France - Pakistan , Avionics & possibly Plane deal revival, Post cancellation of MRCA

[sathya]

Something on
Finally, A Deal. India To Buy 36 Rafale Jets For $8.8 Billion

Finally, A Deal. India To Buy 36 Rafale Jets For $8.8 Billion
All India | Reported by Sudhi Ranjan Sen | Updated: April 15, 2016 20:52 IST

62COMMENTS

The first Rafale fighter jets will take at least 18 months to arrive in India

NEW DELHI:
HIGHLIGHTS

1. France had asked for $12 billion
2. First planes will take at least 18 months to deliver
3. French firms to invest $3billion in India in technology transfer

India's much-negotiated deal with France for 36 fighter jets is final - it will buy the French-made Rafale planes for 8.8 billion dollars, said sources to NDTV. The agreement is to be signed within three weeks and it will take at least 18 months for India to get the first lot of aircraft.

France initially sought nearly 12 billion dollars for the sale of 36 fighters complete with weapon systems. India has closed the deal nearly 3 billion dollars below France's asking price.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a visit to Paris last year confirmed India's order of 36 read-to-fly jets. Before that, the Defence Ministry had sanctioned the purchase of 120 planes, but the deal was scaled down dramatically after both sides were unable for years to agree on the unit price and the assembling of the planes in India.

The Rafales are made by manufacturer Dassault Aviation. During PM Modi's visit, the countries agreed that the deal would be handled between their governments.


The Air Force has stressed it needs to start replacing its ageing jet fleet from 2017 to effectively check the capabilities of Pakistan and China.
As the negotiations stretched - and a deal was not reached during French President Francois Hollande's visit to India in January, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said he is "a tough negotiator" and needed time to ensure a good bargain. The Air Force has repeatedly been asking for its ageing warplane fleet to be urgently modernised.

Sources say that as part of the government's push to develop and support military manufacturing at home, in exchange for selling India off-the-shelf Rafales, French companies including Dassault will have to invest three billion dollars in India to help firms here with stealth-capability and radar technologies. France had initially agreed to a 30 per cent offset obligation to be invested in India, while India had sought a minimum of 50 per cent. France has now agreed for 50 per cent offset obligation.

Hi ,

As things are .. It's only 36 Rafale . Suitable for a limited war scenario .
It's only when Make in India part gets signed ... Real force will be reckoned ..

 

[Tps43]

Air warfare isn't just some Street race if you have vast car you will win , the things you guys are talking about won't be used that much in India vs Pakistan as you have example of China big Japan small you forgot one many thing which is distance
That's not the case with India and Pakistan most fights will be wvr not the bvr
Yes if 17 isn't top of the line but awacs and tankers are the true force multiplier for Pakistan
Thunder is a nimble jet if paf keeps upgrading this bird to its maximum potential and saves money and add some numbers with f16 ( adding totally new platform will take time and waste money which paf doesn't have ) and then go straight for 5th gen bird till that time Chinese platforms and systems will be more matured because in that way you will keep adding new capable birds which can work in single network and act as single unit and this will also help in one other way you won't go too down against India in numbers
Because soon many jets will be no out of action in both forces that's what paf is also trying to do retire the old birds with more capable birds
Yes Rafale and sukhoi 30 is a beast but thunder won't be able to take down it on its on but when you have home ground advantage all assets are in single network with different platforms sams it could be Game changer what urgent need of time for Pakistan is more advance sams with modern radars which can counter jamming with good numbers of thunders f16 and some 5th gem birds you might not have giant force but you will have a capable force to counter any miss adventure

BTW paf is currently organising it's radar fleet as mpdr 45 are now too old .Chinese system had been rejected American has got strings attached with them so paf is currently looking for the germen seimens system becz mpdr are
old system but it is realible.

 

[Mav3rick]

PAF asked for Damocles PODS and helped France to finalized Rafales deal . Now its the right time to acquire SU 35 along with a Surface to Air missile defense system ^^

SAM systems are pointless in the near future. Lasers are the only way to go. Lasers, fully automated stealth hunter killer UCAVs and netcentric centrally communicated and single battlefield awareness warfare packages.

 

[Erroroverload]

Hi,

So what happened to the MAN BEHIND THE MACHINE drama.

It is not a drama you know, it does matter to some extent.
but it is not possible that you have Suzuki mehran and you are competing it with Mercedes, to how far a suzuki driver can push itself.

 

[wiseone2]

Look , We need 190 planes , now will we get all planes in 1 day (NO)

Simmilar to our F16 contracts in 80's we can work it out slowly

First Batch: (2015-2020)

• Cost of RAFALE US$101,000,000 / Plane
• Cost of 45 planes , 4.5 Billion Dollars

Cost of Missiles Package:

• 500 Million

Whole deal 5.0 Billion dollars (Spread over 5 years)

Obviously lot of options in market

French have been asking more $$$ for 36 aircraft

 

[princefaisal]

So Rafale's will start reaching India from year 2018. Also PakFa will be inducted in year 2022. Mirage-2000s have also being upgraded with all-glass cockpit, MiCA missiles, helmet-mounted sights & Thales RDY-2 radar. The RDY-2 radar can track up to 24 targets engaging 4 of them.

In view of above, avionics package from France will not be available. And all energies should be focused on JF-17 block-3, used F-16s & Su-35 procurement

 

[CHI RULES]

Hi,

Because of its size---the JF17 will never catch upto the J10.

The ideal size for the JF17 is the japanese F2.



Hi,

Okay---thank you for the input.

Our emphasis look to be more on Air to Air combat for which JFT can be developed to become toe to toe with J10 and even much better if western avionics is used along with improved engine with less heat/ir signatures.

 

[Zain Malik]

It is not a dram you know, it does matter to some extent.
but it is not possible that you have Suzuki mehran and you are competing it with Mercedes, to how far a suzuki driver can push itself.

Upto 100 Km/h seriously......

 

[Erroroverload]

Upto 100 Km/h seriously......

 

[monitor]

So Rafale's will start reaching India from year 2018. Also PakFa will be inducted in year 2022. Mirage-2000s have also being upgraded with all-glass cockpit, MiCA missiles, helmet-mounted sights & Thales RDY-2 radar. The RDY-2 radar can track up to 24 targets engaging 4 of them.

In view of above, avionics package from France will not be available. And all energies should be focused on JF-17 block-3, used F-16s & Su-35 procurement

Just another thought. If there are no clauses tacitly forbidden France from selling Rafale or any weapons /avionics package to Pakistan, after selling first batches of 36 rafale and start of latter batches of 90 in India under make India condition if France offer a cut down version of rafale to Pakistan can India opposed it as they already started using it and invested large amount of money to related infrastructure. It can be same as both Arab and Israeli using f-16 f-15 of some customize version.

 

[Paksanity]

Just another thought. If there are no clauses tacitly forbidden France from selling Rafale or any weapons /avionics package to Pakistan, after selling first batches of 36 rafale and start of latter batches of 90 in India under make India condition if France offer a cut down version of rafale to Pakistan can India opposed it as they already started using it and invested large amount of money to related infrastructure. It can be same as both Arab and Israeli using f-16 f-15 of some customize version.

If anything Rafale deal when finalised will liberate France from Indian blackmailing. India can exert pressure as long negotiations are going on. Once deal is sealed, India is dependent on France not other way round. Deal will logically include conditions on France that it will not sell same technology to Pakistan. But it will not and can not include a binding condition that France will not sell anything to Pakistan. Unless India is willing to buy each and every defence article France produces, options remain open to Pakistan. Actually, India will have to buy every defence article being produced in the world to deny it to Pakistan.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

It was only meant to be a stop gap initiative for us till 5th generation planes come along
If it happens great otherwise , we still have our own plans defined 10-15 years ago we are carrying out

 

[ghazi768]

Hi,

Compare the computer of the 60 to the computing power in the cellular phone----. That is what the difference is in the BVR missiles of the 60's to those f the 21st century.

That is what the U S has been training since 2002---launch your BVR's and turn around----WVR combat levels the playing field---there is no reason to level the playing field---.

So---why would Iaf level the playing field----?

Why is there so much effort being put into long range high kill ratio missiles with thrust vectoring----?

Why is there so much effort being put into smarter BVR missiles.

WVR combat is not the priority anymore for leading air forces---. If paf is living in the frame of mind---it is their loss.

It is not saying that WVR training is not important---it is extremely important---but is not on the top of the list as it used to be----BVR combat is.

Why is the range of radar detection getting farther and farther---why are nations manufacturing BVR missiles costing 100's of thousands of dollars---.

These are all non-arguments you have given here.

Advancement in computer technology is a stupid analogy to apply to BVR combat. I knew that this argument of "those were old times and old missile, look it is now modern times with so modern and shinny missiles" that is why I quoted experience from the last air war in which BVR missile got used. I think the kosovo war was in 1999-2000 period. Also the Medium ranged BVR missile used were AIM-120 C and B versions. Also I remember reading an analyst quoting about very disappoinitng PK in 15-20% range and that against almost dysfunctional fighters.

Again a non-argument, just because air forces are arming up with BVRs and trying to advance them further do not mean all other tactics and weapons are useless.

"That is what the U S has been training since 2002---launch your BVR's and turn around----WVR combat levels the playing field---there is no reason to level the playing field---."

Again shows lacks of knowledge about basic BVR combat, when you fire a missile you need to keep pointing your radar to the bogey to keep tracking it until missile seeker goes active which is usually in the last 5-10 kms. you can only "hand over" command guidance of missile to another platform if there is such a platform in the area of operations.
Also NEZ even at very high altitude with supersonic speed is in 35-45 km range. If you fire beyond that and opponent gets ample warning, he can just turn around go full power and trot back to home base. NEZ at lower attitudes is even lower mostly in 20-25 km ranges and not expecting a merge in a multi-fighter environment will get your 'behind' burned quickly. Also NEZ does not mean assured kill, it just means the range at which a BVR missile will be still be at its optimum energy (unless enemy fighter has already started evasive manoeuvers to exhaust up missile's energy) .

"Why is there so much effort being put into long range high kill ratio missiles with thrust vectoring----?"

Again a non-argument, every airforce will want to increase NEZ of its BVR missiles, it provides more cushion to your fighters and more chance of making a kill. Thrust vectoring may actually be more useful in WVR missiles especially in very short range shoots because missile had not yet got the time to gain much energy and thrust vectoring can help in turning more in such cases.
Now answer my question, if a jet fighter who is flying at 0.7 mach with ability to turn 9Gs try to execute an evasive manoeuvre against a BVR missile which is at its best energy moving at mach 4.0 with stated ability to handle turns of 40Gs at mach 1 at high altitude. Which one will turn most, the fighter or the missile?

"Why is the range of radar detection getting farther and farther---why are nations manufacturing BVR missiles costing 100's of thousands of dollars---."

Again a non-argument, every airforce will want to increase the range of radars of its fighters, it can be useful in certain tactics such as a layered offensive manoeuver in which forward elements to deal damage keeps all EM emissions to zero to avoid detection while rear elements provide radar data via network links to forward elements for better situational awareness.

 

[MastanKhan]

These are all non-arguments you have given here.

Advancement in computer technology is a stupid analogy to apply to BVR combat. I knew that this argument of "those were old times and old missile, look it is now modern times with so modern and shinny missiles" that is why I quoted experience from the last air war in which BVR missile got used. I think the kosovo war was in 1999-2000 period. Also the Medium ranged BVR missile used were AIM-120 C and B versions. Also I remember reading an analyst quoting about very disappoinitng PK in 15-20% range and that against almost dysfunctional fighters.

Again a non-argument, just because air forces are arming up with BVRs and trying to advance them further do not mean all other tactics and weapons are useless.

"That is what the U S has been training since 2002---launch your BVR's and turn around----WVR combat levels the playing field---there is no reason to level the playing field---."

Again shows lacks of knowledge about basic BVR combat, when you fire a missile you need to keep pointing your radar to the bogey to keep tracking it until missile seeker goes active which is usually in the last 5-10 kms. you can only "hand over" command guidance of missile to another platform if there is such a platform in the area of operations.
Also NEZ even at very high altitude with supersonic speed is in 35-45 km range. If you fire beyond that and opponent gets ample warning, he can just turn around go full power and trot back to home base. NEZ at lower attitudes is even lower mostly in 20-25 km ranges and not expecting a merge in a multi-fighter environment will get your 'behind' burned quickly. Also NEZ does not mean assured kill, it just means the range at which a BVR missile will be still be at its optimum energy (unless enemy fighter has already started evasive manoeuvers to exhaust up missile's energy) .

"Why is there so much effort being put into long range high kill ratio missiles with thrust vectoring----?"

Again a non-argument, every airforce will want to increase NEZ of its BVR missiles, it provides more cushion to your fighters and more chance of making a kill. Thrust vectoring may actually be more useful in WVR missiles especially in very short range shoots because missile had not yet got the time to gain much energy and thrust vectoring can help in turning more in such cases.
Now answer my question, if a jet fighter who is flying at 0.7 mach with ability to turn 9Gs try to execute an evasive manoeuvre against a BVR missile which is at its best energy moving at mach 4.0 with stated ability to handle turns of 40Gs at mach 1 at high altitude. Which one will turn most, the fighter or the missile?

"Why is the range of radar detection getting farther and farther---why are nations manufacturing BVR missiles costing 100's of thousands of dollars---."

Again a non-argument, every airforce will want to increase the range of radars of its fighters, it can be useful in certain tactics such as a layered offensive manoeuver in which forward elements to deal damage keeps all EM emissions to zero to avoid detection while rear elements provide radar data via network links to forward elements for better situational awareness.

Sir,

Those days of pointing the aircraft in the direction of missile launch are over---modern missiles are smart fire and forget missiles---. Some old stocks might be there.

As for the missile travelling at 3000 miles per hoiur---it will have to take around 250 to 300 G's to match the 9 G of the aircraft flying at mach .7.

First thing---this breakoff has a miniscule window of opportunity---secondly---there is a second missile coming behind it----

AND THIRDLY---the russians aircraft launch 4 BVR's in a salvo at one target---so even if it has 25% kill ratio---there is still 1 in 4 chances of hitting---.

And the missile don't need to hit direct---a proximity fuse can blow up the missile as well---which can do serious damage to the aircraft.

Stop this bullsh-it about " non argument "---.

 

[ghazi768]

Sir,

Those days of pointing the aircraft in the direction of missile launch are over---modern missiles are smart fire and forget missiles---. Some old stocks might be there.

As for the missile travelling at 3000 miles per hoiur---it will have to take around 250 to 300 G's to match the 9 G of the aircraft flying at mach .7.

First thing---this breakoff has a miniscule window of opportunity---secondly---there is a second missile coming behind it----

AND THIRDLY---the russians aircraft launch 4 BVR's in a salvo at one target---so even if it has 25% kill ratio---there is still 1 in 4 chances of hitting---.

And the missile don't need to hit direct---a proximity fuse can blow up the missile as well---which can do serious damage to the aircraft.

Stop this bullsh-it about " non argument "---.

Wow, can you please mention the name and modals of those 'smart' missiles which are fire and forget from start. Please

About your remaining, AHEM, 'arguments' there is no use of farther arguing it with you. I have made my arguments I think quite clear. You can keep on to fantasise about grand BVR trucks and massive salvos of BVR homing on to tiny puny Pakistani jet fighters.