That’s only your opinion and I doubt that India is keen investing 20 billion $ in an aircraft that can still not hit sensitive targets without being at risk due to SAM.

Who says it will not be able to hit sensitive targets? The IAF is investing in standoff weapons for the very same reason, and the chosen munition is going to be integrated on the EF/Rafale as well.

Besides you could make the argument that with a bigger nose than the Typhoon the SU-30 mki is a more potent BVR platform…And following your logic BVR missiles use are not the majority of the missions so the IAF does not need an “immediate BVR” platform…

I didn’t follow your argument here. BVR missiles are standard fit for practically all missions. And yes the Su-30MKI might have a longer radar range, but when compared to the EF, there is a very significant difference in terms of kinematics, ESM systems and RCS.

Your reasoning does not make any sense.

India is ready to invest around 20 billion for a new jet why would they not value strategic reach or BVR capability? Especially when the rafale is certainly much more survivable and capable in deep strike missions than a SU-30 with its integrated multi-sensor suite, Spectra EW and stand-off weapons…A salvo of 6 AASM fired outside SAM envelop is formidable standoff firepower which comes at a much more affordable price than cruise missiles.

They do value both BVR capability (which the EF brings in oodles) and strategic reach. Its just that the former is an urgent requirement while the latter isn’t really going to materialize until the PAK-FA becomes operational.

Deep strike is one thing over Libya, and a very different task when your foe is the PLAAF. Yes the Su-30 cannot carry it out with any assurance of safety, but the same applies to the Rafale as well. Besides, most targets of opportunity are going to be near border regions and combat zones not 800km inside hostile territory.

AASMs are good but cannot safely be employed at standoff ranges. And that becomes especially true if the SAMs are datalinked to AEW&C aircraft. For SEAD missions the IAF is looking for a dedicated missile like the HARM.

Fact is with no clear roadmap toward full multirole capability and AESA radar the Typhoon option seems less credible than the rafale. And as for the Captor-E I repeat that India might have done some credit to the program so that the Typhoon could be shortlisted but that was provided the Captor-E development would not stay at the same point than a year ago! That’s why I believe time is playing against it as it is more and more obvious that partner nation are waiting India for the funding.

What does ‘some credit to the program’ mean? Was the IAF evaluation less than professional? Were the deputed IAF officers lacking as you put it ‘critical sense’? Were they mistaken in their final analysis that EF’s proposed timeframe was viable?

I’ll also repeat what I’ve said before: a rafale choice opens realistic strategic opportunities of operating the same aircraft than the IN. The RFI was not innocent nor the fact that rafale competitors came with navalized variant of their aircrafts.

The RFI was issued to everyone in the business. It was a fact finding exercise – just as the term Request for Information would suggest. The only reason UAC was excluded was that India is already involved in its projects.

As to the choice of the IN’s next naval fighter – it has option of going for the non-stealthy Rafale or the stealthy F-35/PAK-FA. And unlike the IAF’s MRCA program, deliveries aren’t expected till 2020. For a naval PAK-FA it might even be willing to push that timeline further.

What aircraft do you think its likely to choose, to be at the core of its carrier battle groups for the next half century, pitted against an increasingly sophisticated PLAAF and PLAN?

As for nuclear partnership only France as such a facility like Megajoul which will allow india to keep a credible nuclear deterrence in the year to come without having to test underground nuclear bombs. Even the UK will test their nuclear arsenal in this facility after the defense treaty between the two countries. Beside If I am not mistaken UK military technology is mostly US.

Huh? I thought we were discussing civil nuclear technology. There practically no possibility of cooperation on military nuclear technology between France and India. Even if France were to agree to open its facilities, India would be very reluctant to expose any facet of its secretive weapons program to foreign scrutiny.

As for Ellint asset if you don’t have Elint satellites to map and update Pakistani or Chinese SAM sites and radars you will not be very helpful. France and India have signed a defense treaty and I see no valuable reasons that would endanger France national security if they share these Pakistanis and Chinese datas with India.

For that matter, the US and India have signed a strategic agreement as well, and there is nothing that France can provide that the US can’t provide in twice the quantity.

Unfortunately, ELINT data is usually highly classified and very rarely shared, and then too only between close allies. French-Indian relations are good but they’re not exceptional – until recently France was a major defence supplier to Pakistan and its been lobbying NATO and EU to lift the arms embargo on China.

I know some recent fiasco for the Typhoon…

Difference is EF Gmbh was never criticized by any prospective customer unlike Dassault. And just as importantly, when it didn’t win contracts it expressed regrets and moved on… it didn’t criticize the country hosting the competition.

There is no question that Typhoon bigger radar and TW ratio are good assets for the Typhoon but that’s not the entire picture. The fact that Typhoon fails to establish any supremacy (exercises, technical evaluations) in its intended role is a good indicator.

There’s never been any real world exercise between the two aircraft.

The WVR exercise was guns only – the only reason the RAF’s EFs even have guns is because replacing them with ballast was pointless. In actual combat it would rely on the HMSS and ASRAAM/IRIS-T combo.

In the BVR exercise, the EF was still well short of full potential (it hadn’t acquired the capability to passively fire the AMRAAM at that stage), and was presumably out-ranged by simulated R-27s. Point is, the Captor-E equipped Eurofighter will be a very very different prospect.

As far as “risks” are concerned:

Fact is with not a single CAPTOR AESA prototype being tested and no clear go-ahead was given a part a very thin financial envelop. Anyone with some critical sense will normally call into question the 2015 time line. IAF might have done some credit due to the CAESAR experience but now time is clearly playing against the Typhoon. The more we wait the more conspicuous this lack of funding is.

Saying that the IAF did ‘some credit’ to the EF is objectionable, because no credit was done to the Gripen, which would call the impartiality of the evaluation process into question.

Yes they approved the EF’s AESA, but I don’t think anyone would claim that the IAF was lacking ‘in critical sense’.

Full multirole development is also very worrying…neither a single significant milestone achieved nor a clear roadmap to reach that capability have been awarded. It will need more than gravity bombs to be able to tackle the full range of tactical missions and justify its price. CFTs are also mandatory to gain any strategic reach which is a minimum given Typhoon size and price.

Majority of air to ground missions consist of PGM and dumb bomb delivery.

Also, while some European air forces might find ‘strategic reach’ an immediate requirement, the IAF will have a fleet of 200+ long range Sukhois before the first MRCA is delivered, just like the RAF and Luftwaffe have their Tornados.

Like them, it can afford to wait till the second half of the decade for CFTs, for long ranged cruise missile delivery.

The first two squadrons for example will be deployed at Ambala, which is approximately 175km from both international borders with China and Pakistan. That’s five minutes flight time with some use of afterburners.

Then Partner nations are rushing to diminish their own commitments and Germany is even eager to sell its own aircrafts. Not a very appealing partnership to join especially when there are already four partners.

The main attraction of a partnership would be with regard to upgrades. There’s greater chance of India getting a better upgrade deal with EF, than it will with a single party in the Rafale.

Add the synergies with the mirage 2000 upgraded fleet; the potential option to operate a common aircraft with the Indian Navy and the rafale offer seems clearly to have an edge. Not to mention nuclear cooperation (Megajoul facility and Elint cooperation thanks to France spy satellites).

I’ll repeat what I said before. There is no naval angle to this deal.

The Indian Navy doesn’t see itself as subservient to the IAF’s interests or choices. For its primary fleet defence fighter to 2045, it is inevitable that it will look for a fifth generation aircraft.

UK and Germany have nuclear technology and ELINT assets as well, but you’re not likely see any sharing to be done there. Or else, the US would have run away with deal – its electronic data-banks are in all likelihood, unparalleled in the world.

On politics France is more “readable” than a consortium of nations especially with a good record of supplying Indian armed forces during the Kargil conflict.

AFAIK the Israelis were the ones who assisted with integration of the Litening pod and supply of PGMs. Dassault was no more involved than it is during peacetime.
In fact, there are a few unconfirmed stories floating around that the IAF’s unauthorized modification of the Mirage didn’t go down too well with Dassault, and that the respective govts. had to intervene to smooth things over.

But there is one area where I rekon the Typhoon should have an edge: offsets as EADS and BAE have more “reach” than the rafale team. In my opinion it is Typhoon best card to play.

Yes. At this point, it is about the Eurofighter’s offsets, ToT and industrial offer vs the Rafale’s operating cost.

You seem to be the one having found something that we all missed because all public sources indicate that the first flight of a preproduction CAPTOR-E on Typhoon should occur in 2012.

During the India trials there was indeed a CAESAR demonstrator but it was flying in the nose of a BAC 1-11 as the Eurofighter radar testbed (DA5) has been reitired 4 year ago…

Well the news report that discussed the IAF’s evaluation specifically said a prototype was test-flown. Neither it nor I said anything about it being a pre-production variant. Sure, one can indulge in the semantics of whether the CAESAR (assuming that that’s what was tested) qualifies as a prototype or not, but it wouldn’t change the bottomline.

But IAF sources reveal that Gripen failed to provide proof that their AESA radar development was on track and that they could integrate that radar on a fighter. In contrast, Dassault had fitted two prototype AESA radars on Rafale fighters, proving that they were close to completion. Eurofighter too test-flew a prototype AESA radar for the IAF evaluation team, convincing them that it would be ready by 2014-15.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/05/rejected-mmrca-vendors-fight-to-return.html

So if the IAF is convinced but C-Seven thinks its all a big fraud, surely he must know something others don’t.

Does this apply to radar range too?

Not necessarily. Take the Su-30MKI for example. The IAF would eagerly welcome the greater detection and tracking range provided by the AESA upgrade, especially given the fact that stealth aircraft will be in operation across Asia by the end of the decade.

Its operational range on the other hand is considered more than adequate, evidenced by the fact that external fuel tanks were never integrated onto the IAF’s aircraft.

Within the subcontinental scenario, it comes down to what the IAF would value more – the ability to carry two more fuel tanks/heavy munitions or a radar with a wider FoV and about 50% greater power output (assuming T/R modules are similar and power is proportional to antenna area).

Seeing as both the IAF’s potential adversaries border the country, I’d venture that it was the latter.

At the same, I suppose we all have to accept the fact that both aircraft have made it past the downselect, and technical issues aren’t likely to play factor in the final selection. At this stage its probably a question of whether the margin of Rafale’s operational cost difference is low enough to beat Eurofighter’s comprehensive industrial offer.

LOL. We’re already having this debate on a different forum, what the heck right. 😀

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6428&h=MBDA bags Euro 950 million missile deal for Indian Mirage 2000 upgrade

AASM to come soon hopefully…This with the MICA deal will be a strong incentive for the rafale.

Mirage 2000 -> MICA -> Rafale

Jaguar -> ASRAAM -> Eurofighter

Equal equal.

But the most important information is the MICA deal : with manufacturing facilities and ToT in India I believe it is an incentive than cannot be ignored especially when the green light was given by Indian Prime minister himself.

The PM gives the green light to all defence deals.

Both the ASRAAM and MICA are likely to be manufactured in India. As is the Meteor if selected.

MBDA owned by BAE (37.5%), EADS (37.5%) and Finmeccanica (25%). Also co-own Eurofighter Gmbh.

And the AASM is under close consideration along with an israeli option. Ther potential synergie is in itself an incentive for the rafale.

Raytheon products are under consideration as well. And they can usually beat the pants off the competition on price.

Rafale : Analysis of the indian tender
Knowckers.org, Dec 30

Finally, bilateral relations between France and India are excellent: the strategic partnership concluded in 1998 was reiterated during the visit of Alain Juppé in October[2]. France has consistently supported India’s aspirations to a seat on the UN Security council and to a better participation in international forums like G8, G20 …
.
.
The Eurofighter is a money pit and has been referred bythe UK Court of Auditors with a 75% increase of its unit cost.

The bilateral relations between the UK and India are just dandy as well. Not least because of the considerable influence exercised by the sizeable Indian diaspora in Britain. In addition, Germany is too is looking to upgrade ties (with an annual joint air exercises for eg.)

The Eurofighter’s 75% cost increase is clearly faulty accounting, nothing else.

If it was deemed unsuited in terms of raw performance TW ratio or radar size then it would not have made the downselect : as simple as that. It would also not be so high ranked in the swiss evaluation especially for the AtA role if it were real issues. I firmly believe that those alleged weaknesses are “myth”…certainly the Typhoon is better in these specific aeras but that does not make the rafale “lacking” in those aeras.

The corollary to that is – if the Eurofighter was deemed unsuitable in terms of operational range or upgrade prospects it would not have made the downselect.

talk about risk ?

-There is not a single CAPTOR-E prototype flying nor being tested in lab and we are in 2012…

-I can’t see any meaningfull milestones achieved or a firm/signed commitment toward a full multirole Typhoon

-I can see that partner nations are rushing to diminish their commitments thanks to exports and that some are willing to sell their own aircrafts

-Without CFT the Typhoon will not even have the proper range to achieve strategic mission with heavy loads.

– A Captor-E prototype was flight trialed for the Indian evaluation team.

– Meaningful milestones include integration of the EPW II, EPW III, PW IV and the P1E upgrades.

– The Eurofighter’s order book still remains far in excess of the Rafale’s.

– Long range strategic missions with heavy payloads are not an urgent requirement in the IAF right now. It can comfortably afford to wait for the CFTs.

AASM & Brimstones

AASM vs Brimstone : two great weapons but from a completely different category and purpose. AASM was just as worthy as the brimstone if not more.

Brimstone good for low value targets : tanks, pick-ups truck…
AASM good for high value targets : SAM sites, munition depot, strategic facilities etc..

ideal is to have both, but as you have perhaps noticed the AASM is under consideration for India…Not the brimstone…At least for the moment. The point was it is another incentive for the rafale.

For SEAD missions the IAF is looking at acquiring a dedicated weapon like the HARM.

For everything else, there’s Raytheon. Paveway series + LJDAM/JDAM-ER + SDB.

Cost subsidized by the US taxpayer via USAF, USN and USMC.

As for dealing with Dassault in India :

Price negotiations for the Mirage-2000 upgrade have travelled a rocky road over two years. Initially, Dassault quoted Rs 13,500 crore ($2.9 billion), which it brought down to the current level of Rs 10,000 crore ($2.1 billion) after the IAF diluted its upgrade requirements. But the MoD believes Dassault’s reduced bid only reflects the diluted requirements, rather than any flexibility on the latter’s part.

The IAF, traditionally a staunch supporter of Dassault and the Mirage-2000 fighter, is apparently changing its views. Dassault, say pilots, has badly damaged its credibility during the recent negotiations by arm-twisting the IAF over the supply of spares for the Mirage-2000 fleet.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/iafs-11-bn-order-may-become-larger/373419/

Indeed but they have issued a RFI and the Gripen and Typhoon felt it was necessary to answer with navalized variant.

The potential strategic synergy is interesting to have as a prospect.
In itself it is a strong incentive.

The Indian Navy is already set to operate two fourth generation aircraft. Their not going to order a third regardless of whether it’ll be common to the IAF as well.

The IN’s next fighter will be a fifth generation model – either the F-35C or a naval PAKFA variant.

Actually, as this is a French movie, having a free-minded beautiful American character makes it pro-American if anything.
You may scoff at this, but take it from a non-French who has lived there…

Come now – two American pilots over on exchange. One of them’s a professional stripper and the other is in bed with Al Qaeda.

Tell me that doesn’t sum up how (at least a certain section of) the French see the US. 😀

The substitute for the Jaguar was the Typhoon not the Tornado.

I’m aware of that but while the EF T1s actually replaced the Jaguars, the F-22 replaced only the F-15A/Bs, so it might not be an apples to apples comparison.

well, let’s see, the proposals have been made. they are studied by now, and sending such a letter is nothing else but a try to shift the process from its normal way (study of the proposals and selection of the winner based on the proposals as they were made) is clearly a desperate move to try to win the thing. had they any confidence in their proposal they wouldn’t try to go around the process in the first place.. that is why it is clearly a desperate move

Why is affirming the commitment of the countries involved towards ensuring a satisfactory deal for India in the event of the EF’s selection, a desperate move? It certainly doesn’t go against the process. After all Sarkozy has been advocating a Rafale purchase as well.

If the decision is too close for a clear winner on technical/financial terms to emerge, they might leave the decision to made politically, in which case such a letter might help. Unlikely I admit, but not impossible.

If nothing else, it would work towards assuaging those sections (if any) that are worried about hurdles due to infighting within the consortium. There was certainly nothing to be lost by sending the letter. The Indian govt. can toss it in the bin if it likes, or recycle the paper at worst. No harm done.

License produced engines? After arms embargo all OEM support for military engines should be stop. For a decades later using the same engines Isn’t logical.

The Spey was license produced when the JH-7 was in development. So, yes the aircraft was designed around a license produced western engine.

The are source of raw materials to China and China happen to increase raw material sources from CIS countries far more than the rest of world. Just in past 3 years $45b worth of pipelines were built. And in next 10 years. Trade will be closer to trillion dollar. All this money will contribute towards future R&D in CIS countries.

^^Irrelevant statement #1.

None of that changes the fact that Brazil, India and Australia were not sources of military technology for China.

You cannot purchase execution with money.
I already showed you Chinese built world largest lithium ion battery plant in Russia with TOT in months not years at fraction of cost of comparable Japanese. Russia knows China can deliver in term of plants for communication and battery equipment with workers having real world manufacturing experience. These are critical blocks to creating digital army as vehicles and portable electronic devices needs these batteries.

^^ Irrelevant statement #2.

None of that changes the fact that your ‘technology transfer only happens between equals’ statement is complete horse*&%$. History is replete with occurrences of ToT between technologically mismatched entities, from the RR Nene to the Stryker.

Salut has its own upgrades for AL-31. And they are in far better financial shape thanks to China. China can afford a lot of things but they chose to build there own.

^^ Irrelevant statement #3.

Doesn’t change the fact that the export of the 117 isn’t governed by Salut’s whims and wishes, or even genuine financial prospects.

Jet trainer needs newest aerodynamics qualities far more than a fighter which are critical to gain professional flying experience from the beginning quicker.

^^ Irrelevant statement #4

Doesn’t change the fact that MLUs on jet trainers aren’t even a fraction as extensive as they are possible on a normal fighter aircraft. Aside from a new engine and a cockpit upgrade there is little that can be done to substantially alter its performance. So the prospect of ‘superior’ upgrade prospects for another AJT is a myth.

Yup budgets are squeezed on too many other things to start multibillion new trainer design. It is the same reason Boeing did not start clean sheet replacement for 737.

LOL. Just a few lines above you talked about how critical AJTs are to the professional flying experience. And now you’re selling the idea that the USN, an organisation with a $160 billion budget, is cutting corners by inducting an ‘obsolete’ BAE Hawk.

Your stil putting old stuff from 2004.

The size of the Saudi Army was 75,000-100,000 in 2004. It was smaller still in the years earlier, enabling the RSAF to buy F-15s and Tornados. Even assuming that is grown by a very optimistic 25% in the last 6 years, it still remains around 125,000 strong. Unless you think its doubled in that brief period.

All these branches consume money from budget. So little is left for Airforce. And you haven’t proven this point India army size is 10 times. I said at most 4 times.

First off, the SANG does not get a cut of the defence budget. Its accounted for separately. Just like the 1.5 million Indian paramilitary and reserve forces.

The Saudi Army at about 125,000 is 1/10th of the 1.3 million Indian Army. Which means like it or not, the RSAF forms a proportionally larger part of the Saudi Armed Forces than the IAF does vis-a-vis the Indian Armed Forces.

EF/Rafale are far more complex than all the previous fighters combine. Its introduction will be far slower and far costly that it will become failed project.

Of course. The Su-30MKI that’s being manufactured completely in-house, is obviously a product dating back to the Stone Age.

You’re talking out of the wrong orifice.

China has large volume advantage with much lower cost of labor & energy. Chinese has surplus labor that can dig natural resources as far away places like Africa but Japan cant. So total cost of production is cheaper. Japan neither has volume nor low cost labor and there is no reason to believe that brightest in Japan work on aerospace projects. Japan is too small of country to enter into every field competently.

Ahh… so you admit that the success of license production depends on labor costs, energy costs and production volume.

And you just had p*$% on that one rational statement by implying that Mitsubishi doesn’t have bright engineers. :rolleyes:

They are indeed much harder and much more expensive to manufacture. Just maintaining weight to acceptable level with decent multirole load needs a lot of testing.

‘Maintaining weight’? During manufacture (instead of development)? LOL.

It is not a serious attitude.every deadline is missed. Why will these firms stick to pricing when indian govt does not stick to any deadline and put arbitarary offsets.

The companies submitted their financial bids in November 2011. Only you of all people would expect them to revise those figures by the end of December. :rolleyes:

As time goes by the offsets clauses changes. I am sure offsets in 2007 were not the same as those required in 2012.

Yet another claim pulled out of your behind. ‘I am sure’ – must be true then. :rolleyes:

These things have long lead times.

Irrelevant statement #5.

Having a long lead time doesn’t change the fact that the F-35’s peak production rate (post 2020) will be in excess of 150 units/annum, given that the SH, with a fraction of the F-35’s projected order book, was built at a rate of upto 58 units/annum.

We don’t know it is $5m cheaper. As contract hasn’t been implemented. HAL hasn’t built the planes. $20m is base minimum for BAE/RR.

Spin it whatever way you like. It certainly pours cold water over your theory about license manufactured units being considerably more expensive than directly imported versions.

How long it took for Austria to get those 18 comfortably and with what capability.

Irrelevant statement #6

The Eurofighter hadn’t even entered service let alone been in full production when Austrian order was placed. And they were delivered in the configuration that the Austrians ordered it in.

How do you know the extent of relaxation. Will it be for 3 years development or 10 years or never.suppose none of EF consortium take AESA EF. So what will be unit cost for India? And why the same old backend should be used for some thingin future. And those 1400 modules haven’t been flown yet so how many years it will take to take out operational bugs.

The relaxation, as it were, was in allowing in-development AESAs to be entered in the competition. As for the rest, between the three of us, only the IAF is privy to the relevant details and its on that basis that they rejected the Gripen’s AESA offer while clearing the EF’s. Maybe if you ask EF folks nicely, they’ll let you in on it as well.

Those are unmodified standard F-16 in TAI. Japanese F-2 is special aircraft with Japanese larger wing, FBW, Melco radar, avionics etc. as I said Japanese tried to create separate industrial chain but at the end it proved far costly.

So license manufacturing works successfully for unmodified aircraft (like the TAI’s F-16s and HAL’s Sukhois). EF/Rafale’s local production should be just fine then, since the variants are the same as those being built in Europe.

That customer is wrong. There has been couple of crashes of Su-30MKI. But not of Su-30MKM/MKA. (They are not some top rank airforce either)
Too much independence from OEM is not desirable when you cannot absorb licensing properly and investigation has to go back to Irkut for crashes.

Three writeoffs in a fleet of 165+ aircraft, of a type that entered service nearly 15 years ago. And you’re comparing this with the ‘numerous’ MKMs and MKAs in service. :rolleyes:

Also inviting the OEM for a joint investigation is standard practice especially to identify design shortcomings, if any.

I have read HAL financial. Its non-operating profit is equal to its operating profit and profit on turnver Is lower than Embarrer.

Even accounting for only operating profit, HAL posted a higher figure as a proportion of revenue than Embraer (albeit marginally so). Besides, since when is matching Embraer, the one and only benchmark of an aviation company and licensing policy’s success.

Licensing does not give any efficiency advantage rather price of goods increases.

No one claimed anything about efficiency advantage (aside from those inherent in the IAF having a steady source of spares).

The costs of HAL production are roughly the same as those manufactured at Irkutsk. Possibly lower now with the production being pushed past 20 aircraft per year. More importantly the money is invested in the domestic economy and in addition has allowed HAL to contract for Sukhoi instead (with components and spares for the MKM and MKA).