Have you noticed the advertising header on both pages?

Swerve is right. With present funding in mind and seeing that only absence of exports were enough for our govt to finance ten-ish planes per year,
the expected end of prod for domestic needs can’t be sooner than 2024!!!:(

FYI, less than 110 Rafales have been delivered so far on a 284 target at last count.
That includes the 10 F1M whose refurbish is getting underway and the three lost ones.

Exactly on target, mate!
Maybe we should list the requirements for the MMRCA anew

The IAF projected a requirement for about 126 aircraft in 2001, when the strength was at 39.5 squadrons (down from 45). There is an option for an additional 74 aircraft.[16] Initial requirements appeared to be for a 20-ton class fighter aircraft with the Mirage 2000 as the strongest contender. However, the 20-ton MTOW limit requirement has reportedly been removed. Also, considering the delays in the bidding, it is very likely that the LCA would be ready for induction by then. The IAF then would require replacements for its frontline strike aircraft like the MiG-27 and Jaguar, which would be retiring by 2015. India’s future 5th-generation aircraft, namely, the Russo-Indian Sukhoi/HAL FGFA and the indigenous Medium Combat Aircraft will not be ready before 2018,[17] and 2025,[18] respectively, thus providing the need for a replacement. Thus, the MRCA tender is more likely to be a medium-weight aircraft (MTOW of ~24 tons). This has led to a renaming of the competition as the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender.

The Indian government is to buy the first 18 aircraft directly from the manufacturer. The remaining fighters will be built under licence with a transfer of technology (ToT) by HAL.[19][20]

The IAF was keen on buying the Mirage 2000-5, after it was impressed by the Mirage 2000’s capabilities during the Kargil War. However, due to the upcoming manufacture of the Dassault Rafale and lack of orders, the Mirage production lines were to be closed down. French officials stated that they could be kept open if India had made a firm commitment. However, the Indian Government decided to go in for a multi-vendor tendering process. Requests for Information (RFI) were issued in 2004. The RFIs were initially sent to four vendors: Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2), Lockheed Martin (F-16C and D), Mikoyan (MiG-29OVT), and Saab (JAS 39 Gripen).

Due to the tendering process and delay in issuing the RFIs, Dassault decided to remove the Mirage 2000-5 from the bidding process and enter the Rafale in its place. The MiG-35 was entered in place of the prototype MiG-29OVT. Eurofighter Typhoon also expressed interest in entering the bidding, and have entered their aircraft into the competition. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet also joined the tendering.

from wikip : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition#Requirements

Now we can add little things that have been disclosed AFAWK like
– possible link to SFC’s request
– or non-coincidence with dev. that have occured since inception
( as in if TEJAS was on top, some contenders would be out )
– etc.

Tay

I know that my dear fellow.
I added the IDRW one as the first apparition outside of mere fora
of the evidence if not necessarily conducive/inductive of a link
between a precisely numbered offer and and equal request!
All of our bright minds can debate meaningfullness here but not
factualness.
As all, i know that IDRW comes up regularly with surprising to say
the least appraisals. As a matter of fact, a previous “article” from
them about sept.14-15 placed the Rafale as low and last in chances
of fitting the bill, right behind the Mirage 2000!?
But if you refuse to listen to the truth because it is uttered by an
idiot, the main thing remains that you refuse to listen to the truth!

By the way, you should go check Indian Air Force-News and
Discussion #14 thread right here at KeyPublishing so that you
can all give them that raised eyebrows attitude since at times
every other link is to the said IDRW.

On a more serious level, it might be easier to understand where
India’s SFC is coming from if one takes a look at the big picture :

Given China’s past history of nuclear tests involving air-delivered nuclear weapons for both medium- and short-range aircraft, we estimate that China has a small inventory of nuclear bombs for delivery by H-6 bombers. Although not as old as the US B-52 bomber, the H-6 is still in production. The addition of cruise missile capability to some of its H-6s suggests that China still sees an important regional role for the aircraft. To the extent that nuclear bomber capability remains, it is minor, involving a secondary mission for a small number of aircraft.
Previous Section
Next Section
Cruise missiles

The nuclear capability of China’s DH-10 land-attack cruise missile, which has a range of more than 1,500 kilometers, is uncertain. The US National Air and Space Intelligence Center lists DH-10 capability as “conventional or nuclear”—the same characterization used for the Russian nuclear-capable AS-4 missile (National Air and Space Intelligence Center, 2009: 29), and the Pentagon has described that “new air- and ground-launched cruise missiles that could perform nuclear missions would similarly improve the survivability, flexibility, and effectiveness of China’s nuclear forces” (Defense Department, 2008: 25).
For now, however, the DH-10 program appears to be mainly conventional and ground-launched. The Pentagon estimates that the number of launchers has remained approximately 50, but that the number of missiles for those launchers has increased by about 50 percent from 2009 levels of 150–350 to 200–500 DH-10s.

If anyone dares dispute the basic intelligence of these guys’n’gals,
go ahead, I promise that I won’t even answer.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/6/134.full

There are special trickle down situations that often drive choices
and why the possibility of China’s delivery of “tactical nukes” in
Indian territory by way of air could not trigger India’s desire for
an equivalent but more modern capacity?

If geopolitics of such nature are too far removed from the battlefield
in your opinion to be worthy of consideration then do give a better idea
of why such A/C is unduly described as Teer did.

But really, give it a rest with the Idontlikeit whining!
This snippet was only btw given by me as a new potential choice
factoring variable as pertaining to the MMRCA’s selection process
and to which we could also come back as i believe that it is somewhat
:rolleyes:related to this thread.

Good day all, Tay.

P.S. If we want to be weary of outside sources like real men,
why don’t we only accept quotes’n’links to AirForcesMonthly
from now on; reputable mag, no more biased than others,
full and precise infos, good publisher………………:rolleyes::):D

Not depend on but simply mention as in this case where they still have
found the quirck I already mentioned twice about SFC’ request.

I promise that I’ll find the link for you guys but sadly, tomorrow!

Good night all.

Hi guys, joining in from Uk/France coop thread at mrmalaya’s prompt.

1-Both program are demonstrators. They should accomplish something
that will be needed in building a UCAV. They are not to see
action of any sort, neither of them.
2-Both programs have general similarities and particular differences,
to wits : From Dassault’s site

The development of the strategic technologies that the US are mastering – or will master – and that will never be transferred to Europe;
Upholding of its skill and excellency. In a lot of areas, European industry has technical competence and field excellence and, because of a lack of workload, this know-how might disappear;.
Workload for the European design offices.

come the three reasons for the nEUROn. And this is

Taranis is an Unmanned Combat Aircraft System (UCAS) advanced technology demonstrator
The project aims to contribute to the understanding of strategic UCAS, through the demonstration of relevant technologies and their integration into a representative UAV system. Taranis will provide the UK MoD with experimental evidence on the potential capabilities of this class of UAV and help to inform decisions on the future mix of manned and unmanned fast jet aircraft.

is from BAe with love.

BUT…here are goals

The demonstration goals are:

Performing an Air to Ground mission, inserted in a Network Centric Warfare.
Designing a stealth platform (Radar cross section and Infrared).
Weapon delivery from an internal bay with stringent tempo constraint.

from each respectively

Taranis will demonstrate the ability of a UCAS to fend off hostile attacks; deploy weapons deep in enemy territory and relay intelligence information.
Additionally, both the shape and internal technologies help Taranis to remain undetected by enemies.

If you are a fan of the new Franco-British Coop, this should be good news.
Since they cover different fields, they should be very easy to merge.
Apart from the junior/senior bickering, of course!

I would like to reintroduce the first sentence of Dassault presentation for a moment, if I may ;

The development of the strategic technologies that the US are mastering – or will master – and that will never be transferred to Europe;

.
It may not be luck that this new partnership becomes live now, after those incredible news of how restrictive your American nephews were going to be
about letting you use your planes as you see fit and thus, mrmalaya guessed correctly that in the end this may have a profound impact on the F-35 acquisition since it is derived from it!

This being said, mrmalaya, the stealth aspect of the Taranis has a hefty priority level in this project,
which stands to reason since it endeavours to make the UCAS “safe” in enemy territory”. The secrecy
level is accordingly high. If you had to find an equivalent in the nEUROn it would be Spectra’s integration.
But although it is surmised, as the use of the M-88 i mentioned at the other thread, for a definitive version,
it is not part of the program. In that sense, Taranis has more sensitive points, agreed.

Good night all, Tay

P.S. Just in case :
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/neuron/introduction.html?L=1

http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/Taranis/index.htm

I understand your qualms, insomnia.D and TR1 and yet…
The main thing here lies in the Nuke special option which
began surfacing a couple weeks ago thanks to an SFC call
to their govt for a 40 strong fleet of deep-strike capacity.

So yes, it is rather simplistic but I’ll only accept personal
criticism for posting it by people who can prove that their
own country has never made a “simplistic mili acquisition”.

It may yet be true!

Good day to all the experts who know better, Tay.