What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
IF the recent reports are true that Rafale and EF are the leading, what are the reasons, what advantages to both offer compared to the other contenders?

From a technical point of view a high TWR, good maneuverability and by the fact that they are the newest designs, also a higher future potential could be a point. Besides the technical side, they also have commonality in terms of high ToT and low restrictions in their offers, which seems to be an important requirement from the start, while the latter should be important for IAF.
 
1896022.jpg
 
Defence offset policy to be changed

Huma Siddiqui

New Delhi: With the government seeking revised offset proposals from the six contenders for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal by April 15, a comprehensive defence offset policy is in the offing and is likely to be released early next month.

“The new policy will seek to do away with any ambiguity currently there,” say defence ministry sources.

According to industry sources, “A letter has been sent by the government to all the vendors seeking revised offset proposals on Monday evening. This is an indication that the things are back on track

The detailed policy is expected to concretise the opening of the civil aviation and internal security in more certain terms, so that there will be no room for confusion, added sources. The defence offsets policy is likely to bring in $10 billion during the 11th Five-Year Plan period (2007-11).

Talking to FE, sources said, “The changes are likely to provide invitations to offer offsets proposals to be issued to only those vendors who are validated as technically qualified by the respective service. The shortlisted vendor will be invited for opening of their respective commercial bids.”

Currently, both technical and commercial offsets proposals need to be submitted by all vendors competing in a tender. Under the current policy the technical offsets proposals are examined and validated by the Technical Offsets Evaluation Committee, and the commercial offsets are submitted as sealed proposals, to be opened only when the respective commercial offer for the vendor is opened.

According to sources, the changes are being designed to help the MMRCA tender process, which is governed by the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2006 and plans to seek a legal route for approval to implement the revision with retrospective effect.

Nidhi Goyal, director, Deloitte in India, said, “In a medium multi-role combat aircraft deal for the supply of 126 state-of-the-art fighter jets to the Indian Air Force, the selected supplier would require to meet offset obligation of 50% of the foreign exchange component of the value of the total deal of $10.8 billion. Out of which an estimated offset business to an extent of $ 4 billion is likely to be generated for the Indian industry.”

Adding, “It is expected to stimulate growth in the Indian defence industry which should be able to absorb the cutting edge technologies to acquire domain expertise in aerospace manufacturing and defence electronics. Further, with other big ticket procurements such as maritime aircrafts, helicopters, sea-hawks, anti-submarine warfare in military aerospace segment, business for the Indian industry at least to the tune of $8 billion is likely to flow over a period of 5-10 years.”

Also, discussions are going on between the government agencies as well as industry bodies about the eligibilty of a wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign company, though India registered, for offsets. It would need to modify its share holding pattern and bring it to 74% Indian Holding for it to be eligible for offsets, unless special dispensation to it is permitted by the government.

Defence offset policy to be changed
 
^^^^

Already posted in the last page.

So what? who cares! it is quite fair to keep posting until some one answer the question! ;)
'Which fighter Indians will Choose'?
If you are wise enough than answer the question! instead of complaining!!!!
 
So what? who cares! it is quite fair to keep posting until some one answer the question! ;)
'Which fighter Indians will Choose'?
If you are wise enough than answer the question! instead of complaining!!!!

The problem is only that nobody asked a question and it was about a double post of a news report, so nothing wrong with SpArKs hint and I'm sure bhagat took it the right way. No need to make more out of it, then there is!
 
So what? who cares! it is quite fair to keep posting until some one answer the question! ;)
'Which fighter Indians will Choose'?
If you are wise enough than answer the question! instead of complaining!!!!

Height of stupidity.... as always.
 
How Libya is a showcase in the new arms race

A few months later, Saudi Arabia, which buys the vast bulk of its arms from the United States, had concerns about quality. Unhappy about the number of GBU-10 laser-guided bombs that had failed to explode when used against Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to a dispatch from the Riyadh embassy, Saudi officials asked how the number of duds compared with the failure rate of the same weapon in Afghanistan.

In response, a visiting US general described the US Air Force’s careful “cradle-to-grave testing and maintenance on its bombs”. Saudi officials also complained about a lack of progress in obtaining US munitions and technology for strikes in Yemen. In the same Jan. 2010 meeting, the Royal Saudi Air Force chief said that when the US sold its weaponry, “it was like a car dealer selling five cars, but with only eight tyres”. Saudi Arabia is crucial to US weapons makers who are discussing a huge arms package valued at over $60 billion including 84 F-15 fighter jets and 70 Apache helicopters built by Boeing.

When it comes to Libya, Paris was almost as eager to take on Gaddafi as it was to open up military ties after the EU lifted an arms embargo on the country in 2004. But France was not alone in wooing the country after Gaddafi renounced weapons of mass destruction.

In conversation with an aide to Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam in Dec. 2009, US embassy officials in Tripoli referred to an offer for purchases or refurbishment of C-130 transport planes and “military exchange and training opportunities,” according to a diplomatic cable from that month. The cable also mentioned a US offer to Gaddafi’s younger son Khamis to “travel around the United States to tour US military installations”. There was no indication how the conversation was followed up. Khamis, whose forces are fighting the revolt against his father’s rule, is the commander of the military’s elite 32nd brigade, seen by many analysts as the best-trained unit in Libya.

The same cable also suggested that Washington had resisted Libyan requests for MH-6 “Little Bird” light assault helicopters, and noted Libyan complaints about slow progress in refurbishing Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers. Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the C-130 transporter, declined to comment. The State Department did comment for this article.

“MOST UNSEEMLY” In the immediate PR battle over Libya, analysts say the Rafale appears to be winning. Not only was it handed a front-page role on the first day of the conflict, but it also scored a symbolic victory by reaching Libya equipped for air-to-ground attack, something the Typhoon has so far only done in tests. The Typhoon is focusing instead on air-to-air warfare against an enemy whose air force has been more or less pinned to the ground by strikes on radars and air defences.

French officials dismiss any suggestion of deliberate showmanship in the deployment of Rafales in the opening hours of the conflict, saying their flexibility made them right for the task of destroying tanks that were closing on rebel positions in eastern Libya. But there is no doubt the lead taken by Sarkozy signals a more confident diplomatic posture that France hopes will benefit Rafale sales indirectly. Countries buying fighters must be ready to invest in a diplomatic relationship lasting 30 or 40 years, and competitors are bracing for an all-out French sales offensive once the conflict is over, or even before.

“Sarkozy has done a great job in getting the Rafale out there and hitting a convoy early on. He will go to export markets and say this is what our planes can do,” said a defence executive from a rival arms producing nation.

That’s something Washington will watch closely. Despatches over many months show US efforts to track the hyperactive French president during official visits as he campaigned from Libya to Brazil, India and the United Arab Emirates, for the first foreign sale of the Rafale. US officials were so outraged by the “frothiness” surrounding Sarkozy’s two-day trip to open a French naval base in Abu Dhabi in May 2009 - a “poorly planned” French military manoeuvre interrupted vital fuel deliveries to Afghanistan - that the US ambassador reported the visit had brought out the “most unseemly” aspects of both host and visitor. “The Emirati desire to be the object of unrestrained praise met its match in the French willingness to abase themselves in front of rich clients,” according to the confidential cable. French defence sources say unflattering things about US lobbying too. ( :D )

Another potential customer the French and the Americans are fighting over is Brazil, where the Rafale was until recently seen as best-placed to beat the US-made F/A-18 and Sweden’s Gripen. Brazil is the focus of a fierce diplomatic contest between Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama to win an order for 36 fighter planes. Obama visited Brazil’s new president last month and Sarkozy is expected to follow suit.

Arms exporters typically do well at times of international instability. But they also depend on budget stability in their home country. That’s because arms importers prefer to buy from places whose own armed forces are signing up for the same weapons, guaranteeing future support and spares.

Turmoil in the Middle East emerged just as defence officials and lawmakers were gearing up to cut U.S. defence spending, which accounts for half of the world’s arms business, for the first time in a decade or more. The ferment may make it harder for American lawmakers to argue the case for immediate cuts - though it may also, analysts say, encourage them to scrutinise more closely the release of technology to loyal buyers whose governments are looking less stable.

“There are probably positive impacts over the next five years on the defence industry because of what has happened in the last couple of weeks. When the US military is used as it is being used in Libya, and in an invisible humanitarian sense in Japan, it probably discourages the Congress from taking an axe to the defence budget,” said Joel Johnson, analyst with Virginia-based Teal Group.

At the same time, defence industry executives and military officials say they do not expect a return to the double-digit revenue growth seen after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks - given the sheer size of the US deficit and a generally more sober approach to military requirements and programmes.

“We’re probably facing a flat period” of US spending, Johnson said, “but flat at pretty high levels.” reuters

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan



Some notes, personally I can't agree with the point that France went to war to show of the Rafale, because the opposite is the case. The Libyan war is the first time that the Eurofighter, F16 B60, or Gripen entered a real war (although only in air policing roles and after the air force and ground threats were destroyed), while Rafale is doing the same roles that they did in Afghanistan as well.
As we all know (on most of us don't like) Dassault is very quiet when it comes to PR and they could simply hype the Afghanistan missions, where no competitiors is arround to have easy PR, instead of inviting the rivals to show their capabilities as well.
 
Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign

US withdrawal of attack planes puts pressure on European countries, especially France, to offer more strike capability



A-Danish-F-16-strike-airc-007.jpg



A Danish F-16 after a mission over Libya. European countries are under pressure to supply more attack aircraft for the Nato campaign. Photograph: Joachim Adrian/AP


Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.

David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.

"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.

Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.

But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.

"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.

"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."

Nato officials insisted the pace of the air operations was being maintained. But it has emerged that the US and the French, who have been the two biggest military players until now, are retaining national control over substantial military forces in the Mediterranean and refusing to submit them to Nato authority.

The French have the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, two escorting frigates and 16 fighter aircraft, none of which are under the Nato command and control which was announced last Thursday.

Until last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy was the loudest opponent of handing over the operations to Nato control. Nonetheless, the French are not only taking part in the Nato campaign, but are the biggest non-US contributors, with 33 aircraft, double Britain's 17. Not all of these are strike aircraft.


Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a quarter and the British around a 10th. Given the US retreat, Nato is seeking to fill the gap, but only the British have pledged more.

"We're very happy that one country decided to bring in more assets," said Van Uhm.

When Nato took over from the coalition it was stressed that it had assumed "sole command and control" of all air operations.

However, countries are dipping in and out of Nato command, withdrawing "air assets" for national operations before returning them to alliance control.

"It's pretty clear that Nato is in command. Nato is in the lead," said Van Uhm. "There are assets under national control in the area. But General Bouchard is commanding what Nato does ... You could say nothing is happening without Nato knowing."

The general stressed that no air strikes on ground targets in Libya had taken place outside Nato's command.

Six countries are believed to be engaged in the bombing campaign – France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway – with many others involved in policing an arms embargo and enforcing a no-fly zone.

Gaddafi's air force had been grounded, Van Uhm said.

In London, the Ministry of Defence said RAF aircraft had struck targets in Libya on each of the past three days.

Tornado GR4 ground attack planes, flying from the Italian airbase of Gioia del Colle, hit a battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers near Sirte on Monday when they launched three anti-armour Brimstone missiles. The previous day, they fired Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles to target a group of 10 armoured vehicles south of Sirte.

On Saturday, they fired Paveway IV missiles at two tanks in Sirte and also hit "several small ground attack aircraft" on an airfield near Misrata, the MoD said.

Two of the 10 Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct ground attack operations.


Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign | World news | guardian.co.uk
 
US withdrawal of attack planes
But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.


"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.

"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."

so , why did US withdrar their attack planes ?

shift in tactics by Gaddafi to use light vehicles and trucks to transport , does that mean non-US radars on their planes don't have capabilities to identify those....

try to connect the two , isn't it clear that libya is just a marketing gimmick by these countries involoved..
 
so , why did US withdrar their attack planes ?

shift in tactics by Gaddafi to use light vehicles and trucks to transport , does that mean non-US radars on their planes don't have capabilities to identify those....

try to connect the two , isn't it clear that libya is just a marketing gimmick by these countries involoved..


Because the campain was handed over to NATO and the US / Obama said from the start, that they will intervene only till that happens, because they already have 2 wars running in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was also a reason why no real carrier was deployed, only fighters form air bases and amphibous carriers with Sea Harriers.

On a personal note, good to see an US president not deploying their troops only for oil, Bush would have send ground forces and stayed there till he got control over the Libyan oil fields.


Two of the 10 Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct

I wonder why the they returned to the UK, when there are already not enough fighters and the RAF EF T2s were upgraded with litening targeting pod and paveway 2 LGBs and still can't help in the A2G role, which shows how limited their A2G capaility is.
However, that should be interesting for IAF too, because they have focused on the same 1000lb Paveway 2 bomb kits, as well as 1000lb Russian PGMs in CAS, while the western forces switched to lighter 500lb Paveway IV, or AASM PGMs, because they can be carried in higher numbers and gives less risks in terms of collateral damage. The trend seems to go to even lighter versions like the US small diameter bomb, or the French AASM 125 (250lb)!
 
Libya, Rafale + AASM Sead capability demonstrated

More details about the air strikes performed by the French Air Force and Navy are leaked since a few days. Thanks to Defense journalist JD Merchet, We learned yeasterday that one of the very first AASM strike in Libya on march 21st, was done at an outstanding range of 55 km from the target !
Moreover, Defense journalist Jean Guisnel, reveals today that Rafale fighters loaded with AASM had conducted direct air strike on an SA-3 sam site, turning down the help of specialized SEAD fighter support offered by the USA.

These 2 examples illustrate perfecly the unique abilities of this new weapon for SEAD missions against medium range SAM sites. Range, accuracy, fire and forget, all weather capability, relative speed, inflight targeting flexibility (targets coordinates can be uploaded from many sources) make it a very varsatile weapon.

Also on Mr Guisnel blog, we can read that 11 scalps was fired during the March 23-24th night against the al-Joufra Air base, deep inside the Libyan territory. Apparently, 4 of the missiles were delivered by Rafale M and 7 by mirage 2000D (to be confirmed). All of them hit their target among wich was a command center.

Rafale News: Libya, Rafale + AASM Sead capability demonstrated
 
when is a decision going to be made?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom