Right surely why the actual Kaveri engine program is been terminated in favor of the K10 which will use the M-88 core…

Oh dear, let me try this again.

This is what I said.

They asked for TOT to maintain the plane on their own and second, to upgrade it on their own without having to run to France everytime. TOT does not mean they are going to easily used for the Tejas etc. Hardly. By the time India absorbs the Rafale TOT, the Tejas systems would be in their next variant of development with a MK3 variant to beef up numbers, thats typically how the IAF does things.

Unless you know for a fact that the Kaveri derivative is going to be used in the Rafale and not just the LCA, what you have said makes no sense.

Do you think the Rafale and LCA are some sort of lego sets where India can pick and choose what it wants and use it for each, especially something as complex as an engine?

And please, don’t quote half baked stories and proposals.

As things stand, there is NO certainty that the M-88 derived Kaveri variant will even be the standard fit on the LCA, let alone the Rafale! Its being progressed to ensure a) self reliance b)future programs like the MCA

Since you clearly did not deign to look into the topic, take the Su-30 MKI project as a comparison. India has been working on indigenizing the aircraft over the past several years. And how much of that has flown into the other projects – answer, not so much. It takes a full decade to go the path of SKD, CKD, raw materials manufacture & by which time, it makes more sense to go for something else for other projects!

Almost every other projects are either Israeli-Indian JV, Indo-Russian JV, Indo-US etc.

First your claim is as wrong as it gets – the number of JV’s India has as proportion of its overall projects is a tiny proportion of its overall number of projects that its working on at any given time of the day. Especially in the field of avionics & weapons systems – which is where it usually ports its local systems onto imported platforms (eg aircrafts) and customizes – which I won’t bother detailing, because the information is available on this forum itself as versus breathless half baked media reports.

Second, it really does not matter whether India gets its systems via JVs or not. The point is these are ITS SYSTEMS and hence it knows them, as versus the Rafale, which is going to be a bought out, mostly developed design, with limited customization.

Third,, you clearly missed the purpose of the MMRCA – it was to select a mostly mature type which would boost the IAF’s combat power as soon as possible! Not about “absorbing tech” as a primary driver and making India some sort of super duper tech power! Unfortunately, the breathless hype by the media and the throwaway use of the word strategy seems to have made its mark!

Technology is not some by your leave, I shall have it, thing. It will take India a decade to master the base Rafale by which time, it may well be time for some elements to undergo a MLU.

The big point about the deal’s TOT are its spares. A local production line for many critical items – which means self reliance and second, the offsets, which tie Indian firms into Dassault/Thales/Safran’s global vendors list.

That gives Indian firms a huge leg up in terms of assured orders (a full 50% of the aircraft’s cost) plus brings them upto par with worldwide vendors in developing their own systems.

These are the real benefits!

Take the much touted AESA radar – by when will production be transferred to India? By when will it be made?

This is where India is today, already with regards to AESA systems. This is a full scale demonstrator for its first AEW&C system.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RRuNQbTgydw/T39M4r_dWgI/AAAAAAAABMA/Lq1zWPIR64A/s1600/DSC00771.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gF8xjIVANmU/T39M_dTsjmI/AAAAAAAABMI/TxOggOZjADs/s1600/DSC00772.jpg

You think they are going to wait for Rafale to arrive with its “prize” and then discover what AESA is? They’d rather build on their own experience with this S Band aesa system, and then apply the lessons to their FCR development.

There are currently some 4 AESA systems in development (apart from the 2-4 strategic ones) which are publicly known about.

Of which three are due within the next five years.

The IAF has stated that it will evaluate the FCR (the 4th program) being developed above, as versus any available Russian system for its future programs and upgrades for the Su-30MKI.

So now do you understand the pace of development? Take a look here about some of the other systems developed or in many cases, in production:

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2903/stories/20120224290309800.htm

By the time India “masters” the Rafale – made by HAL, with assorted components from other DPSUs – it will already have other systems and programs that it can use on its other programs.

And these will be without IP issues, or “designed for x, cannot fit in y” problems that will occur if it tries to take some Spectra and fit it into a Sukhoi or LCA.

And not like France will give away core IP easily overnight either.

Yes, some amount of learning and cross pollination will occur – people skilled at manufacturing the Rafale may be able to manufacture the FGFA as well, some equipment can be reused but the programs are overlapping! Not sequential.

Even the facilities will be at different places, with the Rafale at Bangalore, and the FGFA taking place at the Nasik complex, replacing the Su-30 MKI. There may be overlapping capex but mostly stand alone systems – developed in house/in cooperation with Russia for the FGFA, developed in house for the LCA, supplied/procured per French vendor list for the Rafale.

That’s why most of this “India will acquire technology from the Rafale and all is fine”, is to be honest, oversold.

India’s technology generators at the end of the day are ITS OWN programs. Because it’s learning why and how, not just how (process transfer as is usual with TOT). Over here, its called screw driver tech.

Making the Jaguar allowed India to upgrade it. It did not help India become a master at the LCA – the learning curve there has been steep. The Rafale will help India to some extent. But at the end of the day, its the AMCA that will finally cap the path started by the LCA. Even the FGFA is “on the way”, not the end itself

India need to absorb all these tech right now in order to be one day independent. But that day isn’t here yet. The Su-30 didn’t allow India to build Pak-Fa on its own.

Brilliant – so you have the answer right there, the Su-30 did not allow India to build the PAK-FA on its own – but you somehow think the Rafale will!

Answer: It won’t! What will help India are its own development efforts via programs like the LCA or local missile programs, whose subsystems are then used to develop other follow on’s and product families.
Take a look here: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2009/pkartikk/RCI-RLGFOG.jpg.html

India used the Sagem Sigma95N for its Su-30 MKI, MiG-27 and Jaguar upgrade programs as the ready solution. It even license makes it at HAL.

But guess what was developed for its strategic missile programs and is now being adopted for multiple uses? The above local program, developed as a stand alone effort at another entirely different place. The same is the case across the board in multiple projects and products.

India’s approach to develop its own systems is painstaking, not easy, and often more time-consuming than reverse engineering. But it helps it avoid IP entanglements and also provides a sustainable base for the future.

Sigh! Ever heard of electronic warfare? Of course you have – you came in with all that irrelevant talk about DARE. There was some difference between different jets…that was the point.

Yes, I do know about electronic warfare, but do you? DARE being irrelevant is another example of your ignorance. DARE or ASIEO as it was originally called, was renamed DARE – Defensive Avionics Research Establishment for a reason. It spearheads research in EW….perhaps if you had spent less time writing imaginative prose and actually understanding the basics of those terms such as Electronic Warfare you throw about with abandon…it would have been better!

AdA pilots who were there made comments and were sources…so don’t comment on what I know or don’t know…and don’t bring in pure absurdity like “did the French open SPECTRA details…?” Sheesh!

Yeah, those French pilots happened to be your chums so that you can place their comments in context right? And those French pilots happened to be experts on the MKI, Typhoon etc. They have made similar claims about being superior to the Typhoon as well. Sane posters like Scorpion82 have already said all needs to be said about how certain such claims are…then we have you!

Sorry, but if there was a limit to absurdity, you breached it. Guys like you lap up everything anyone brags about their ride with no contextual understanding whatsoever..

You just don’t see points but “over shoot” them.

If you made any points based on valid information to begin with…all I see from your end so far is imaginative stuff, based on “he said, she said”…clearly stories strung together from the assorted bunch of x vs y discussions on the ‘net are what you regard as the holy truth…many of us differ..

Here are some points to ponder over:

– Whatever the differences were in equipment and tactics brought a big difference in results. The Rafale was much more “survivable” – and don’t give us another ditty about how DACT is different from real war. I addressed that as well, and besides this has been robustly discussed like yesterday.

What results? Were you privy to these results? Or are you going to regale us with more of your imaginative extrapolations based on what some random pilot said or did not say?

You really did not address anything about DACT bar rehashing whatever has been published in public sources and that too, in a half baked fashion.

I sincerely doubt you could even tell us anything about DACT in any of the exercises and what the house rules were….go ahead and prove us wrong as versus what you have been doing so far…which is stringing together random stories and attempting to say it is analysis.

– The Rafale did not get “locked” even once. I take that as significant when the French were discussing about how often the MKI was “shot down”. (Notably even the USAF opined that the jet was not a “super jet” as they had initially figured out…but less capable than they thought.)

This is the sort of rabid fanboy’ism that takes the cake. How the heck do you know the Rafale was not locked even once?

First you claimed it was not “painted” – without even understanding how the term is used, and now its “locked” – based on what?

Did the Red Flag GBAD threat simulators open up their performance to you? Did the Rafale guys open up what their Spectra did or did not do? When you compare it to the MKI, do you even have an idea of what the IAF did different as versus what they usually do?

I can easily make out you really have no idea. Go on, put your money where your mouth is, show us the data!!

Any person from ANY AF who has even remotely been in DACT and seen the amount of hand wringing that goes on in deciding what to reveal and what not to, when dealing with exercises held on foreign territory, would have a laughing fit at the sort of conclusions you are making..!!

– There was no reason why the MKI could not use jammers fully. It’s not like the El/M-8222 jammer is some state secret. It’s Israeli, and the Americans probably have the hardware tested right with them.

Sorry “Shiv1971”, but you just killed whatever little credibility you were posturing at..

ROTFL, your above statements say it all about your actual level of knowledge right there.

For all the talk of “electronic warfare” and now the “EL/M-8222 jammer is not some state secret”….do you even realise how little you know about the topic?

FYI, customers get custom variants of all these products, with significant variations in hardware AND software. NDA are signed with regards to each & every customer specific variation & that is the exact reason countries like Australia, India et al can end up procuring the same designation system on paper but which can have significant differences in reality.

– There were some handicaps like no chaff but the overall state of self-protection would use far more and the MKI did not do well.

Say what? Overall level of self protection would use what far more? And some handicaps??

Lets see – India does not use chaff (key protection against IR threats), no evidence of jamming being used AT ALL which is the key protection against RF threats by any large F-15 class fighter like the Flanker, which relies on preventing FCR from lock-ons via SPJ since jamming a surveillance radar across the battlefields is clearly unviable…and no datalink to show a clear view of the situation….

Bars radar in training mode, with limited A2A modes – clearly suggesting advanced A2G modes such as SAR etc would be disabled..

Only available A2G aids being eyeball MK1 & the Litening LDP..

And your claim there were some handicaps…when the MKI played with all its hands tied when it came to critical Electronic protection measures..

As for the rest…I think we don’t need to deal with it. I mean, I could but why bother?

Thank you for sparing us…you think you don’t meed to deal with it, because you clearly don’t know anything about the topic.

That entire gas about EW, the claims about MKI having “some handicaps” really showed what level you are operating….no idea of the details, no understanding of the topic…

The Saudis have already politically backed up Pakistan on Kashmir politics – and you never know how things can fly from there. There may not be even a 1 percent chance of war, but the IAF would be cautious if they consider an adversary with a fleet of Typhoons.

With the Super 30 & the Rafale, plus its overall C4I modernisation – the IAF is not going to be side tracked by a handful of Typhoons.

The IAF operated under handicaps such as:

– Lack of flares as they were not certified environmentally.

– Lack of datalinks as they refused to provide the RF profile to the Americans.

Thanks but we already knew that..pretty well reported by Aviation week

There were a host of other issues including misunderstanding caused by accents But at no time were they disallowed jammers.

Who said they were disallowed jammers? As if the US side would “disallow India” from using any jammers or even the radar at any level. Heck, they’d think Christmas had come early given the ELINT they’d soak up.

I said the Indian side would never use jammers at full capability even if they could. Happens to be the case whenever India exercises with anyone – in India or abroad. Jammers operated by the IAF can be operated in a variety of modes, either autonomously or cued by the aircraft’s onboard systems, range of power options and jamming modes even.

India has used jammers in exercises in India against other AF including the US.

However, to think that the IAF would use its current jamming suites at full capability, exercising all possible options, when it would not even use its radars @ full capability – is being naive, if not downright silly.

Not using jammers at “full capability” is a silly argument as it is often not done….the French don’t usually use it much at all – all sides keep things passive when they can. The French revealed active jamming only minimally (I believe with the Greeks) and generally don’t use jammers actively.

Congratulations, you made a “silly” thesis out of a topic you misunderstood & then proceeded to “counter it” by saying it was silly.

That said, the MKIs got “painted” by SAM sites all over. The Rafale survived.

ROTFL at this claim – the MKIs got painted -as if some magic sauce exists bar stealth that can prevent an aircraft the size of a MKI getting painted!

The entire point of modern jamming is to prevent that “paint” from translating into a lock when its a FCR. Unless you carry noise jammers on transports that can actually drown todays radars in noise – hard going there..

Your sang-froid is amazing especially when you have little data about what happened to begin with.

Go on.. what details do you have of the Rafale performance & how they got painted and they did not? Which were the threat systems? Which generation systems were they?

Did the French open up their Spectra details to you?

If not, you are just passing hot air…

The point is the Indian side operated against both ground & air targets with their hands behind their back. Restricted EW suite & restricted radar. Hardly reflective of what the Sukhoi 30 is capable of versus the Rafale in an all out conflict & vice versa.

The main advantage of Red Flag was the training aspect. That’s it. It would have got many IAF pilots out of “buck fever”, had them realize where they stand against other premier AF like the USAF, French AF & given them the insight to develop something similar in India at the Gwalior range. That’s the big takeaway.

So you have no point whatsoever and just said “rubbish” because you could.

I actually do have a point & made it quite clearly, that what you wrote about the MKI losing to the Typhoon each time around was rubbish given the IAF’s first exercise against the Typhoons was limited by both sides and was pretty much a no-call & the second time around, despite the claims by the RAF chief, its a pretty well known fact to any serious observer that the IAF does not operate with its MKIs onboard systems @ full capability.

The IAF didn’t do so when exercising with the RAF at ID-1 either & deliberately limited the modes, going so far as to implement a training mode for using the radars at Red Flag. They’ll continue to do so when exercising against any foreign AF in India or abroad, till the day the Bars becomes irrelevant with a more advanced system in widespread service. Even then, they’ll limit its use especially when exercising against neutral/non OEM nation AFs..

So, your statement and the sweeping conclusions you drew about the IAF having to do “X”, “y” etc were rubbish. If it offends you less, I could say you were wrong..

As for EW suite upgrades….I think if you read my post I did say that SOME upgrades can be implemented right away including MAWs.

Very informative.

Can you tell us which MAWS suite meets IAF requirements to be implemented right away? Because as a gentleman wearing IAF wings told a lot of folks just a year or so back @ a public event, no off the shelf MAWS met IAF requirements & hence they had asked DARE to develop one for them & simultaneously evaluating competitor offerings…

The point is the IAF is working to a plan. Don’t assume that because they are not tom tomming it, that such a plan does not exist. They don’t have to export the MKI so are not really keen on publicity either..

But to assume that the whole suite is tuned and developed to an incredibly fine degree is a fallacy. In fact, new European jammers are being planned for the MKI, so all those “local upgrades” are just part of the overall EW suite evolution.

And what new European jammers are these? Please don’t quote that “expert” Sengupta as a source.

BTW where exactly did I make the claim that the whole suite is “tuned to an incredibly fine degree”. If you can’t point that out, then thats your own windmill you tilted at..

I clearly pointed out the IAF is working towards evolving the MKI further & local EWS developments have been implemented already. And that this sort of evolution means that depending on the Rafale to provide some technology is not required. Especially given the timelines & TOT issues.

You read all this & come back & tell me, that “all those local upgrades are just part of the overall EW suite evolution”..

Wonderful, missing the point & then taking my own statements and repeating them.

The SPECTRA has also gone through at least around three versions, with the SPECTRA NG being far more developed than earlier suites. Upgrading suites is nothing special.

I see, upgrading suites is nothing special. Especially when it runs counter to your claims that the current MKIs lag considerably behind their peers and something must be done, implying that it is not being done.

When, matter of fact, something (i.e. EW upgrades) are being done every few years & being progressed rapidly, without much public talk about it, it must be dismissed as “nothing special” … oh very well!

Every new jet claims “sensor fusion” but it is usually at a lower level….more multisensor integration at some degree, and the differences are something that needs to be tested and commented upon.

Uh…say, what? This motherhood & apple pie piece above tells me that you had no clear way of admitting that sensor fusion is not such a big deal as you initially made it out to be, and you have no idea about what level of sensor fusion exists on the Rafale and whether it is superior to everyone else’s and hence had to say something for the sake of saying it.

Lets recap, sensor fusion is integrating sensor inputs to a single version of the truth, including coherent tracks et al, which provide a degree of redundancy against EW employed against individual sensors & also aid pilot SA by decluttering the display.

How the display gets implemented is upto each OEM/Customer preference but to say what you just did was meaningless. Akin to Rafale claiming its sensor fusion is better than that of the EF or vice versa.

You have no point at all. You speak in non-sequiturs. It’s like saying all jets have missiles…yes they do, but are they not differences?

For someone who provides meaningless “non-sequiturs” – as you just did above, pointing at others is pretty rich..

Of course data fusion can be developed and some ability exists within Indian R&D also. But it isn’t there yet at any high level at the MKI. Some MSI exists, that’s all. The same story was seen for many other jets including F-16s and Typhoons.

More claims…What do you know of what MSI exists within Indian R&D and what does not? How do you know of what MSI exists within the Typhoon & whether it is at the same level (and not better) than that on the F-16?

You had no idea of the sensor fusion that already existed in the Indian field to begin with…no you claim “of course data fusion can be claimed and some exists”…thank you very much!

Lets see…

India deployed sensor integration for its GBAD several years back with locally developed sensor fusion software running for IAF’s ADCCs linking several radars together (2D and 3D). Its now deploying the same for its IACCS (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/340-3/IB-IACCS.jpg) already up & running btw, and for its Akash system (in production), has developed sensor fusion for its BMD (http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=Model.jsp) and is well on track to develop the same for an airborne AEW&C (http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/CABS/English/index.jsp?pg=missionsc.html and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/press_release/drdo_awards_11.pdf).

And this is the “back-up option” wherein the Su-35 fields sensor fusion to begin with and will be clearly tapped for the Super 30 upgrade (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/lebourget/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=703fd128-d069-40de-813b-a73b428e169b&plckPostId=Blog%3a703fd128-d069-40de-813b-a73b428e169bPost%3a5840d1ac-07a1-4d6e-ba05-76df372cd343&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

So
a) nobody claimed that sensor fusion already exists on the MKI

b) all that was said was that it can be implemented as part of the Super 30 upgrade thanks to the Su-35 capability

c) even if that option were unavailable, India is working on it – including a far more complex AEW&C program (which hosts far more capable sensors, plus more diverse sensors as well and requires their integration with decision support aids) and a fighter program

d) the R118 – a precursor to the Eagle Eye could already do sensor fusion – showing that India has already developed compact single LRU packages that can integrate data together (which function btw can also occur in the MC)

In other words, sensor fusion is hardly going to be any killer app that distinguishes the Rafale from all its peers forever.

The first D&D prototypes of the Super 30 are due by 2014 with series upgrade beginning thereafter (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_russia-to-provide-additional-42-sukhoi-fighters-to-india_1626819). Even with a couple of years delay, we are looking at 2016 for the Super 30’s to start rolling in.

The first Rafales are to arrive in India in 2016 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?topicName=india&id=news/awx/2012/03/19/awx_03_19_2012_p0-437927.xml&headline=India%20Likely%20To%20Induct%20First%20MMRCA%20By%202016).

Hardly any big difference there..

The Rafale has been found to be ahead – by AdA pilots and Hellenic AF pilots and also by the Swiss AF – for instance:

1) The Swiss found the Rafale to be ahead in “data fusion” but behind in “MMI” compared to the Typhoon.

And those trials were done several years back & have limited relevance today.

2) Greek pilots commented on the effective single display and sensor integration of the Rafale versus their F-16s.

Irrelevant to the discussion as we were discussing the future upgrade possibilities for the Su-30, not the F-16.

3) French pilots found the MKI to be behind in sensor integration. They have commented on how much easier the Rafale’s sensor integration is to the point that they have to think a lot less about situational awareness.

And the MKI is a two seater which compensates for the lack of sensor fusion currently, by splitting the responsibilities between the two crew. Not perfect but it works.

The Rafale will be good, but there will be areas where the Sukhoi 30 or EF will remain ahead (e.g. radar performance vs A2A targets)…and it won’t be some magic silver bullet as you are making it out to be..

The Rafale is much stealthier and has better A2G precision weapons integrated with it.
Moreover, its avionics are better:
– SPECTRA means passive geolocation and attack capability. In the Red Flag games in circa 2008 it protected the French jet ably while the MKI got “shot down” by Russian-spec SAMs. .

Rubbish again. The IAF side neither used their external jammers @ full capability AFAIK (which they would in wartime) and nor were they allowed to use flares (environmental restrictions). This meant the Pk for launched weapons (simulations) was higher than would actually be the case & the Indian side accepted these restrictions. Besides which the IAF is now deploying newer EW gear on its Sukhois every other year, thanks to local upgrades.

Nor is sensor fusion such a big deal – Russia’s Su-35 upgrade (which forms the basis for the Indian Super 30) has it. And even if somehow that option were not available, India does have the capability already with the R118 which sensor fuses multiple sensors (SPJ/MAWS/ESM & can take in further cues from radar/IRST) plus its being expanded further for several programs including its AEW&C, and another. The AEW&C ESM suite – developed by the same DARE which is making the Su-30 suite, does geolocation as well.

The BMD system, Akash etc already apply sensor fusion, with the latter already operational. The AEW&C takes it to the next level mixing it with decision support for commanders for various air operations and is at a high level of development, (http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/press_release/drdo_awards_11.pdf). Sensor fusion is intended for another program as well.. so these things are hardly as klingon as you are making them out to be.

For the ID war games, the RAF chief famously said that the Typhoons “whacked” the MKI, and the latter is no match for the former. He claimed that the Typhoon belonged to a different generation.

Don’t mix up reports. He did claim the whacked thing for the third IAF-RAF exercise held in India recently (which again depends on what the Indian side wanted to show viz the radar & other systems) but the entire generation thing was viz with earlier reports in the first exercise in India where a RAF visitor said the Su-30 MKI was of a different generation than the Tornado F3.
As regards the exercises in the UK, which were the second, your sources are incorrect to put it mildly. That entire “Exercise” saw mixed packages & the Su’s didnt even use their radar.

As matter of fact, given normal conditions, loading/operational etc, a RAF Chief once remarked something like both platforms were pretty similar at low-med alts, with an edge to the Typhoon at very high alt at speed. Thats in airframe. In other systems, the MKI has several decent systems of its own.

There were articles on this posted but very marginal information from that. Jon Lake (propagandist for the Typhoon) also was clamoring on this point but with a bit of hyperbole on his part. The Indians improved their performance a lot when in India and to be fair to Lake, he did also mention this.

Lake has rubbished his credibility in recent years thanks to his unbelievable fanboy’ism for the EF. 🙁 Was a time when I’d read what he wrote. Now I actually don’t even bother with articles where his tag appears. Its invariably a rehash of stuff collected online (serials/production lots etc), plus some here and there non technical filler, and then some hyperbole about how the EF is the best ever.

Comes across as an one man propaganda show, and has ruined his good rep (he began with some decent books a long while ago). I was actually speaking to a friend the other day who was a big fan of Brit Av Mags – he noted much the same thing about Lake but noted Flight et al remained credible and were worth subscribing to. In contrast, when and where I can get articles from A&C (translated), they are often an interesting surprise, as are the occasional flight tests in other mags.

AWST remains relevant despite Mr Sweetman’s idee fixe on JSF because the mag does tend to pull together a decent lot of updates. Still only a few authors still have some credibility across topics or expertise in some. PiBu in Russian aviation for example or Fulghum on AESAs in the US

Agni-V test likely in mid-April and K-15 SLBM is in the final phases of development after its 2 recent tests were succcessful. Those who criticize DRDO incessantly need to look at the strategic missile fields where except for the weapons that DRDO has developed, India would have nothing.

DRDO gears up for modern warfare

DRDO has been remarkably successful in missiles, and electronics – EW, radars, sonars. Incidentally, these are also three areas where its partners are also decent, whether public or private. Last mile connectivity in terms of translating design to manufacturing and then having a product that is in service through its lifecycle is hence ensured.

For instance, primary integrator for DRDO designed radars and EW is BEL.
BEL has decent R&D capability (as evidenced by its yearly spend of 4-5% as % of sales). Having a good production partner, able to assist in concurrent engineering, keeping quality reasonable, assist in transferring design to production and then keep the product going with upgrades, is a big deal.

Sadly, in land systems, OFB has been an absolute and total let down thanks to both bureaucratic interference (OFB did not even have its own R&D capability till a few years back) and its own lackadaisical management which does not run the organization efficiently (any audit report of quality issues will confirm the fact).

Take a look at a BFSR (designed by DRDO, made by BEL) and you will not see a single difference (even in terms of product aesthetics) from an import from Thales or elsewhere. The quality is pretty good. Compare an INSAS (designed by DRDO, made by OFB) and its fairly obvious that a lot could be done to improve fit and finish of individual sections. It does speak a fair bit about the OFB yet to reach world class standards. They may not become R&D champions overnight, but surely asking them to make the product well is not out of the question or iteratively improve it to world levels.

The more I read about the Rafale, the more it becomes apparent it was the right choice for India and the IAF. About the only gripe with the plane would be its undersized radar aperture. Even there though, with a 40% increase over the PESA RBE-2, things are probably not as bad as they seem.