Any Syrian intervention without UN pushes that organisation further down the same path as the illfated League of Nations in the 1930s.

And it does make other conflics more likely, especially as the US military juggernaut slowly loses its teeth over the next few decades.

This might be great for the Fighter X versus Fighter Y crowd as we might actually see A2A combat in the 2020-40 time period!

2020-40 is too far. i think some where around starting 2015.

To bad they are planning to do it, and the Indian defense minister expects it to happen. But than again, what do the Indian defense minister & Dassault know about the MMRCA.

you want to bet on this one. Rafale for India is far off.

Despite of this, it was held to be superior to the Mig-35. And the Rafale AESA has been mounted on a in service jet, and will be offered for the MMRCA to start things off. By the time IN actually needs to decide, they would have had a chance to look at many squadrons of AESA_operational rafales with their IAF counterpart.

corrupt nature of deal is making all this delays.

Show me the missile and then we’ll talk. 3-5 times the range of Meteor? How many of these missiles can the Mig-29K carry?

MIG-29K can operate 4 Kh-31. There is no reason it cannot operate RVV-BD which is lighter missile.

I merely expected you to point me to a chinese missile, that will make the Meteor obsolete. Since you insist of talking REALITY, i expect such information

so you expect Chinese missile will be inferior to EU missile when Chinese have funding of supporting mulitple figher projects, independent human space missions and will complete its satellite constellation far ahead of EU. There is big difference in funding and technology level. These things will be obvious each year. and by time India gets Meteor. It will be practically obsolete for want of funding.

The IN has not ever initiated a competition to pick the next generation of fighters for its upcoming carrier developments. The Russian carrier came with the Mig-29K’s. The IN can wait for a few years still before initiating a demand for their new carriers (for the future). I do not expect them to go without competition for a fighter decision that is likely going to be backbone of their fighter fleet for the next 3 decades.

I am pointing to the India 2nd Carrier for that MIG-29K.

Whats the difference between a regular contract and a paper sketch contract? 300 million is insignificant? And why would you pay 5.5 billion USD for a stage of development that has not even begun? India was expected to pony up the cash after the PDR phase, which they are going to do. Why would they have done so earlier?

I mean current flying prototype has no India funding. once that sketch is converted into actual prototype than we can talk about India funding.

That wont make any difference, since India has a pretty good idea about the radar’s capabilities, they are buying more than 100 of them, from a program where the Rafale beat the Mig-35, something that is more advanced than the Mig-29K.

MIG-29K is already operatonal. Rafale will take another decade to be operationalized. It is paper plane specification.

How many Mig-35’s are in service with the AESA?

They are not in service but it does not mean they are no finished development. there are not many Rafale AESA in operations. This very low volume lab production.

Meteor integration is still on going. It will take a few years. The IN is not going to be making a decision tomorrow. The Meteor would have been integrated by the time the decision is due.

Meteor will be obsolete in the time frame.

What missile would the chinese jets be using that would be superior to the Meteor?

Chinese have a lot more money for defence. surely they are going to produce more and better missiles. You simply cant compare some one buying 10 fighters a year some one over 100.

The Indians have already held the Rafale to be a more potent multi role fighter than the Mig-35. A version that is considered superior to the IN Mig-29K

Indian decisions are full of holes. They even selected EF with non existing AESA as 2nd one.

As per most members on this board, as well as the IAF and the Indian Government.

This is your opinion.

Go read up on the T-50 development. India has put cash for the development of the PAKFA, the money was paid in various stages from PDR to the R&D.

I have read T-50. India does not have any funding yet.

A Lower RCS, Flying AESA radar, Better access to weaponry, SPECTRA, METEOR, MICA-IR. I am assuming here that the Rafale M can take off with the same load/fuel as the Mig-29K from a ski jump. If thats not true, then the IN would actually have to see the tradeoffs, and make a call. But if it is, then there is essentially no comparison, the Rafale is a much better multi role fighter with plenty of capability on the table, and upgrades planned.

Is flying AESA radar on Naval Rafale? Its like saying MIG-35 has AESA so MIG-29K also has AESA.
better access to weoponary? (for example). All the weopons systems available to PAK-FA will be available to MIG-29K. Rafale cannot become better multirole as it is smaller airframe with underpowered engines. AESA radar and operational external loads will further degrade its performance.

I’m not familiar with what is happening with LCA_N development program.

but atleast your familiar that LCA has gained weight and Naval LCA N will also gain even more weight. Its logical progression.

With Naval PAKFA, you have to take a few things into account. How much would it cost to develop? When will it be available. India is already having to take a 2 year delay and pay more to develop the T-50, it remains to be seen whether they are willing to take an added risk of getting into developing a new naval fighter (version) as opposed to buying already developed, and operational fighters (By 2020-2025)..

why would Indian pay to design Naval PAK-FA?. with newer engine PAK-FA will have the most surplus power of any fighter. add TVC, strong twin wheel landing gear, it is already ready for carrier operatons.

The price of the F-35 is dropping every “lot” and it’s just starting to ramp up! So, I guess your against India ever procuring a Naval PAK-FA. As the Land Based PAK-FA’s are going to cost over a $100 Million. So, expect any Naval Model to cost much much more. Especially, considering the limited number likely to be produced……….

Naval PAK-FA will be practically indentical to land based PAK-FA. only few percentage structural differences. there is no way it is limited production model.

What does the size of the fighter have to do with carrying EW gear? Are you suggesting that the ideal EW kit, that utilizes the same technology as the NGJ, would be so big and heavy that it would not be able to fit on a F-18E/F and F-35? What makes you believe in such a thing? We are talking about tactical EW jamming, not jamming the coms of an entire nation.

bigger aircraft provides higher speed, range, more power. loading underpowered aircraft with electronics is not the best solution. F-18E top speed is already too slow. You can clearly see weight is increased, internal fuel decreased. Performance is not even written. 15ton aircraft has 6.3ton internal fuel and there is no CFT. and engine power is stuck in medium aircraft level.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/military/ea18g/docs/EA-18G_overview.pdf

That may be true for A2G, and Strike, for EW, there is nothing that goes out to suggest that the F-18E/F capability to haul a load is insufficient to carry Jamming equipment. The NGJ meets the requirement for a post 2020 period and performs much greater missions then the current Jammer. The USAF has no requirement for stand off jamming from its F-35’s. The USMC may go in for NGJ, for the F-35’s, and for them it would also need to operate from their flat tops.

EW gear is also very heavy. and smaller aircraft will have less flexibility in carrying weopons. It is just not right answer for fleet size as things get expensive.

So i guess the Indian Defense Minister is wrong, when he claims that the IAF expects the first squadron 3-4 years after signing the contract. Could you kindly post the RFP so we can have a look at the “Flexibility clause” for ourselves. So i gues Lockheed was foolish to not offer the F-35, even though they could not negotiate on a single cost figure, or delvier a squadron 3-4 years from signing the contract, and have made no attempt to get TOT agreements signed between the 2 nations.

there is alot of statements floating around of this and that date. there is no credibility left.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/InterviewsNews/Rafale-is-as-good-as-any-existing-5th-generation-aircraft-French-defence-minister/Article1-1098852.aspx
Rafale is as good as any existing 5th-generation aircraft: French defence minister

Lockheed simply didnot understood the system. Flight trials done too early that were wasnt any AESA EF one of down select aircraft for trials so when non existing AESA aircraft can participate and go to #2 position. what is left in this process?

The Indian Defense minister is on record of claiming that he wants the first squadron delivered 3-4 years after signing the contract. I may not be able to calculate the weapons cost for 126 rafales, but the IAF certainly can as the bidders did bid for it, just as Lockheed bid for the cost of the weapons that came with the F-16I, and Boeing did likewise for the F-18E/F.

wanting and implementing is two different things.

Absolutely ! That is what the MMRCA is about. There is no chance that the Indians wont make the rafales at home. They have done the same for many crafts before the MMRCA, and this seems to be a core requirement for the MMRCA.

THis is not going to happen. It didnot happen with LCA engine. it is not going to happen with Rafale or any other fighter. It is just clue less nature of RFP or just to increase the cost of project to such level under the name of TOT that massive corruption can be justified.

Unlike you, i have not seen the RFP document, but i have seen reports citing the Indian Defense Minister stating that he wants a squadron by 3-4 years post inking the deal. I also know that Lockheed did not even bother to bid the F-35 for this program, as they have done for so many other programs that also see the F-35 compete with 4.5 gen fighters. Clearly the F-35 would have been a more technically superior bid compared to the F-16I, therefore what stopped them was probably the specifics of the RFP’s as far as delivery and TOT issues are concerned, as well the inability to be competitive by submitting a fixed price that can be negotiated with the Indian Government. Dassault is currently hammering out the contract and once signed it would be a fixed price deal for at least the fighters that dassault will make at home. Lockheed CANNOT do the same, for the concurrency cost would not be known for quite some time. Lockheed could also not deliver anything significant as far as numbers go pre-2020, in fact to do the same they would have to bid that they expect some partners to cancel or delay their order, such would involve risk and plenty of potential for a delay.

I never claimed of seeing RFP but i it is flexible as there is no definite time of implementation or fixed price. and time has proven it. This deal is no longer about pre-2020 but post 2020. where LM is in better position.

That is the part of the deal that India must have evaluated when they chose the rafale over other offerings that had a much bigger industrial base compared to it. Fighters such as the Typhoon or the Super Hornet. Clearly they see that despite this the rafale offers a better proposition for them, for whatever reason.

what ever the reason? India perhaps overestimating its financial and technical abilities to single handidly deal with rafale advancements.

You can not deliberately bid with a project that you know cannot meet the RFP requirement, in the hope that the project would be delayed and you may meet the new deadlines/schedules. An executive that does this, will have a short lived career for lockheed martin. Hence, they went in and bid with a proposal that could actually meet the requirements.

That RFP is joke. you cannot buy French production 60 Rafale for $10b let alone with TOT 126 Rafale for $12b. (that excluding super expensive weopons)That RFP has no bearing on reality. thats why this endless negotiation for price, life cycle cost and TOT. IF JSF does not meet RFP so does Rafale.

The LRIP 6 and 7 contracts, are not fixed per say. Lockheed martin has a separate arrangement with the DOD on concurrency costs, and those would be over and above the cost negotiated at LRIP, and that cost is bound to fluctuate as testing matures. So in reality the contractual cost for the First 10 LOT’s does not represent the FULL cost. Lockheed cannot offer ONE SINGLE Cost figure to bid for the MMRCA as concurrency costs are not known to the $ as of now.

India will be some where in lot 10 and after produciton cost. Dassualt also cant give single cost figure. It has one cost figure for Brazil, another from UAE and another for India. and another for French.

That does not take away from the fact that this is a requirement, just as it was for the Su-30 Contract. Lockheed cannot bid with a letter that reads
Hence LMA offered what they could deliver as per the RFP, i.e. the F-16I

RFP has become obsolete since flight trials ended couple of years ago.

LMA production process and logistics are based on the currrent JPO driven production process. The Line may be able to sustain growth, but someone has to pay the money to acheive the same, hire workers, tooling etc etc. No study has been done to show how much this would cost, nor has LMA ever bid that amount as part of their contract for any competition. No one till date has asked LMA to increase their production in the next 3-4 years to hammer out one additional squadron of fighters.

LM has assurance of steady budgets post 2020. Dassualt dont. infact most of EU defence industry will be dismantled if current trends of Arab procurement diversification contiunes. Post 2020 is the most riskiest part of contract implementation. India simply cant afford Rafale upgrades. just like M2K will be retired without engine upgrade and non AESA radar.

That is hardly a problem, when the USMC is looking at a tactical EW solution for use by its fighters. There is no reason to believe that the NGJ does not meet the stand off jamming needs of the USN, any suggestion has to be backed by evidence. Your argument that the F-35 being a 5th gen design compromises on the ability to carry EW gear holds no water, for whatever EW solution the services are looking to put on tactical fighters, is compatible with the F-35. We can only discuss current and future EW Jammer packages, we cannot make up a fictional EW Setup and see whether it fits on the f-35 or not. NGJ is going to be cutting edge, AESA (GaN) based Stand off jammer for the tactical fleet, it meets all the demands for 2020+ time frame that the USN has placed. All it has to do is meet the requirements set forth by the customer.

EW is limited to size of platform. USN requirement is built around the limted size of aircraft carriers. It cannot built some thing that cannot be lifted from Carriers. so it may not be best solution.