Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[sancho]

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.

Just take a look at WAH Apache (RR engine instead of GE engine, european weapons instead of US, as well as european defense and comunication systems), or the trouble UK has to use their own parts in F35. It is obvious that they want less dependence on US and if such a close ally puts priority on it, we should think about it too.

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

What shows that France was right, because at the end UK also wanted a N-EF, but couldn't efford it.

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

That's my point too, they are limited now to F35B which is the least capable of the F35 versions (less space internally, less internal fuel, so less range and starting via ski-jump means less MTOW).
As I said with external ordinance the F35 will loose much of it's advantage. You only thought about striking land targets, with support of other land based fighters, but a carrier aircraft must defend it's carrier group against air targets, as well as against sea targets. So with Harpoon carrierd externally in sea control missions, it can be a different story and I have some doubts that there will be so much difference, that the costs still will be worth it (Rafale $80 - 90 million, F35 $100 - 130 million).
However, for Indian carriers I prefer N-FGFA and N-UCAVs anyway!

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).

Sanctions imposed by the Clinton Administration for India's May 1998 nuclear tests, led to an acute shortage of critical spare parts for the Sea King fleet. On 23 November 2000, in a parliamentary session in the Lok Sabha, Defence Minister George Fernandes stated in a written reply that an acute shortage of critical spare parts had affected the operational efficacy of the Sea King fleet, with 60% of the helicopters grounded. Flights of the Sea King were cut down to a bare minimum and the SAR role taken over by the smaller, single-engined HAL Chetak helicopters. The British Government continued with its efforts to press high level US authorities for flexibility, particularly in view of the Sea King's SAR role. On 19 January 2001, the Clinton Administration lifted the sanctions and the go-ahead was given for the sale of spare parts for the Sea King fleet.

Bharat-Rakshak.com :: NAVY - Westland Sea King

As you can see, even if they want something else, without US approval, UK can't do anything. So although UK is a veto power it won't give India any political benefit, because it is not independent and will only do, what US want's them to do. If US puts sanctions on India, EFs main a2g weapons will hardly be available and it's not only UK, ITA and even Germany won't go against US either.
Some might say with the new Indo-US relationship sanctions are unlikly, but with the experience of the past, we have to keep such things in mind if we go for an important and costly procurement like this!

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.


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

As I showed you that is simply not true, it still will take years till all a2g weapons are integrated and with 2 main members already going for F35 as their main strike fighter, I bet there will be more issues on funding and integration.
Because although they look close in design, their intended roles was different! EF was aimed as an air superiority fighter against Russias Flankers, with added multi role capabilities. Rafale instead was designd from the beginning to be equally good in all roles, because it has to replace many different fighters types, in different roles, just like the JSF.
Rafale might lack the speed and long range radar of EF (or MKI), but has still a better maneuverability than most other MMRCAs. In IAF is easily should take over the a2a roles of Mirage 2000 and even Mig 29.
In the ground attack role it has all weapons ready and proven, has the highest payload the most weapon stations and a good range (more than EF). Combined with a very low RCS and the Spectra EWS (which is claimed to be one of the best at the moment) its survivability was proven to be very good in several simulations (Red flag, tiger meet).
Of course MKI, M2K and upg Mig 29 are multi role fighters with strike capabilities and after air superiority is achieved they will do a good job in that role too. But try to send them cross border with their bigger RCSs against numbers of SAMs, fighters and the biggest problem, AWACS aircrafts. Exactly here the Rafale has a clear advantage and will give IAF a new capability to do preemtive strikes in highly protected areas.

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

Not correct:

MiG-21PFMA 'Fishbed-J' First model with ground attack capability, greater fuel capacity, improved radar, an internal 23-mm gun, and four underwing pylons instead of two
MiG-21M or Type 96 Similar to the MiG-21PFMA and built under license in India

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - MiG-21 'Fishbed'

BR also count them as ground attack fighters:

Indian Air Force :: Aircraft Fleet Strength

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.

Don't forget that most of them are old and need new engine and airframe upg, of course they are intended for war, but are old gen fighters with less performance than actual multi role fighters. They can't protect them selfs and will need escorts, unlike latest fighters. We can't replace the Migs and the Jags at the same time, that's why they were upg before, but with around 70 optional MMRCAs, not all of them must get DARIN III.
However, I hope that IAF will upg them all too, because it would give us time to develop a stealth UCAV. No doubt that these will be the strike platforms of the future and till then IAF could keep the Jags at the low end.

 

[sancho]

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.

Trials are still going on, so no official front runner yet. The competition is for 126 fighters + aroun 70 optional. With FGFA coming and possible developments to MCA, or stealth UCAV, I doubt more than 200 are needed.

 

[Nishan_101]

Trials are still going on, so no official front runner yet. The competition is for 126 fighters + aroun 70 optional. With FGFA coming and possible developments to MCA, or stealth UCAV, I doubt more than 200 are needed.

U r quite right i also think about that about 250 MMRCA would be needed in order to maintain credibility as LCA won't be as good as mention.and it willbe the frontline fighter coz of advanced avionics.
can u tell me wats the cost of F-18's RAFAel and Tyfoon. and is really MiG-35 is out of this MMRCA due to lesss tech as compared to competitors.

 

[Insane]

I think we should announce a winner ASAP and save ourselves some time. It Clearly looks as if F/A-18 SH will be the winner. So why delay ? Just Order those birds right away.

On the side issue of Engines GE engines are almost selected so to say. So just go ahead and finish this thing. No one is giving any damn about the time that can be saved.

I was also wondering why get only 18 planes in fly by condition.. why not 3 full squadrons. Local Manufacturing and Everything is alright but filling in numbers is also critical at this point of time. I Mean what difference it makes to absorption of technology if u build 60-70 planes rather than 100+ planes ?

Getting 54 planes and Manufacturing the rest locally seems a good idea to me. Can save at least 3-4 years on operational preparedness.

 

[gogbot]

I think we should announce a winner ASAP and save ourselves some time. It Clearly looks as if F/A-18 SH will be the winner. So why delay ? Just Order those birds right away.

On the side issue of Engines GE engines are almost selected so to say. So just go ahead and finish this thing. No one is giving any damn about the time that can be saved.

I was also wondering why get only 18 planes in fly by condition.. why not 3 full squadrons. Local Manufacturing and Everything is alright but filling in numbers is also critical at this point of time. I Mean what difference it makes to absorption of technology if u build 60-70 planes rather than 100+ planes ?

Getting 54 planes and Manufacturing the rest locally seems a good idea to me. Can save at least 3-4 years on operational preparedness.

Now, now no need to be impatient

There is policy and procedure to adhere to.

As well with every passing month the deals we are offered are getting better.

Plus IAF gets a chance to scope out the best aircraft in the world.
Including the F-16. In much detail.

Who knows what might happen tomorrow.
SAAB may decide to actually sell us the Griphen I mean the plane as a whole. Very unlikely. But non the less game changing.

 

[sancho]

U r quite right i also think about that about 250 MMRCA would be needed in order to maintain credibility as LCA won't be as good as mention.and it willbe the frontline fighter coz of advanced avionics.
can u tell me wats the cost of F-18's RAFAel and Tyfoon. and is really MiG-35 is out of this MMRCA due to lesss tech as compared to competitors.

You get me wrong, I said I doubt that there will be more MMRCAs, because the future is about 5. gen fighters and UCAVs. Producing those 108 MMRCAs under licence will take some time and by that FGFA and other 5. gen techs could be available.
Can't tell you correct prices of the fighters, because it always depend on how many are ordered and Mig 35 is not out, but might not have much chances after the latest reports of more than 250 crashed IAF Migs.

I think we should announce a winner ASAP and save ourselves some time. It Clearly looks as if F/A-18 SH will be the winner. So why delay ? Just Order those birds right away.

On the side issue of Engines GE engines are almost selected so to say. So just go ahead and finish this thing. No one is giving any damn about the time that can be saved.

I was also wondering why get only 18 planes in fly by condition.. why not 3 full squadrons. Local Manufacturing and Everything is alright but filling in numbers is also critical at this point of time. I Mean what difference it makes to absorption of technology if u build 60-70 planes rather than 100+ planes ?

Getting 54 planes and Manufacturing the rest locally seems a good idea to me. Can save at least 3-4 years on operational preparedness.

You are forgetting some points, first of all with every fighter bought directly from a vendor, the cost rises and expensive fighters like F18SH, Rafale, EF could be too costly than. Not a single fighter could be produced for us at the moment, because most of them are still developing, or integrating techs and weapons that are proposed. F18SH IRST, F16 avionics, CFT, Rafale AESA and maybe a better engine, EF AESA, weapons, Gripen NG and Mig 35 nearly everything. So even if we speed up the decision, the first fighters still will need time till they could arrive here.

 

[sancho]

It's often said that the engine that will be taken for LCA,will also decide who will win MMRCA, because same engines means less costs. I agree that it means less costs, but one must keep in mind that neither EF, nor F18SH have any other commonality in actual IAF fleet and all weapons have to be purchased extra. Not to forget that their unit costs are with Rafale the highest too. So my question is, what is more cost-effective?
100 LCA MK2 with same engine as 126 F18SH, but no commonality to any other IAF fighter and high logistic costs? Or 100 LCA MK2 with EJ 200 engine + 126 Rafale with different engines, but with the fact Rafale can use the same weapons that are in use with (~50 fighters) Mirage 2k and (~120 fighters) Jags today and they can use the same Mica, AASM, Scalp, Exocet, ASRAAM, or ALARM after their upgrades that Rafale will use?

 

[vnomad]

Just take a look at WAH Apache (RR engine instead of GE engine, european weapons instead of US, as well as european defense and comunication systems), or the trouble UK has to use their own parts in F35. It is obvious that they want less dependence on US and if such a close ally puts priority on it, we should think about it too.

Some friction always exists. India had/has similar problems with Russia with regard to the Brahmos.

From India's perspective, UK or France; neither equates to indigenous production.

What shows that France was right, because at the end UK also wanted a N-EF, but couldn't efford it.

The naval-Eurofighter was only mooted as a negotiating tactic to get push the US to release certain F-35 codes. Which apparently worked, if one goes by recent reports. In any case, France wasn't going to get design leadership that it so desperately wanted, if the UK and Germany had anything to say about it.

That's my point too, they are limited now to F35B which is the least capable of the F35 versions (less space internally, less internal fuel, so less range and starting via ski-jump means less MTOW).

True. But, the we're comparing with the Rafale here, not the F-35C.

As I said with external ordinance the F35 will loose much of it's advantage.

It will still retain a significant stealth advantage over the Rafale.

You only thought about striking land targets, with support of other land based fighters, but a carrier aircraft must defend it's carrier group against air targets, as well as against sea targets. So with Harpoon carrierd externally in sea control missions, it can be a different story and I have some doubts that there will be so much difference, that the costs still will be worth it (Rafale $80 - 90 million, F35 $100 - 130 million).

Its an absolute gem for the price its being marketed at. Unlike the Rafale, this was designed as a stealth aircraft from the outset; it one were to compare the RCS of both aircraft in a clean configuration, the F-35's would be far far lower than the Rafale's especially in a non-frontal aspect. With external stores its RCS would increase quite a bit, but so would the Rafale's.

However, for Indian carriers I prefer N-FGFA and N-UCAVs anyway!

I don't have a lot of expectation from the FGFA as far as stealth goes. Annually, the US spends twice the entire Russian military budget on just R&D. The Russians will have to pull off a miracle to get something in the F-35's class in terms of stealth, munitions and avionics, let alone the F-22. Though, in other aspects like range, payload, agility and maneuverability, it will be as good as the Raptor, if not better.

Bharat-Rakshak.com :: NAVY - Westland Sea King

As you can see, even if they want something else, without US approval, UK can't do anything.

The Westland Sea King is a license-produced version of the American Sikorsky Sea King. Its not a British helicopter any more than the KC-30 is American.

So although UK is a veto power it won't give India any political benefit, because it is not independent and will only do, what US want's them to do.

Fortunately, for us we've had good (and rapidly improving) relations with the US for quite a while now. France, hasn't helped India's position vis-a-vis Pakistan to date, and isn't likely to do so in the future.

If US puts sanctions on India, EFs main a2g weapons will hardly be available and it's not only UK, ITA and even Germany won't go against US either.

I think over $5 billion in high tech defence imports says US sanctions in the future aren't a worry. India today is very different from what it was ten years back, and its relations with the world including the US have also advanced in leaps and bounds.

Some might say with the new Indo-US relationship sanctions are unlikly, but with the experience of the past, we have to keep such things in mind if we go for an important and costly procurement like this!

Too late for that now.

Britain and France have over five centuries of war behind them and they're cooperating intensively on defence today. I don't think what happened over ten years ago is going to repeat itself, even in the event of a nuclear test(which isn't going to happen either).

As I showed you that is simply not true, it still will take years till all a2g weapons are integrated and with 2 main members already going for F35 as their main strike fighter, I bet there will be more issues on funding and integration.

Well I'm yet to see that conclusion. Even your link clearly showed that except for the Storm Shadow and Taurus, the EF that were coming off the production lines now were equipped to employ all the A2G munitions in service with the RAF and Luftwaffe.

Why India's EFs(should they ever be ordered), which will enter service at the very least three years from now, will have a limited air-to-ground arsenal, requires clarification on your part.

Because although they look close in design, their intended roles was different! EF was aimed as an air superiority fighter against Russias Flankers, with added multi role capabilities. Rafale instead was designd from the beginning to be equally good in all roles, because it has to replace many different fighters types, in different roles, just like the JSF.

The idea of dedicated interceptors, air superiority fighters, ground strike and close-support aircraft went out even before the cold war.
While some aircraft(like the F-22) may excel at air-superiority, all of the latest fighters(4.5 gen) can act in a strike capacity. And this design philosophy was a part of the Eurofighter from the outset.

Rafale might lack the speed and long range radar of EF (or MKI), but has still a better maneuverability than most other MMRCAs.

The Eurofighter is certainly the more agile of the two aircraft. As for maneuverability, the jury is still out on that one.

In IAF is easily should take over the a2a roles of Mirage 2000 and even Mig 29.

As should the Eurofighter.

In the ground attack role it has all weapons ready and proven, has the highest payload the most weapon stations and a good range (more than EF).

True, it has that(albeit marginal) advantage over the Eurofighter.

Combined with a very low RCS and the Spectra EWS (which is claimed to be one of the best at the moment) its survivability was proven to be very good in several simulations (Red flag, tiger meet).

Again, low RCS is one thing, lower RCS than the Eurofighter another. The only really revolutionary part about the Spectra was the active-cancellation technology which remains unproven(and IMO impractical against an AESA radar).

But try to send them cross border with their bigger RCSs against numbers of SAMs, fighters and the biggest problem, AWACS aircrafts. Exactly here the Rafale has a clear advantage and will give IAF a new capability to do preemtive strikes in highly protected areas.

Yes, well that goes for air superiority missions as well. In hostile air space, the MKIs larger RCS, against high concentration of enemy fighters and presence of AWACS is reason to purchase the EF too.

Not correct:

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - MiG-21 'Fishbed'

BR also count them as ground attack fighters:

Indian Air Force :: Aircraft Fleet Strength

The MiG-21 was designed from the outset as an interceptor. It was wired to carry dumb bombs since the MiG-23 was still about four-five years away from commissioning. For all practical purposes, the MiG-21 served in the IAF as only a point defence fighter.

Don't forget that most of them are old and need new engine and airframe upg, of course they are intended for war, but are old gen fighters with less performance than actual multi role fighters.

Two engines from Honeywell and Roll Royce are currently being evaluated to re-engine the Jaguar. The age of the airframe only effects the service life, performance as such during exercises and wartime will remain unaffected. In any case almost two squadrons of Jaguars have entered service after 2000, so they have new airframes that will probably last till 2025 at the very least. The DARIN-II upgrade completed just recently and allowed the Jaguar to remain relevant with regard to its contemporaries.

They can't protect them selfs and will need escorts, unlike latest fighters.

All strike aircraft entering hostile airspace will need escorts. Heavy A2G munitions carried(as well as the altitude profile) would negate the possibility of strike aircraft engaging the combat en route to the target.

We can't replace the Migs and the Jags at the same time, that's why they were upg before, but with around 70 optional MMRCAs, not all of them must get DARIN III.

Depends on the service life left in the aircraft to judge the feasibility of an upgrade. The latest built Jaguars will certainly have enough left to go through another round of upgrades.

 

[sancho]

The Westland Sea King is a license-produced version of the American Sikorsky Sea King. Its not a British helicopter any more than the KC-30 is American.

So? Didn't we bought them, the Harriers and the carrier from UK? What's the worth of such procurements if they must ask others to supply us with spares?

Fortunately, for us we've had good (and rapidly improving) relations with the US for quite a while now. France, hasn't helped India's position vis-a-vis Pakistan to date, and isn't likely to do so in the future.

And US, the close ally of Pakistan did helped us against them?
Please, don't get blinded of US, only because they are now ready to sell us some weapons. Russia and France was clearly more reliable in the past.
Btw, check this interview about the Russian vs. USN and RN in 1971

Defunct Humanity: 1971. The War of Nerves in Bengal Bay

It's not so long ago that these countries sends their military against us, what does it say about their reliability?
I am not totally against US, but I think it's on them to prove us that they can be a reliable partner.

Well I'm yet to see that conclusion. Even your link clearly showed that except for the Storm Shadow and Taurus, the EF that were coming off the production lines now were equipped to employ all the A2G munitions in service with the RAF and Luftwaffe.

Why India's EFs(should they ever be ordered), which will enter service at the very least three years from now, will have a limited air-to-ground arsenal, requires clarification on your part.

Be able to deploy a2g weapons, doesn't mean anything till they are integrated. You still seems not to understand that the integration was planed several years ago, but take a look at the present stage of EF development!

- still only very limited a2g weapons are operational
- targeting pod only for RAF so far
- all member countries (except Spain) cuts their original orders because of funding problems
- further developments and upg are delayed because of funding problems
- 3 of the member countries use Tornado as the main strike aircraft and 2 of them will replace Tornado in roles with F35. So no need for them to waste money in the integration of a2g weapons on EF

France instead will replace their a2g fighters with Rafale, that's why they have to and already did integrate their a2g weapons.
Everybody can claim that EF will carry that and this, but the above mentioned points makes it doubtful that all claimed weapons will also be integrated. Honestly I think the members are waiting for an export country to pay for it, Saudi Arabia, that will replace Tornados with EF for example.

The idea of dedicated interceptors, air superiority fighters, ground strike and close-support aircraft went out even before the cold war.
While some aircraft(like the F-22) may excel at air-superiority, all of the latest fighters(4.5 gen) can act in a strike capacity. And this design philosophy was a part of the Eurofighter from the outset.

You are mistaken if you believe multi role means equally good in all roles. Some fighters will still be better in low level strike missions, some in high level dogfights. EF and F18SH for example are both multi role fighters, but with totally different aimed roles. Even F22 and F35 are different, that's why the one is for air superiority and the other is the Joint Strike Fighter!

The Eurofighter is certainly the more agile of the two aircraft. As for maneuverability, the jury is still out on that one.

Nobody doubts that, the point was Rafale is possibly the second best in this field of all MMRCAs and IAF already has a super maneuverable fighter with MKI. So the second one in this field is more than enough and other capabilities are more important!

True, it has that(albeit marginal) advantage over the Eurofighter.

Finally you admit that it has an advantage and as I said Rafale did impressed in this role in some simulations, with it's excellent avionics and weapons.

Yes, well that goes for air superiority missions as well. In hostile air space, the MKIs larger RCS, against high concentration of enemy fighters and presence of AWACS is reason to purchase the EF too.

Not exactly, because EF will only have lower RCS as an advantage, its long range radar won't, because we already have AWACS support, its super maneuverability won't, because MKI has it too, same for speed, long range weapons. Only for a lower RCS compared to MKI we don't have to buy EF, Gripen NG, or Rafale will use the same Meteor missiles and will have comparable RCS, but will be cheaper.
IAF showed good tactics with MKI guiding passive Bisons, with low RCS via datalink and I think they will use the same tactics when PAF gets AWACS support. They will hold MKIs back and use upg Mirage, LCA and MMRCA in passive modes, guided by MKI, or Phalcons.
Again we don't need the same advantages that MKI already offers, we need something that it doesn't offer.
IMO low RCS, good precision strike capabilities, good IRST for passive target detection, good avionics and defense suits for survivability even in hostile air space.

All strike aircraft entering hostile airspace will need escorts. Heavy A2G munitions carried(as well as the altitude profile) would negate the possibility of strike aircraft engaging the combat en route to the target.

Not true, Jags can only carry WVR missile (I think 2) for defense reasons, but multi role fighters can carry a2g payloads and several WVR and BVR missiles and don't need other escort fighters. Rafale for example can carry 6 AASM, 3 fuel tanks, 2 WVR and 4 BVR Micas.

 

[vnomad]

So? Didn't we bought them, the Harriers and the carrier from UK? What's the worth of such procurements if they must ask others to supply us with spares?

We bought a custom built American aircraft. The 'others' in this case are the British.

And US, the close ally of Pakistan did helped us against them?
Please, don't get blinded of US, only because they are now ready to sell us some weapons.

Please ask Pakistanis how they view the close alliance with the US.

Russia and France was clearly more reliable in the past.

Russia yes, France hell no. France hasn't given a crap either way for 60 years. They don't distinguish between countries in South Asia(or anywhere else for that matter).

Btw, check this interview about the Russian vs. USN and RN in 1971

Defunct Humanity: 1971. The War of Nerves in Bengal Bay

It's not so long ago that these countries sends their military against us, what does it say about their reliability?

Well, 39 years is very long ago.

I am not totally against US, but I think it's on them to prove us that they can be a reliable partner.

Judging by the purchase of the P-8I, C-130J and very soon the C-17, the Indian government as well as the IAF seem to be satisfied as to the US's reliability.

Be able to deploy a2g weapons, doesn't mean anything till they are integrated.

It means the aircraft can employ them. What else is the weapon supposed to do?

You still seems not to understand that the integration was planed several years ago, but take a look at the present stage of EF development!

By all means take a look, the block 10 is in production, and employs JDAMs, ALARM, Paveway III & IV. The Storm Shadow and Brimstone will be integrated far far before the Indian deliveries are expected.

- still only very limited a2g weapons are operational

Like I mentioned above if India wanted the first deliveries immediately, the EF would have been lacking in the tank busting role. Fortunately, the deliveries aren't expected for another four years.

- targeting pod only for RAF so far

That's the Luftwaffe's problem really. If the RAF EF's use them, the IAF EFs will do so too.

- all member countries (except Spain) cuts their original orders because of funding problems

EF GmbH has already delivered over three times the number of aircraft Dassault has.

- further developments and upg are delayed because of funding problems

Further upgrades are conceptual at this time and deal mainly with reducing the RCS and IR signature further and some tweaking of avionics.

- 3 of the member countries use Tornado as the main strike aircraft and 2 of them will replace Tornado in roles with F35. So no need for them to waste money in the integration of a2g weapons on EF

The JSF program is not a recent development. It was kept in mind while planning the EF's development schedule which catered for an A2G role. The EF is intended to perform a multi-role task and the RAF will not like to presuppose that F-35s are always available for strikes.

Everybody can claim that EF will carry that and this, but the above mentioned points makes it doubtful that all claimed weapons will also be integrated. Honestly I think the members are waiting for an export country to pay for it, Saudi Arabia, that will replace Tornados with EF for example.

Pay for what exactly? Specifically speaking how is the EF impaired in an A2G role.

You are mistaken if you believe multi role means equally good in all roles.

It simply means it can perform both air and ground missions. With respect to ground missions incremental improvements in performance don't really translate into significant gains in wartime.

Some fighters will still be better in low level strike missions, some in high level dogfights. EF and F18SH for example are both multi role fighters, but with totally different aimed roles.

One is built for CATOBAR operations and is optimized for carrier operations, the other isn't. Yeah true enough.

Even F22 and F35 are different, that's why the one is for air superiority and the other is the Joint Strike Fighter!

If the USAF had the financial and political backing, they'd replace every F-35 order with the F-22 and still be able to perform all roles required more than ably.

Nobody doubts that, the point was Rafale is possibly the second best in this field of all MMRCAs and IAF already has a super maneuverable fighter with MKI. So the second one in this field is more than enough and other capabilities are more important!

The EF still offers the best performance among its peers.

Finally you admit that it has an advantage

It does, higher range and payload, but a typical load doesn't require 7.5 tons of payload(EF) let alone 9 tons(Rafale). And in the regional scenario with 6 refuelers available and more(Airbus MRTT) on their way, another 300 km of range is not a must.

Not exactly, because EF will only have lower RCS as an advantage, its long range radar won't, because we already have AWACS support,

In hostile airspace AEW&C support can't be reckoned on.

its super maneuverability won't, because MKI has it too, same for speed, long range weapons.

Its more agile than the MKI and faster too.

Only for a lower RCS compared to MKI we don't have to buy EF, Gripen NG, or Rafale will use the same Meteor missiles and will have comparable RCS, but will be cheaper.

As of now, the Rafale and EF have the same flyaway cost.

IMO low RCS, good precision strike capabilities, good IRST for passive target detection, good avionics and defense suits for survivability even in hostile air space.

All of which the EF offers.

Not true, Jags can only carry WVR missile (I think 2) for defense reasons, but multi role fighters can carry a2g payloads and several WVR and BVR missiles and don't need other escort fighters. Rafale for example can carry 6 AASM, 3 fuel tanks, 2 WVR and 4 BVR Micas.

I believe the Rafale has 14 not 15 hardpoints. In any case in a strike role it will be hampered in speed, range and maneuverability and will typically carry a largely air-to-ground payload(with maybe an FLIR pod and laser designator). In any case, it will require fighter escorts.

 

[sancho]

Please ask Pakistanis how they view the close alliance with the US.

Not important, the point was US supported them for years and not us, even with military power against us (unlike France). To me that means they have to show us that they are reliable first.

Russia yes, France hell no. France hasn't given a crap either way for 60 years. They don't distinguish between countries in South Asia(or anywhere else for that matter).

Let's see, they gave us Mirage 2000, which is one of the best fighters in our fleet at the moment and didn't had the quality problems like Russian techs. They gave us Scorpene class subs, offered now Rafale with full ToT and source codes, something that no other country except Russia will offer. They cleared the nuclear deal right after Russia and provided us civil nuclear power plants. They support us for a permanent seat in the UNC, we already have co-developments in avionics and they offered a co-developed Kaveri-Snecma engine. But most important they were reliable during sanction times!

France
France has criticized India but said it opposed US sanctions and will not apply its own.
(International Herald Tribune, 14 May 98)

CNS - World Reaction to the Indian Nuclear Tests

Looks like they sold and sell us state of the are arms, gives us the chance for co-developments, support us politically and in the civil nuclear field, so everything that Russia offers us too!
Can you name me another country that can offer us the same, especially co-developments and nuclear power?
MMRCA is the chance for us to get France even closer to us than ever before, on levels like we have with Russia and Isreal.

Judging by the purchase of the P-8I, C-130J and very soon the C-17, the Indian government as well as the IAF seem to be satisfied as to the US's reliability.

Are they? Or do they only open the door for US arms with buying less important patrol and transport aircrafts in smaller numbers? MMRCA is a totally different thing and US have to come up with more, if they want to get a part of this market.

It means the aircraft can employ them. What else is the weapon supposed to do?

You still didn't understand it, it means that the aircraft is wired to the use such weapons, but it still needs integration and testing of them. That exactly is what the members are doing with Paveway 4 at the moment:

Further recently successful testing saw IPA 1, the UK owned Typhoon aircraft, commence a sequence of fifteen Paveway IV jettison drops. To date 3 successful drops have been performed. The trials see Paveway IV’s dropped in a number of store configurations to ensure safe separation and verify that bombs do not interfere with their neighbours when released.

IPA 7 Paveway IV Trials

By all means take a look, the block 10 is in production, and employs JDAMs, ALARM, Paveway III & IV. The Storm Shadow and Brimstone will be integrated far far before the Indian deliveries are expected.

geplant für Tranche 2, Block 10 (7/2007 - 2009/10)
EOC 1
IRIS-T (digital Modus) (BGT)
Laser Designator Pod (Typ nicht spezifiziert)
Paveway IV, MK 13/18 (UK)
GBU 32 JDAM (Boeing)

This is Block 10, but only IRIS-T is integrated so far Paveway 3, ALARM, Brimstone and the cruise missiles will only come in Block 15, or even later in Tranche 3A. That's what I try to make you understand, the integration is delayed and nobody knows if all the claimed weapons will be integrated at all.

The JSF program is not a recent development. It was kept in mind while planning the EF's development schedule which catered for an A2G role. The EF is intended to perform a multi-role task and the RAF will not like to presuppose that F-35s are always available for strikes.

Intended is the key word and with RN having F35 on their carriers, it should be clear that integrating a2g and anti ship weapons on them will be more important, than on any other land based fighter, because they will be the first to fight in any future UK war.

Pay for what exactly? Specifically speaking how is the EF impaired in an A2G role.

Integration and testing of weapons, see above!

One is built for CATOBAR operations and is optimized for carrier operations, the other isn't. Yeah true enough.

Funny but not correct, the one is mainly for air superiority, with secondary strike capabilities. The other mainly for strike with BVR capabilities. This is a normal concept that you can see in several forces. F22 and F35, Su 35 and Su 34, even FGFA and a hypothetical MCA are intended for the same kind of roles. Of course all of them are multi role fighters, but always one mainly geared with capabilities for air superiority and the other for mainly for strike.

It does, higher range and payload, but a typical load doesn't require 7.5 tons of payload(EF) let alone 9 tons(Rafale). And in the regional scenario with 6 refuelers available and more(Airbus MRTT) on their way, another 300 km of range is not a must.

Unless EF has integrated heavy a2g payload you are right. Rafale instead already uses heavy payloads:

http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale-super-nounou.jpg

Rafale in buddy refueling mission with 2x 2000l and 2x 1250l, centerline refueling pod + 2 Mica ~ 6t

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/docs_wsw/RUB_120/scalp3_alexandre_paringaux.jpg

Rafale in long range strike mission with 3x 2000l tanks, 2 Scalp and 4 Micas ~ 8t

As of now, the Rafale and EF have the same flyaway cost.

Any source for that claim?

I believe the Rafale has 14 not 15 hardpoints.

Rafale has triple pylons for bombs, so on a single weapon station it can carry up to 3 AASM as you can see in the following pic:

http://www.escuadron69.net/v20/images/redactores/paratrapo/3-RafaleMconSTRBR-3000.jpg

 

[Screaming Skull]

EADS ups the ante.....

Eurofighter comes without end user monitoring clause​

Friday, Dec 11, 2009

NEW DELHI: As the race for the multibillion-dollar tender for 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) edges closer to conclusion with user-trials progressing as per schedule, Eurofighter, one of the six contenders, offers a cutting-edge technology without the End User Monitoring clause.

“It is really a next generation plane and it will be in service for the next 30 to 40 years. It also comes without any End User Verification, complete transfer of technology and production,” German ambassador Thomas Matussek told The Hindu.

End User Monitoring, which created a political controversy earlier this year, is a requirement the United States insists on countries to which it supplies sensitive military equipment. American firms Lockheed Martin (F16) and Boeing (F/A18) are in the fray along with the Russian MiG, Swedish SAAB (Grippen) and French Dassault (Rafale).

Barring the first batch that will be supplied off-the-shelf, all fighters will have to be made in India under transfer of technology. Mr. Matussek said the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) would shift its entire technology, which means that in the event of war, the country will not have to worry about supplies from overseas.

As for software code supply, the ambassador said it would be much higher than what some competitors including from the U.S. might offer.

Germany has been nominated by the four-country consortium of EADS, which produces the Eurofighter, as the lead country to pitch for the fighter aircraft in India.

The Hindu : National : Eurofighter comes without end user monitoring clause

 

[deckingraj]

Mr. Matussek said the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) would shift its entire technology, which means that in the event of war, the country will not have to worry about supplies from overseas.


Mr. Matussek, while admitting that the Eurofighter was dubbed “expensive,” by competitors, said the life cycle maintenance cost would even out the initial high price.

Mr. Matussek said Germany was keen on supplying, besides the MMRCA, military equipment including submarines for the Indian Navy. It preferred to have India as a strategic partner and precisely for the reason shelved the decision to supply similar equipment to Pakistan, he said.

These statements makes me feel EuroFighter is offering a lot...if the specs of this fighter suffice our needs than i don't see any reason to go for any other competitor until and unless their offer is as lucrative as this one is....

 

[rajeev]

These two statements makes me feel EuroFighter is offering a lot...if the specs of this fighter suffice our needs than i don't see any reason to go for any other competitor until and unless their offer is as lucrative as this one is....

Yes, Eurofighter is best aircraft that can have atleast a shot against F22.

But I think India has already made decision on this and we will be choosing based on strategic need/support rather than military need.

 

[Hulk]

Yes, Eurofighter is best aircraft that can have atleast a shot against F22.

But I think India has already made decision on this and we will be choosing based on strategic need/support rather than military need.

And what that decision is and if decision is made, why waste time. Common sense says that waiting might give us better options.