So you think the MTOW of 16.5t will not include fuel in the up to 3 x FTs it can carry? Not to mention that the Rafale is used in the tanker role as well.

I think Rafale’s internal fuel is 4500 kg?

That brings the weight up to 15000 kg, which leaves (16500-15000) = 1500 kg external payload.

Sea Gripen would probably do better than that 😉

No it wasn’t! USN funded the EDE (upgrade for cost reduction) demonstrator only, but during Aero India a Boeing official confirmed, that if an export customers pays for development of the EPE, USN might procure it too, that’s why it’s proposed on the growth plan and not on the flight plan of USN.
As I said, pretty much those options that were proposed in Farnborough. Enhenced performance engines for higher TWR, sperical MAWS and LWR for enhanced SA, modern cockpit designs (it still has some analog displays), an integrated IRST…
All that the Rafale didn’t have compared to F18SH is HMS, which AFAIK is not requested directly, but there should be no doubt about IAF will order it with any MMRCA, by the fact that all their new and upgraded fighters has them.

As you can see, on equal terms, the SH has no significant cost advantage, not even in the operating costs (figures reported from Brazil $10 to 12 000 for SH, $12 to 14 000 for Rafale, depending on source), especially when you add the commonality Rafale offers to the present IAF fleet, where the SH clearly is in disadvantage.
A Kaveri – Snecma engine would reduce the costs even more and keep in mind that IAF plans with 40 years of service, the SH requires way more upgrades to keep it capable then the Rafale and with the seperated upgrade plan, it won’t be even cheaper, India would have to pay for these options alone.
The SH radar is more mature and offers better range, no doubt about that, but otherwise the fighter is not superior to the Rafale on any performance, or technical criteria. Even on weapons, it basically offers the better alternatives (Scalp over JSOW, AASM over JDAM, METEOR, over Aim 120) but with the downside of higher costs.

My understanding is that the EPE is developed as part of the EDE program. Most of the development has happened already.

From June 2009:

GE continues developing advanced versions of the F414, including an Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) that can provide a 20% increase in thrust and an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) for extended component life at current thrust levels.

The latest F414-based advanced technology demonstrator engine has completed a test program that utilized a two-stage, all-blisk (integrated blade and disk) fan, an advanced six-stage high-pressure compressor (HPC) and a new high-pressure turbine (HPT) design. The engine ran to 100% of maximum steady-state core speed and successfully completed all program objectives during more than 20 hours of testing.

The new fan design incorporates 3-D aero, forward-swept airfoil technology, which provides higher airflow, improved efficiency and reduced parts count compared with the current F414 fan. The ongoing demonstrator program also included validation testing for high-cycle-fatigue design methods, and foreign object damage-tolerant fan and compressor airfoil designs.

The advanced technology core will complete additional testing in 2010 as part of a fuel savings technology demonstrator engine program that GE is running under contract to the US Navy.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20090615.html

The EPE is not in production, but it’s not like the development has not started either. Truth is, you don’t know how much it will cost to complete; also you don’t know how much Rafale costs, or the SH for that matter…

However most sensible people seem to agree that SH will be cheaper than Rafale.

We still don’t know if the Kaveri fits into the Rafale. However we do know that the engine that will be used for the LCA (the F414) does fit into the SH (and also the Gripen…).

As for weapons: Meteor is better than current AIM-120 — in particular if you use it from a Gripen or Typhoon that can employ the two-way data link. Rafale cannot do that it seems.

I am surprised you still believe that mk1 is anywhere near the Gripen C/D. In particular since you seem to consider payload an important parameter; we now know that max payload for mk1 is 3500 kg, the Gripen C can carry 51% more! Also keep in mind that most fighters seldom carry more than 5 tons anyway. So it’s when the payload is dropping below 4000 kg it really start to hurt your capabilities.

the mk1 is more similar to a jet trainer than to a proper fighter aircraft. In addition it is not quite ready yet.

You don’t know what ToT each vendor can and will deliver. It is not only Saab that is delivering ToT to Gripen, it is rather a consortium of companies. I know you don’t believe that e.g. Selex will offer ToT for Gripen because you belive that if they do India will not buy the Typhoon however you are wrong. Selex is a company that lives from profit. If they cannot offer ToT they will be out of business. They will not ruin their own chances by doing that. Also GE will offer the offsets that will be requested, independent of the F414 is in a Tejas, Gripen or SH…

SH is perhaps a better deep strike platform than Gripen, but why do you think it would be a better air defence? Does it come with the fantastic Meteor that you mentioned yourself? Also, when it come to strike: within limits (in terms of range and payload) the NG will surprise some people with it’s strike capabilities.. It will perform as good as any other 4.5 gen platform. So why pay the premium, in particular if you already got the Su-30MKI for the heavy stuff?

Gripen will be the fastest to induct since IAF can borrow existing Gripen C/D until the NG is ready. And also low risk since the C/D is a mature and well tested a/c operated by 5 countries already (Rafale operated by only 1, SH by only 2).

The M88-2 has an inlet diameter of 69 cm…

and…?

We are talking about max diameter which seems to be 90 and 91 cm for M88-2 and Kaveri respectively.

What is the inlet diameter of the Kaveri?

why would that be a problem? I thought the M88 had 900 mm diameter?

I can’t really see export customers wanting to pay for developing CFT’s, thrust vectoring, weapons integration, whatever… that the partner nations would be paying for anyway – albeit later. Typhoon is already the most expensive of the twin engined fighters. Asking export customers to pay even more to subsidise the partner nations is unrealistic IMO.

True, perhaps with the exception of some ME countries — just look at F-16 block 60 and the Mirage 2000-9.

Not neccesarily, the SH is cheaper in unit costs, but needs a higher thrust engine to meet the technical requirements of IAF (same for the MAWS and LWR). That’s why the GE 414 EPE was offered, but that engine requires fundings for development and integration, which means these costs must be added as well. If you would bring the SH to the capabilities that the Rafale F3+/F4 offers (several of those upgrades that Boeing proposed in the growth options), the fly away cost would be pretty equal. The real problem of Rafale in terms of costs are spares and weapons, because they are much costlier than US counterparts.

AFAIK the EPE development has been done already — it may increase the cost slightly compared to SH of today, but not that much. There will still be a huge gap in price. If you add the much lower operating costs there will be a significant price gap between the two.

What other upgrades would the SH need? Also keep in mind that the Rafale will be inferior to the SH in many important respects as well. We know from UAE that the Rafale radar is inferior to the F-16 radar in terms of range and of course also maturity. The SH radar is superior to the radars in the UAE F-16…

Does IAF request HMD?

Weapon integration to be useful in the A2G role, in regard of EF that would be:

– JDAM (AASM on Rafale)
– Storm Shadow / Taurus (Scalp on Rafale)
– RBS 15 (Exocet on Rafale)

One also could add GBU 24 that Rafale has, while the EF will only be able to carry 500lb and 1000lb LGBs.

F18SH offers even more variety, which makes it and the Rafale useful in more than just air defense and CAS like EF. As long as the partners don’t clear T3A with Storm Shadow and CFTs, the EF will not be able to offer the same performance.

IF a2g is important then probably both SH and Rafale would score points compared to the Typhoon — as would Gripen.

Or just order additional LCA MK1, while waiting for MK2. 😉

You must be joking — the Gripen C/D is far above and beyond the mk1.

Once again, I didn’t said it didn’t meet the requirements, but that it falls short in key areas that are important for India and that’s why it won’t have a chance to win.

Apart from politics in what key areas does it “fall short” ?

@ EELightning & mrmalaya

I think I can answer both at once by saying, it’s not important what they planed in the past, or what they offer for India, but who will pay for it!

When we look at the graphics of the naval Typhoon, or the weapon package at Aero India, it is clear that they offer anything they have, but that all doesn’t matter if they don’t clear T3A first!
That means, they have to agree on which weapons and capabilities will be included in the version that IAF will get, not the later T3B. If this isn’t done, IAF will have the risk of not only delays because of the AESA development, but also to get a fighter, that is not capable enough and needs additional fundings to make it useful.

So in addition to the $109 millions each fly away we have to add all neccesary weapons and techs that makes EF really multi role capable and pay for the integration, or development. So far EF has only LGB, nothing else and some design flaws limits its capabilities already (LDP on the centerline, only 3 wet/heavy stations).
On the other side we could have the already fully multi role capable Rafale for only $87 millions fly away and the only capability that the Rafale doesn’t have compared to EF (or that is not already cleared for integration by France), is HMS.

From a purley technical point of view, it should be obvious that the Rafale offers clearly more, for less money and all that earlier than we want it and fully funded!
The EF partners simply fails to show a similar commitment to weapon integration and further developments, like the French does and the only way to make the deal more useful are ToT and offests, while the operational capabilties are weak.

An important side note at this point. During the visit of president Sarkozy in India, we fixed the Kaveri – Snecma co-development and although some cost negotiations are still going on, it is clear that it will come. Dassault offered to integrate the engine into Rafale if we want, which would be a huge advantage, not only because it is the only fighter that could have an Indian engine, but also to be less dependent on upgrades and reduce costs (LCA, possibly AMCA will get them too, not to forget that the same fighters could be chosen for IN as well). The fact that the development will be funded anyway, means we just need some money for the integration and could get a performance increase, at least comparable to EF, if not better.

Again, all this for way less money then a comparable EF would cost and in time!

Regarding Saudi Arabia, with the additional F15 order and BAE failing to start the assembly line there, I think the chances for an additional order are less good than before.

Well if the IAF is looking for a mature but cheap a/c that is carrier capable seems to me that SH would be an option. It is significantly cheaper than both Rafale and Typhoon. As for integration — what weapons are you talking about? Won’t there be a need for integration in any case no matter what you choose?

Of course if carrier capability is not a must-have but rather nice-to-have, don’t forget the mighty Gripen — IAF could borrow some mature and very capable Gripen C/D while waiting for the NG –OK you disagree and believe the NG does not meet the requirements, but you have not offered any credible sources to back up your opinion that it does not meet the requirements… so let’s agree to disagree 🙂

The IAF is particularly concerned about the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) that the US is pushing India to sign.

“The CISMOA is a communication agreement. We don’t necessarily have to sign that,” Air Chief Marshal Naik said.

But US ambassador Timothy Roemer, who was also at the air show in Yelahanka, said that the US “offers such agreements only to its closest allies and Nato partners”.

Another senior IAF officer said: “The CISMOA is necessary for airforces to communicate with the US easily. Why do we need to communicate with the US all the time?”

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110222/jsp/nation/story_13617713.jsp

The story also mentions the AESA — one might get the impression from the above-linked story that the AESA radar would somehow be affected by the CISMOA but then it also says that “the CISMOA is a communication agreement.” Are there other agreements than the CISMOA that could be a potential issue here?

Seems to me that the CISMOA should not be really critical. However things like access to source code may be.

I assume that IAF will in any case get IFFs that do NOT identify the Pakistani F-16 as friendlies? Or…?

http://books.google.com/books?id=dajccsCegkoC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=australia+AN-ALR-45&source=bl&ots=e0XcSUUN7J&sig=UkXNpXRaJiZQtK7SMy8K2g1Qd1s&hl=en&ei=7uVGTaylIYyt8AbVhtm1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=australia%20AN-ALR-45&f=false

(thanks to Erkokite)