TeerI don’t think the plan at the outset banks upon AEW&C support being a fact of life. The IAF can’t afford to have two lucky cruise missile strikes overturn half a decade of planning and procurement. You hope for the best, plan for the worst. And planning for the worst means assuming the MRCA will sent up against J-10s and J-11s without AEW&C coverage and without Flankers backing it up.
Exactly.
I’ve never understood the appeal of a MICA-IR. What exactly does silent kill mean? After all, if time fire-and-forget missiles like the Meteor or Aim-120 are in range when they go active in the terminal stage, the target is more or less toast. If a missile goes active 20km off an enemy aircraft, the pilot has 10-12 seconds to identify the threat, ascertain the direction, calculate an escape vector and the either outmaneuver a missile that can pull over 20Gs, outrun a missile that flies at Mach 4 or attempt to jam a missile that homes onto jamming. I don’t see how the MICA-IIR can do it any better.
Mica IR cannot be jammed. The seeker on a RF missile will automatically trigger countermeasures, with a Mica-IR, the RWR will not set off the ECM. Unless fighters get DIRCM, as reportedly on the PAK-FA already (check Piotr Butowski) the average fighter with flares will not be able to distract a Mica-IR which has imaging capabilities in its seeker.
The range and payload advantages are a function of its hardpoint rather than anything else. CFTs on the EF will equalize it in those roles. Weapons are slowly coming online. By 2015, most of them should have been integrated including the Brimstone, Storm Shadow, Taurus with only the HOPE/HOSBO remaining an unknown.
CFTs will affect maneuverability, if not straight line acceleration or agility (energy transition capability). One of the reasons the IAF was unhappy with the F-16 in the flight evals per reports, is because the CFTs reduced its maneuverability, eg turn rates – which the IAF considers key for dogfighting. The EF proposal to India BTW does not include CFTs.
TeerBlack Archer, thanks!!
TeerThe official sources indicate a 40-50% range increase for the AESA version and 20° greater azimuth coverage. Range performance for the PESA version is ~100 km tracking of a 3 sqm target. French pilots reportedly state a similar range performance as the RDY. Sources on its range performance vary, but its detection range should be around 130-150 km against a 5 sqm target.
Thanks Scorpion, got the same numbers more or less from googled up reports, a bit more in terms of range (~10 km) than yours I guess but clearly on the same lines. Basically EF radar appears to be significantly more powerful (in raw range).
TeerOk, I answered my own query, sort of based on a bunch of reports.
I guess my back of the envelope estimates were correct & I do think the EF would be better placed in terms of A2A detection versus low RCS targets (say 0.1 Sq Mtr class for a J-20) or significantly outperform aircraft with a radar dia of ~1 Mtr (Flanker).
TeerKovy,
I wish I was a seer but I am unfortunately not. If I was a seer, I could have predicted which way the competition would go. 🙂
Teer is arrow in Hindi. Just something simple I picked up when I chose a name.
Anyways, the reason why I said the EF may be more optimized for A2A is because of two reasons. One, the excess thrust & second, the radar aperture. This is why I believe the EF may be better than the Rafale in handling even advanced Flanker level threats with whatever China can make or even the J-20.
My take is that radar tech at both Thales and Euroradar will be at the same level. But going by best case estimates, the Rafale will have 1000 modules and the EF around 1300-1400. Thats 30-40% more, and with a repositioner, a wider FOV.
This makes the EF “better” for pure A2A missions, along with the long range PIRATE IMO. The excess thrust helps in hot and high (assuming both designs are similarly aero efficient) & per whatever I have read, the profile optimized for flying high and fast, allows for best in class results even with older AAMs and with a Meteor it should be even better.
Now, considering Rafale w/AESA, its low RCS, Spectra etc – i have no doubts it can handle even the advanced Flanker threats, especially given the disparity in PRC tech and French consortium level. And this disparity will remain. But IMO, the Rafale may find it harder to deal with reduced frontal RCS J-20 level threats.
Of course, you may justifiably argue that the Rafale may locate an emitting J-20 (since the PRC is going to find it hard to field a reasonable AESA, let alone a LPI one) and then attack it silently with MICA-IR if not Meteor, and many possibilities exist.
But considering the simpler, brute force option, the EF came out ahead in the A2A sweepstakes.
Basically, India does not have enough AEW&C aircraft yet. Which means, a long range radar used the way the MiG-31s did, or the F-15 Golden Eagles do, is probably an option for India.
And here, the EF does come out ahead. Larger nose, more power generation capability and all.
I have no issues noting that as developed the Rafale is more “discreet” when operated with larger AWACS etc. Its just that I am looking at the local context.
The Rafale does have more range though, when loaded up fully with fuel which makes it a more versatile asset.
So I have a simple question for you. What is the approximate performance of the RBE-2 AESA as versus the RBE-2 PESA? If we have rough estimates for both, then probably my thinking may be far off the mark.
TeerWasted capability don’t you think ?
Yes, but the thought of 150 Mirages..a huge flotilla in a sort of super AFB….oh my! Wish it had happened.
TeerAre you suggesting that the partners would agree to subsidise the sale? I think they may have agreed to waive the 7% export levy, but more than that – I don’t see it.
Yes, thats what I am asking. Is it possible that the partners could agree to India receiving a lower price on account of production cuts happening in Germany, UK etc and any export order to India seen as compensating for that? Basically, a win win situation for the partner nations which dont have to pay any settlement to the EF consortium. I am not upto speed on the EF, so am asking whether such a theory could be possible.
Teernitpicking, the number was 150.
Awesome memory. Right you are.
Standing Committee on Defence report, 2004-05.
“Today when you buy an aircraft, you spend a huge amount as investment on infrastructure. Take the case of Mirage. When the Mirage base was established, I established the base, we had planned for problem. So, they bought only 40. I built up for 150. Today we have now a slot where you can fit in upto 150 aircraft plus. When we bought Su30 MKI, a completely new infrastructure was built in Pune and places like that. It is very complicated and expensive infrastructure. Now if you go for the F-16s you have to set up a completely different infrastructure.”
Going by the list of witnesses, that was probably Air Marshal Denzil Keelor (retired).
Which makes sense:
http://geographicalmedia.com/headline/mahendra-vedarjan-flew-like-a-butterfly-and-stung-like-a-gnat
WHEN the Mirage 2000 was inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) in 1984, watching wistfully was Air Marshal Denzil Keelor, then chief of the air base that remains the home to this French-designed multi-role aircraft.- full story
Maharajpur can handle upto 150 Mirages! Wow.
TeerIIRC Eurofighter GMBH isn’t allowed to export at less than it charges the partner nations, so there’s limited scope for cutting margins.
But couldnt it be, that all partners agreed to do so? This could presumably explain the French report.
TeerIndia is involved in the world in a way China wasn’t 50 years ago. Reverse engineering M2K would have led to lawsuits galore. Also, it would have taken far too long, & cost far too much, to be worthwhile.
What I proposed is that it would have been worthwhile for India to build M2K with the French handing over the entire production line (it was offered), & providing full ToT, & linking that to a deal to co-develop new technology for Tejas. That would have got India much more up to date technology, & quicker.
Swerve, there is one thing though. If a standard Mirage 2000-V, then I sincerely doubt they’d be competitive against PLAAFs newer Flankers or rather what will come out in the 2020 timeframe. Plus, if you see the Mirage 2000 upgrade cost, it seems clear the French would charge an arm and a leg to upgrade the Mirage 2000-V into something approaching a quasi-Rafale, because that is what would be required to be competitive against future threats.
At least as far as the MMRCA is concerned, we dont have that worry, whether these planes can hold their own against the PLAAFs Russian ripoffs or own efforts like the J-20, whenever it matures. There have been concerns about the Rafales small nose aperture, but with a 1000 odd modules, it should offer decent, if not earthshattering performance, and backed by AWACS it should do decently. The EF should do even better.
Both are far superior to the Mirage 2000-V, which in IAF evaluation, failed to pass muster even a decade back, and hence the Su-30 MKI program was launched.
Basically, what I am saying is, at heavy cost, India would be buying yesterdays tech., in terms of airframe and today’s tech for avionics, with limited upgrade potential (manufacturer does not have a clear product roadmap for future upgrades), for tomorrows challenges.
With MMRCA, India is getting aircraft that can outfly most other platforms in terms of maneuverability, are very agile (climb rate greater than 300 m/s), have decent upgrade potential, come with full sensor fusion and even tech like AESA for radars and EW.
Also, there is the thing that for all we know Dassault may not have wanted to invest in the Tejas. They and their suppliers may have preferred to keep their technology to themselves.
Basically, why create a rival aerospace complex who could compete with you many years down the road.
It took the MMRCA, a much more expensive program, for somebody like the EF consortium to come out with an open statement saying they’d support the Indian aerospace industry and the Tejas.
Currently, the Tejas program is funded for FSED all the way to December 2018 (including the MK2, apart from the cost for the planes themselves when series produced) with an additional Rs 5000 Crore. That’s around $1 Bn. So all said and done, even that has been handled.
Individual contracts are being handed out on the basis of competence. While arguably more time consuming, its not limited to one vendor alone either.
Teerdidn’t see that,
as far as MMRCA is concerned, the only allegations of bribery (or bribery attempt) I’ve read about were against Dassault prior to the shortlisting and they came from quite dubious sources…. so, basically, as far as I’m concerned, if there were bribes in MMRCA, I can’t comment as I don’t have any clue 😉
The current Indian MOD is run by a man who is very concerned about his clean image. That is why the assertions of bribery etc were rather presumptuous (at least to I).
There has also been heavy criticism about his focus on clean procurement as coming at the cost of the armed forces.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajai-shuklacostantony%5Cs-halo/386534/
TeerGood questions, just to throw something in the mix. Does the existence of infrastructure for the M2k perhaps mitigate the cost for Dassault.
The IAF no doubt has a supply chain set up for the service of this bird, how well does this SC align with one for the Rafale? Tools, components etc? IIRC, the IAF had infrastructure set up to manage 140+ M2ks, which was never used optimally because that number for the M2ks was never reached.
Still further, the tremendous cost of the M2k upgrade deal, including the $ 500 million for TOT perhaps is a clever way to reduce costs for Dassault.
This would be further highlighted by the commonality shared in terms of weapons.
Thus, cost savings might occur for Dassault in ways that are not so easily seen and hence they are not so worried.
Just wondering.
USS
I don’t believe that these commonalities will impact either proposal by a significant amount, because at the end of the day, IAF Mirage fleet is just 50 odd planes strong. The equipment for stuff like testing, maintenance etc is totally different in many cases from what would be used for Rafale etc. Its also been indigenized and sourced from local vendors in some cases.
Point is, remember, when the MMRCA deal started, there were concerns about the quantum of investment required? These were because it was recognised both types would require significant investment by themselves. New training, documentation, ground handling equipment, base infrastructure, test facilities elsewhere, etc etc.
Also, I dont believe that commonalities in weapons etc will also impact costs for each bid itself. Weapons packages for all types are negotiated separately. Some Rafale supporters have believed that because IAF negotiated for the Mirage 2000 package, that will help Rafale. Well, yes, in terms of commonly used weapons, sure – but at the end of the day, thats an addition but not the main deal by itself because the weapons package for each MMRCA bid are part of the proposal itself and for those 126 or 189 planes. Not dependent on using existing or previously negotiated weapons.
When the Mirage 2000s were first procured, an IAF person went on record stating that the infrastructure (he probably meant basing etc) could technically handle upto 100 Mirages, not just fifty.
But all said and done, the Rafale is no Mirage 2000-5. It will come with significantly different systems in several cases. Yes, some may be common and help IAF, but its not likely to be the decider for the bid.
In some ways, similar to the debate about how choosing the EJ-200 for LCA MK2 would help EF for the MMRCA. Ultimately, MOD and IAF treated it like a completely different proposal.
All I can say is though, the Army needs to learn from the IAF which has managed to work the MOD system enough to get multi billion procurement after procurement through the door. Whether it be C-17s or the Mirage 2000 upgrade or now the MMRCA in the works..
In contrast, the Army cannot even run a single artillery program. It procurement is a shambles.
Teeryou have an interesting brain.
perhaps India should’ve just reversed engineered the M2K and make more of their own. didn’t stop the Chinese from doing the same with the MiG-21
India won’t do that. It even stopped production of a RE Ak-47 when Kalashnikov protested and came out with a totally redesigned Assault Rifle with different internals. This for a design which so many countries have ripped off and are still making..!
Like it or not (some in the services don’t), but Govt of India does not believe in supporting RE’ing at a platform level. Could be fairly straightforward – don’t offend partner nations and set a bad precedent. India is right now collaborating with many nations worldwide for technology programs. They will not do so, if Indian Arms collaborators have a history of IP violations. Check out page 10 in the PDF below.
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/articles/Aeromag_Asia_July-_Aug_2011.pdf
TeerI can see advantages for the Typhoon in the Indian trials, especially in hot & high performance. May be that is what gives the Typhoon an edge.
There were reportedly 643 parameters which the IAF checked each platform on. Its very hard to determine that either of the aircraft was overwhelmingly superior to the other. Clearly, both platforms met IAF requirements whereas the others did not. At the end of the day, that’s all that matters. I think with the Meteor, IRIS, ASRAAM, MICA IR etc for WVR the PAF is not an issue at all for either type. The PLAAF’s J-20 is possibly the only clear challenger. But it can be managed with AEW support.
Even a top of the line upgraded Flanker, at Chinese levels of tech., will at best be equal to the Rafale in A2A IMO, and worse than the EF which is optimized for A2A.
I don’t know enough about the Rafale AESA yet, to see whether it can handle a reduced RCS threat. We do know the EF Captor E is intended to be very competitive with 1400 odd modules.
It will be fairly interesting to see how the AESA TOT affects Indian local programs for the LCA MK2, AMCA, upgrades etc.
Dassault has already gone on record, and so has Euroradar saying they will transfer tech and codes. India plays by the rules, so the tech transfer program could conceivably be extended to local programs as well.
TeerI thought Dassault should be very aggressive to get the deal, but then I don’t know if the article is true or not.
But if Dassault actually manages to make some profit on the deal, it won’t have to catch up on the support costs. Eurofighter could very well cut a real good deal up front and get the money back the support contracts.
It’s hard to tell which strategy would be better without looking at the whole deal, but in the article the impression given is that Dassault didn’t make too much effort while Eurofighter did. I hope it’s not as clear cut.
Nic
Thanks – that is what I am wondering about. Looking at Dassault’s strategy so far, they seem unwilling to compromise, whereas EF is willing to concede more ground for long term benefits.
I don’t think either manufacturer will go so far as to not make a profit on the aircraft itself. The question is what degree of profit. It could be that EF may agree to cut margins to a higher degree than Dassault, despite the tech transfer etc. Not just because the margins can be made up via sustainment, but also because it keeps production going on even if original customers in Europe cut program numbers at their end. After all, most R&D money would be spent already. Now, we are talking of keeping production numbers at the same level as originally anticipated if not increase them.
Like I said, even if 189 are to be made in India, somewhere between 50-100 planes may be actually “made” abroad and only assembled in India, its the entire transition from SKD to CKD and then to progressive local manufacture in Phases.
The margins for these may be lower than originally planned for, but the sustainment should make that up, plus there will be a fee for tech transfer, and if 60% by cost is to be made in India, that still allows for 40% benefit to industries back in Europe.
I think frankly, this was Dassault’s game to win, and if EF actually beats them to the win, then frankly, it means the latter played harder on an even game.
Sign In
