoon, or cruise missiles must be carrierd externally, what makes the F35 not so stealthy anymore and more comparable to Rafale again.

For a carrier-borne aircraft, air superiority is arguably the more important function. Providing air cover to the CBG as a priority, scores over supporting a marine invasion or conducting ground strike operations.

That said the F-35, even in a dirty configuration will still be much stealthier than the Rafale or Eurofighter. Also, it will only fly with external stores once allied forces have established air dominance(something the F-35 will do better than any other aircraft save the Raptor).

For UAE, who payed for the development and integration, not for PAF.

Which just means that they get paid a royalty on further sales.

Could be wrong, but aren't our Sea Harriers and Sea Kings in such a bad shape, because we didn't get the spares from UK?

Haven't heard that one. AFAIK, they're in a decent shape given their age and the Harrier having one of the highest attrition rates in the world(USMC's crashed an airforce-worth of Harriers).

So the confidence of having a war proven platform and weapons (what btw is one of the main advantages of US fighters) means nothing to you?

Well, the F-22 isn't proven in war, its still accepted as the best air superiority fighter in the world. Point I was trying to make is that the insurgency in Afghanistan is barely a war(in conventional terms). Except for the terrain there isn't anything that can't be accurate simulated back in France. The only advantage I can see is that its successfully being integrated into the coalition battlespace network in an active area. Then again, it was designed for that and they same verification could have been done in NATO exercises.

As I said before, IAF can't wait till their new high tech and costly toy will be ready in all capabilities. They need a ready and proven fighter, that could be in service as soon as possible, to reduce the sqadron shortage, and new threats like J10, so any risk of delays must be a big disadvantage in MMRCA.

The Eurofighter will reach full A2G capability in a few months time, while the first delivery isn't expected for a few years yet. Not a worry at all.

The Gripen NG and MiG-35 are still in the prototype stage, yet they're still under consideration.

IAF might have a balanced a2a and a2g fleet at the moment, but most of them will be phased out soon. Only 40 Mig 27 will remain in service, all Mig 21 M/MF will be phased out in nearly 2 years.

Well the MiG-21 is interceptor with the M/MF variant lacking a ground attack capability.

The number Jags that will be upg is not decided so far and even if, how comparable will their performance be against actual multi role fighters and ground threats?

All of them will be/have been upgraded to DARIN II AFAIK. Well, it would have retired if it weren't intended to serve in wartime.

On the other side, with over 200 Flankers, all Mig 29 to be upg and FGFA under development, IAF already had done their work for air superiority.

True, but the Su-30MKI, while primarily an air-superiority fighter is designed to perform strike missions as well. With 270 of them, that's a lot of ordinance that can be lugged. Add to that the 52 multi-role Mirage-2000s and the MiG-29 which after its upgrade will be able to perform strike missions as well.

That means MMRCA must add capabilities in the a2g role, especially with good western a2g weapons.
Again that makes Rafale and F18SH to frontrunners!

Still like how do you reckon the Rafale is better than the Eurofighter at A2G and by what factor do you estimate its so?

That's right, it's still the fighter

Well just because the EF units that will field the Storm Shadow are still under manufacture(not development) is not reason to conclude that the EF isn't a multi-role fighter yet.

 

[Nishan_101]

Hi can anyone tell me who will the winner according to the reports that are coming out and will it be more than 200MMRCA like 250.