http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/iaf-to-induct-1st-indo-brazilian-aew.html

Interesting, the AEW&C had already met radar requirements (TRL of 8/10, A2A function fully demo’ed, A2S was underway), this report mentions the rest of the suite has been checked out as well and the IAF is satisfied.
With this, the IAF will now get another line of AEW&C inductions & most importantly, the 6 AWACS for Project India will also be progressed.

IAF To Induct 1st Indo-Brazilian AEW&C Jet In Sept

The team is looking to wrap up development flight & systems trials by the end of March (a Centre for Airborne Systems, CABS, officer tells me the aircraft at AeroIndia will still be notching up test points at the show too). With two aircraft in flight test, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) has enough to meet its March 2015 deadline to complete development tests. But choosing to deploy one of the two jets at the Bangalore show wasn’t a difficult decision, given the remarkable level of interest in the platform. CABS sources say at least two countries could sign MoUs declaring their interest in getting more information about the platform to support potential acquisitions. A confidential list of nations that have asked for briefings on the platform includes Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, Oman, and UAE. Embraer has taken it upon itself to (a) look at consolidating the EMB-145i into a standard marketable product that the two countries can jointly pitch in the global market, and (b) handle South American operations by itself.

Director of the Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS), lead integrator on the programme, Dr Christopher says, “Currently though the system is customised for the Indian Air force, the AEW&C India can fine tuned to any specific user‐oriented early warning product through appropriate programming/software which can be defined by the user. Many countries are evincing keen interest in the AEW&C system and discussions are in progress for export of this system.”

But exports are in the future. The more immediate good news for the programme is what the Indian Air Force thinks of the EMB-145i. In the words of a senior officer associated with the programme, and one who will be part of 4-6 month user evaluation trials aimed for April, the IAF is ‘impressed and satisfied’. Those are important words from a customer that hasn’t had much faith in the past in long-gestation systems, especially critically needed platforms like early warning jets.

But September, the Indian Air Force hopes to be ready to induct the first of three EMB-145i. A third platform arrives from Brazil by the end of June or early July. The second EMB-145i will also likely enter service by the end of the year.

User trials with the IAF will include the deployment of the aircraft in a special live exercise to be jointly held by the Western and Central Commands, and involve operational situations for the AEW&C. A team from CABS will, of course, be embedded through this phase. Most importantly, there’s a rare confidence in the systems and platform.

The IAF officer quoted above says, “These are impressive timelines. Our team has been satisfied with the performance. There are still some ends to tie up in the process of matching requirements with performance, but all major requirements have been demonstrated, including intercept control, battle management, Electronic Support Measure (ESM) and Communication Support Measure (CSM), data handling and the crucial SATCOM links. This could be one of the most trouble-free developments we have had so far.“

The official literature on the platform, to be released at Aero India this year, says, “The AEW&C India has managed to pack in several sub-systems namely a highly versatile active array Radar system, Identification friend or foe system, ELINT, COMINT systems, along with multiple combination of ‘C’-Band& SATCOM ‘Ku’-Band voice and Data Links, UHF/VHF/HF communications, & Self Protection Systems – in order to enhance mission capabilities, add redundancies to foolproof operations, and implant self‐protection against missile attacks from ground as compared with its contemporaries on same Embraer aircraft elsewhere in the world.”

Speaking of the primary sensor, the heart of the platform, and India’s contribution to the system, the Director of CABS Dr S. Christopher says, “While India has caught up with the rest of the world in adopting the Active Electronically Steering Array (AESA) Antenna for its radar; the two building-block components of the radar, the Transmit-Receive Multi-Module (TRMM) and the teflon-clad ultra light Antenna Panel are notable Indian innovations in the radar sub-system. These are developed by CABS and with a joint patent along with M/s Astra Microwave, Hyderabad for TRMM. The most important outcome of the efforts is the realisation of a system that is both operation-efficient and cost-effective.”

The reloaded Indian AWACS programme, first revealed here on Livefist, is also gathering speed, with the DRDO expected to move forwarded in choosing an aircraft platform for the project this year.

er, Dassault doesn’t do Scorpene as far as I know. In India maybe everything goes through the government, but the last time the french government tried to do fighter aircraft business ahead of Dassault, it gave Brasil and Morocco.

You’ll have a procurement agency that handles most of the contracts and everything gets interlinked.. press hard on one deal and see how things get hit elsewhere too..

Now, another thing about ToT is that India’s aerospace industry is supposed to not just make copies but learn how things are done at the current level and be able to go on from there. If they remain only capable of copying current material without developing capability to evolve further, the whole ToT process is pointless and you’d be better off just buying off the shelf.. for the same amount if cash, you’d get twice as many aircraft.

The main aim of TOT is partly local sustainment…a degree of self reliance. Limits our dependence externally but in practise latter remains because the funds for building up completely local spares supplies via imports of the remaining non indigenized parts are not there.. which is where Frances relative political stability for support counts.

So, if, after 20 years you still depend on Dassault for any upgrade: you’re just wasting your money on ToT, plain and simple, and no clause in any contract will be of any use for you.

Sustainment is the number 1 thing. TOT by itself wont radically improve us or make us make death star Rafales etc.

either (a) get the best lawyers to draft your purchase contract

I think it was a mixture of incompetence and deliberate subversion in years past. A lot of people (intermediaries – politicians and dealers) made money out of poorly framed contracts.

or (b) deal with a supplier that is not so mercenary, one with a spirit to get things done successfully even if that involves a bit of give and a bit less take.

I imagine that dealing with suppliers of military hardware must be something of a nightmare per se. Suppliers do not appear to be the sort of companies that see the buyer as a partner whose welfare is to be considered in a buyer/seller partnership.

Well I guess it depends on the customers negotiating power. A purchaser like KSA with bags of oil money and political connections to multiple western nations and zero audit/govt control mechanism has a lot of leeway to make deals that can be switched around and the supplier has less leverage in that sense, even if its tech support is more necessary.

Non aligned nations like India with funding limitations and which are dependent on politics to get critical systems become more vulnerable until and unless they develop their own MIC.

you just illustrate what I said: had you (India) bought the Mirage assemblky line, you’d have been able to support your fleet by yourself and if you waned to modernize it with israeli components, you would have been able to do so.

same for the Rafale, you’ll have the ability (once the production is integrated and done almost entirely by HAL) to make it and if you want to replace some components made in France (say, radar, or something similar) you’ll probably be perfectly able to do so as you’ll have your own support. Dassault won’t have the leverage anymore to say “if you buy something elsewhere, we let you down”, simply because you’ll do everything needed to make it fly by yourself.

The most sensitive and complex stuff you’ll probably still import at the end would be electronics, which are, by all accounts, what will need to be upgraded after some 15-20 years of life (and even earlier)

stating “we want Dassault to commit they’ll do what the contract says” sounds a bit strange… if they sign it, they do commit to do it. what’s more, they’ve been building combat aircraft for decades, and, except Argentina (who attacked one of closest allies of France) and Israel who bought Mirages before being embargoed by the french authorities (and even then, the Mirage blueprints strangely found their way to the IAI offices, allowing Israel to make the Kfir), they always did their support perfectly. When one read your post, the thing that is striking me is: you got burned by your UK partner, you got burned by your russian partner, so you want to make pay your french partner who never let you down.. kinda strange, no?

Who says the French partner never let us down? Define what let down means though.. if it means arm twisting over prices & spares, the Mirage 2000 upgrade saw that & more. If all things France are concerned, Scorpene was a classic case of “India tried to play hardball over Mirage and suddenly Scorpene negotiations got harder”.

Its not about countries. Everyone does it, because the business is cut throat & India has for specific reasons (read the money available to a certain political party, the INC through arms trade) made sure that its weak industrially to meet most of its requirements itself.

This is a country which wails & complains about spending a few billion over three decades to develop a fighter and an engine plus all the assorted infra & avionics. It sees nothing wrong in putting tens of billions forth on one acquisition.

When you behave like this, obviously all vendors will do what they see fit.

So, lets leave that aside. Because arm twisting on contracts aside when the chips were down, France did support India in 1999. Russia has supported India time & again.. so these are all sort of interlinked.

Now coming to the spares and support. Take a LRU and unit count of the Rafale, and then think whether India has the time & wherewithal & even whether it makes sense for India to replace each and every component with an Indian equivalent.

In the same time frame the Rafale is being purchased/assembled/manufactured in India – the other programs will be:
LCA Mk1 and Mk2
AMCA
IUSUAV
FGFA
Su-30 upgrade & indigenization
Jaguar upgrade
Multiple UAV programs etc
Mirage 2000 upgrade
MiG-29 upgrade

Point is there is no huge elasticity available in Indias aerospace industry to progressively make every system in the Rafale Indian and then certify it.

This apart from the fact whether Dassault, Safran and Thales would even allow it.

They wouldn’t judging from their reaction on the Mirage 2000 upgrade & also take a look at the Milan contract with MBDA. Despite India being able to indigenize ~90%+ of the missile, contractual limitations are at ~70% which BDL (the manufacturer) is at.

Simply put, even an Indian Rafale will continue to be reliant on Dassault for at least a decade, a decade and a half, even if India were to progressively indigenize everything and that is not going to be on India’s list of priorities. The entire point of procuring from France is that we don’t have to do this & you will supply us with spares no matter what the political situation.

well, it’s understandable that GoI doesn’t want to depend too much on a foreign firm, as it is understandable that Dassault uses what leverage it has to win contracts… but there’s a difference with MMRCA in the fact that India will produce Rafales, and support them on its own, something it could’ve done with the Mirages if they’d bought the assembly chain when offered to do so.

Guys guys guys… please be realistic here. It will take two decades rationally speaking for India to support the Rafales (mostly) on its own. A decade perhaps if the present GoI opens its purse strings and rapidly moves things along, but even then many components/systems will continue to come from France/Europe. India simply wont make every system in India. Its not economical. There is no infinite budget to indigenize everything either. Its easier (and more sensible) for India to focus on its AMCA with homegrown stuff. Also, HAL will have to juggle the FGFA and Rafale in tandem.

India is & will remain dependent on Dassault, Thales, Safran for a long long time to come. There will be microchips, engine components, software etc which will all be sourced from the Rafale consortium. In fifteen years time, a MLU will be negotiated & a lot of stuff will have to be redone or sourced from France.

Its been some 3 decades since the Mirage 2000 entered Indian service. We still import stuff for it from France. You can’t even replace stuff without voiding some warranty or the other.

But Dassault being liable for what HAL does is exactly what is being said by many (mostly Indian) posters here & elsewhere!

The whole argument is about that. Everybody agrees that Dassault should give “a clear commitment from Dassault that it hold up its end of the bargain in terms of deliveries of documentation, spares, jigs/fixtures etc”, & be held liable for doing so, & any delays or costs caused by a failure to do so. I & the others are arguing with those who say that Dassault should be held liable for any failures by HAL even if not caused by Dassault, & say that the GoI interprets the RFP as stating that is a requirement.

I think you should be telling them that they’re barking up the wrong tree. I (& others) started out by saying it must be a mistake, & the press reports must be wrong, since such a condition would be crazy, & we’ve had people saying that it’s real, that’s what the GoI demands, the press have got it right, & if Dassault doesn’t agree the contract won’t be signed.

I hope you’re right. I know that you don’t post garbage, so I put more credence in what you say than some of the others here, & I now have some hope that it might all be sorted out.

I really haven’t followed what other Indian posters have said. All I know is that 90% of the media reports on this deal are rubbish & everyone is coming out looking a wee bit foolish.

HAL for not having enforced common sensical stuff earlier & getting whacked by the CAG & then sitting without even an open report on whats what.
IAF for making their desparation for the Rafale so obvious that they even denied the existence of a Plan B and literally played into the OEMs hands.
Dassault for pushing the envelope again and again and again
The Indian MOD, for wasting three years by letting the whole fracas continue and now we are told the terms of the entire agreement preclude the Indian MOD from going back to EF.

HAL really can’t force Dassault to cover up for its faults. Simply put, Dassault will cease cooperation & litigate and the IAF will cry bloody murder. And the MOD will have egg on its face for the whole deal. That is something that won’t ever occur. HAL wants the business as well. Its production lines running on.

Absolutely. No one disagrees. And that’s pretty much what the section of the RFP posted here says.

But that is not the same as Dassault being liable for everything HAL does. As Amiga500 & TooCool_12f say, some of HAL’s good work is dependent on HAL – & HAL should be liable for that part, because it’s outside Dassault’s control.

Swerve you have been barking up the wrong tree. Who has told you that Dassault is liable for everything that HAL does? Rubbish media reports which can’t distinguish tech transfer from licensed assembly and journalists who can’t distinguish Rafale from Rafael or a Raffle don’t count either.

HAL is asking Dassault to commit to meeting what the TOT agreement covers. This means delivery of production related assistance, from documentation to engineering support as per timelines mutually agreed upon in a formal document. That’s it. If the post production audit shows that product A was not delivered on date Y because Dassault was supposed to have sent documentation by z date and it didn’t, then its Dassaults fault. Not that part Y failed and HAL messed it up & its Dassaults fault. That’s not HAL or even the MOD owned DPSUs work. The OFB, which is the worst of the lot, had its T-72 barrels fail. The Russians sent an audit team, the issue was discovered to be a) Russian documentation was insufficient b) Despite what was given, OFB deviated from heat treatment instructions. No damages were levied on the Russians etc and things were resolved. The Indian Army wanted its T-72s fixed asap.

Similarly, if there is a point of contention, then HAL & Dassault will sit and resolve it. Not assign blame because simply put, the Indian MOD is not going to pick fights with Dassault when $20Bn plus of its capital assets are leveraged with Dassault’s continued good graces. The IAF is not going to stand for HAL overplaying its brief either. And the IAF has a lot of say what goes on with HAL as well.

The only reason why this issue is a hot button topic for HAL is because its been whacked one too many times thanks to poorly negotiated deals with vendors & IAF requirements have meant that HAL has zilch negotiating power to force an issue resolution. The Su-30 MKI is a case in point. Excellent aircraft etc but ROE simply did not deliver agreed upon logistics support for production and overhaul and IAF serviceability was hovering around 50%.

IAF did not blame ROE, they blamed HAL as well. CAG whose audit reports have played a huge role in the previous Govt being widely associated with corruption, has repeatedly mentioned HAL needs to hold its vendors accountable for delivery. Thats all there is to it.

All said & done, this is just a method to ensure India does not get gypped on TOT as has happened with multiple deals. The process is fairly simple. IAF/IA want x items by y date. TOT is held up – production documentation doesnt arrive, engineers dont arrive (despite having been paid for), Indian DPSU then “outsources work packages”- these go back to the original manufacturers, who then supply more kits.

CAG conducts an audit and blasts the MOD for agreeing to these terms.

If Dassault does not agree to these fairly straight forward terms, it will not get the MMRCA. They have overplayed their hand with the Reliance rubbish to boot. Even a novice could make out the politics in getting a very powerful and politically connected firm with zero aerospace experience to take up one of the most complex programs India has produced till date. Whilst deliberately ignoring established firms like L&T, Tata etc if private participation was an issue. The present RM is not falling for the usual sky is falling stuff from the IAF either.

A deals a deal and when a Cabinet Minister says Dassault has to follow the terms of the RFP, and its not, it speaks volumes.

@Teer

if Dassault is asked to insure the timely delivery from their side, it’s perfectly normal. Everybody agrees on that.

it was the requirement stated that they should be liable for HAL’s good work that stirred the argumentation about it.

This is what you guys dont get. HALs “good work” is directly dependent on Dassault and will remain so for over 70% of the production if Su-30 MKI is any indication. Even for the remaining 30% because TOT for Rafale will be around 65% by cost, judging by original DPP under which this deal was negotiated.

Su-30 MKI example. Phases 1-4 with only 4 including mostly HAL assemblies. Even here, per agreement, raw material and critical (sensitive) aggregates to be provided by ROE.

Repair & Overhaul – highly dependent on ROE, for spares, documentation, equipment. As much as production. In frustration, HAL began an indigenization process.

So out of 126 aircraft, chances are 80% will be a mix of Dassault supplied kits, or Dassault supplied jigs/fixtures to assemble kits, and then from Phase 3 onwards HAL has to start making stuff.

IAF is desparate for aircraft. So chances are IAF will compress delivery timeframes putting more pressure on HAL.

HAL wants an ironclad deal that what Dassault can and should provide – documentation, jigs, fixtures, spares, equipment and raw material is all available. That Dassault engineers arrive as agreed.

All this is common sensical but which HAL etc did not sign down for Su-30 with ROE or did and ROE ignored as HAL did not have punitive measures. End result, HAL got the stick from IAF. On top of it, CAG has now ensured HAL cant ignore it either.

So Dassault has to sign off on all this.

Instead, it said “hey forget this, we want to go with Reliance, forget what was in the RFP”.

If not for IAF desparation and HAL/MODs willingness to put up with all this for the MMRCA/TOT etc, which OEM could have got away with such behavior?

Its Indian AF and MODs procurement idiocy (or deliberate intent) that they locked themselves into this with Dassault and did not have an option with BAe/EADS for EF. That may have kept Dassault more honest. That Dassault thought it could get away with this, judging how corrupt and mendacious our previous Govt was, tells me they had some assurance they could play fast and loose.