What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eurofighter keen to open alliance to India
BY: ft.com

The Eurofighter consortium – the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy – is considering inviting India as the fifth partner in its defence alliance should it opt for the Typhoon multirole combat aircraft as part of the modernisation of its air force.

The Typhoon is vying against jet fighters from the US, Russia, Sweden and France to supply the Indian Air Force with 126 aircraft, worth an estimated $11bn. The competition is expected to be decided in the first half of next year.

A bold move to open the consortium to India, a nation seeking to build its indigenous supply of weaponry, is a sweetener for New Delhi to buy the Typhoon, which is viewed as more expensive than rivals.

Discussion of bringing India into Eurofighter coincides with a top-level military exercise between the UK’s Royal Air Force Typhoons and the IAF’s Sukhoi and Mirage jets in West Bengal, where senior Indian officers said they were highly impressed with the Typhoon’s capabilities.

“That kind of debate will probably seal the deal,” said an official close to the fighter jet competition who held up the prospect of India as a “major player” within the Eurofighter ­consortium.

Eurofighter is pulling out the stops ahead of visits to New Delhi by presidents Barack Obama of the US, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, all of whom will press India to buy their military hardware.

A UK official said India had the potential to become the largest user of Typhoon and could take part in industrial defence co-operation at a time when “the plane still has the potential to evolve technologically”.

But, some senior British defence officials are wary of offering any more than a simple partnership arrangement to India, which would leave the core consortium intact while allowing India a role in developing some software and electronics.

Greg Bagwell, air vice-marshal in the RAF, cautioned that Indian participation would have to avoid disrupting sensitive “workshare” agreements between European partners upon which valuable high-tech jobs depended. But he said India had to be “a player around the table” if it bought Typhoon in large numbers. P.V. Naik, the head of the IAF, said that one of his priorities was studying India’s “ability to absorb the technology” of fourth-generation fighters.

India, one of the world’s fastest growing arms buyers, is already expected to agree to co-produce a fifth-generation stealth fighter with Russia.

A defence industry alliance with four European nations would have broader implications for what senior Nato commanders describe as “a new strategic deal with India”. It also reflects the importance of the Indian order to the future of Typhoon and its order book beyond the stressed military budgets in Europe.

BAE Systems, Europe’s largest defence contractor, which builds the Typhoon with European partners, already produces the Hawk trainer with Hindustan Aeronautics?in?Bangalore. Other UK companies are involved in the selection of weapons systems for the IAF.
 
.
Get a big pie out of India's defence market: Rep Sen to Obama

"As you know, six foreign companies are competing to sell India 126 new multi-role combat aircraft in a deal that could be worth as much as USD 11 billion. India's selection process for this aircraft is advancing, with two US companies under active consideration," senior Republican lawmaker from California Ed Royce said in a letter to Obama.
.

why MMRCA is so importent to US..?

nobady in US talks about bullion $ deals of C-17 , C-130 ,VVVIP , PI-8planes etc..

why then the MMRCA is been singled out..?
 
.
It's because a transport plane won't be of that importance than a Fighter jet.. And there has been a lot already discussed about the C-17s, C 130 and the PI 8s and since this is the dedicated thread for MRCA related discussions, we are doing so... It's not being singled out but simply being more emphasized upon.. That's all....
 
.
I guess India would choose probably F18 and MIG 35. Of course MIG is not completely developed yet but induction of F18 would balance the situation. The reason why Indian government may choose these options because of some strategical and diplomatic reason.

By choosing US and Russian technology together India is hitting two targets by single shot. Good relation with US and support in UN security council may force India to choose F18 and MIG due to IAF are used to with this family of fighters and strengthening strategic ties with US & Russia both.

This may be an strategy to counter Chinese influence in the region.
 
.
He is not denying that there was such an issue with a consultant and is trying to sperate the EF consortium and Eurojet. But that basically confirms the report about the bribery and why GE was selected right?

These speculations came that day when EJ was out...so yes to very large extent this is a right reason.
 
.
. . .
Lockheed reassures India over F-16 fighter
[URL="http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/11/04/Lockheed-reassures-India-over-F-16-fighter/UPI-85241288866600/"]http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/11/04/Lockheed-reassures-India-over-F-16-fighter/UPI-85241288866600/[/URL]
NEW DELHI, Nov. 4 (UPI) -- Lockheed Martin said it improved its version of the F16IN Super Viper on offer to India under the country's largest ever combat aircraft tender.

The corporation's tailor-made advanced F-16IN aircraft for the Indian air force has improved electronic scanned array radar, enhanced high-thrust engine and larger weapons inventory.

"The F-16 has a long history of operations around the world," Michael R. Griswold, director of advance development program at Lockheed Martin, told reporters. "The F-16 that we are offering here to India is by no means the end of the line of F-16s. In fact, it represents the beginning of what we think is great future for F-16 in India."

The F-16 Fighting Falcon, originally made by General Dynamics, first flew in 1974 and was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1978. In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corp., which became part of Lockheed Martin after a 1995 merger with Martin Marietta.

More than 4,400 of the F-16 aircraft have been built since production was approved in 1976. No units are sold in the United States any more but upgraded versions are available to export customers, such as India and Pakistan.

Air trials in India have finished for the most part and Lockheed also has shown additional features to the Indian air force during laboratory testing. "We had to provide new capability beyond what the F-16 block has," said Griswold.

Lockheed is one of six aircraft manufacturers chasing the $9.5 billion contract for 126 aircraft under the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Competition, known as the MRCA. Up to 20 of the first units will be purchased from overseas manufacturing bases. The rest of the planes must be produced in India through stringent technology transfer agreements.

Delivery will start within 36 months of contract signing and be completed 48 months later.

Also in the running for the MRCA are the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault-Rafale, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Mikoyan MiG-35 and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The acquisition is strategically important for India because of its aging jet-fighter fleet.

The air force attained 44 squadrons during the 1980s after acquiring Mirage 2000, MiG-29 and Jaguar aircraft. But many of the air force's older aircraft -- mostly MiG planes including MiG-21 units -- are obsolete with some not airworthy and others lost to accidents. As a result, the country has 32 squadrons, a worry for Indian defense officials as they believe the country's air superiority over Pakistan could be threatened.

The Indian air force phased out the MiG-23MF air-defense interceptor in 2007 and retirements of MiG-23BN ground-attack aircraft began in March 2009. The MiG-23s will be replaced by MRCA winner.

The F-16IN is based on the F-16E/F Block 60 version supplied to the United Arab Emirates and conformal fuel tanks, AN/APG-80 active electronically scanned array radar, GE F110-132A engine with 32,000 pounds of thrust and an electronic warfare suite with infra-red searching and helmet-mounted cueing system.

In April, during an interview in Dallas, Orville Prins, Lockheed's vice president of business development in India, praised the F-16IN version of the F-16 "I can assure you, the Super Viper is much more advanced in all aspects than the F-16s being given to Pakistan," he said.
 
.
From the Brazilian competition (google translated):

Lula says calmly decide on bids for purchase of fighter planes

EFE - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Wednesday that will decide "without haste" on a bid for the purchase of fighter planes which companies participate in the United States, France and Sweden.

At a news conference with the president-elect, Rousseff, Lula made it clear that the subject will not drop for the next Government, but said it will take the decision to "calm" and after consultation with the Defense Minister Nelson Jobim.

"We will decide that later, without haste," said Lula, who hinted that Dilma could join the discussion by stating that the matter will be discussed after the next president will take "a few days of rest."

In bidding for the purchase of 36 aircraft to compete Rafale, the French company Dassault, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the American Boeing and Gripen, Sweden's Saab.

Jobim said on several occasions that the Air Force recommended the Rafale, which considered the "most interesting for Brazil" and that "best fit" the needs of defending the country.

Lula also publicly expressed his preference for French planes.


In the holiday of 7 September 2009, when he received GMT French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Lula announced that the two government agreed to transform Brazil and France with "strategic partners in the field of aviation."

That same day, the Brazilian government stressed its intention to "commence negotiations" to buy the French aircraft, though later it clear that this offer was valid also for Boeing and Saab, and that the bidding was still open.

Source


So the decision will be made by the actual gov this year, with the president and defense minister prefering Rafale!
Good for the first Rafale export and good for Brazil to get such an strategic partner.
 
.
Does no member here know anyone in the airforce ? Get some info guys , we cant keep waiting for these people , they ' ll keep extending the deadline.
 
.
Does no member here know anyone in the airforce ? Get some info guys , we cant keep waiting for these people , they ' ll keep extending the deadline.

The ball is in the MoD's court. The IAF has submitted its evaluations in a form of a document and a simplified tabular column for those sloths to understand quickly. Now the MoD and the Finance Ministry and the Foreign affairs ministry need to think it out fast...and hope the CAG dosent rant about anything.
 
. .
By Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH
Director
CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES

With the technical, flight and staff evaluation of all the six contenders for the 126 M-MRCA fighters now done, time has come to seriously look for a national consensus on the parameters of the selection. This is not a simple acquisition and the decision making will be extremely difficult unless we are clear of the key factors that should be decided upon in advance besides the technical specifications met and as no doubt spelt out in the RFP (Request for Proposals). Our decision must be guided by two basic factors: that nearly a decade has gone past from the time that IAF was looking for a 'Mirage 2000' type to fill the slot that has come to be described as the M-MRCA (Medium-Multi Role Combat Aircraft). This term is critically important for a number of reasons.


To begin with, like in most countries, the Ministry of Defense (ours is at South Block) would decide the mix of aircraft types that the IAF would need in future, based on the operational tasks and capabilities, that is, the quality and the quantity, while the Finance Ministry at North Block would look closely at the budgetary costs of acquisition as well as the 'life-cycle' costs which would have a major influence on defense budgets for the coming decades. An excessively high-performance (beyond the medium level fighter) will lead to higher costs and budgetary commitments which will force the size of the IAF to be curtailed when it actually needs to get back to 39+ combat squadrons and then expand to the Cabinet-sanctioned 50 squadrons. For obvious reasons the bulk of these factors should, and would, remain classified. Yet the informed public in the world's largest democracy needs to have some idea of at least the parameters that might finally go into decision making.


The most crucial parameter has already been indicated by the very nomenclature which provides the description of the type of aircraft required: that is, medium sized multirole combat aircraft. The necessity of this class of aircraft has arisen due to a number of factors. Firstly, we need to fill the gap that has already arisen due to life-expiry of a large force of MiG-21s. The only 'medium' sized multi-role combat aircraft left in the IAF today is the Mirage-2000 with an inventory of around 50 aircraft. At the level above that, we are already committed to the heavy Su-30MKI being manufactured at HAL for the past few years. And at the lower size level, we have already embarked on the indigenously designed LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) that was to have replaced the MiG-21s before they went out of service, which Russian-type itself was a 'light combat aircraft'. The LCA's glitches, which inevitably exist in all complex new designs (for example, the F-35), would no doubt keep getting resolved as we go along. Of course it would be useful if the vendor selected for the M-MRCA also gives assistance in incorporating the necessary improvements in the LCA to improve upon it.

In the class of heavy multirole combat aircraft, the choice was made (wisely under the circumstances) a long time ago and the Su-30MKI, which is the envy of our neighbors and the pride of the IAF, is already under series production and this type will likely equip over 60% of IAF's authorized combat force by the time the last Su-30 rolls out of HAL's Nasik factory. No doubt the FGFA fifth generation fighter (which is largely based on Su-30/35 technologies) to be jointly developed by Russia and India would at a later date add to the heavy category. About 16-20% of the authorized combat force (around 126-200 aircraft) would then need to be equipped by the medium multi-role combat aircraft, the balance 20%, hopefully by the indigenous LCA. This raises the question of what type and size of aircraft we should be looking at, subject to its operational parameters for satisfying the IAF needs.

The cost and performance of a combat aircraft broadly depends upon its size and weight and what avionics and weapons it carries. This parameter would virtually rule out the Boeing Super Hornet (an excellent aircraft in its class) and the MiG-35 (for another reason) but both not too far from the Su-30 in size or origin [Livefist note: The MiG-35's MTOW is much less than the Su-30's]. It would neither be prudent nor affordable to maintain nearly 80% of the combat force consisting of just heavy multi-role aircraft from a single source for the coming decades since the world situation would no doubt have undergone major changes during this period.

At around 24,000 kg maximum weight, the French Rafale and the European Eurofighter Typhoon also come closer to the upper end of a medium combat aircraft. They offer great advantage in the quantum of fuel and weapon load carried, but it is only actual operation and detailed cost calculations that can tell us of their desirability in our inventory. This leaves us with two types with obvious advantages of being clearly in the category of 'medium' multi-role combat aircraft that have been offered in the RFP: the US Lockheed-Martin F-16IN Super Viper and the Swedish Saab Gripen NG/IN, both configured specially to meet Indian requirements (hence the 'IN' in their nomenclature).

Popular perceptions may opt against the F-16 since this has been mainstay with the Pakistan Air Force since 1982 and recent inductions are raising that force level to as many as 118 F-16s in PAF inventory [Livefist note: PAF F-16 force levels are less]. These are being upgraded, but are expected to remain somewhat 'inferior' to the F-16s being offered to India which should be taken serious note of. While the F-16 would remain the backbone of the Pakistan Air Force, its Indian version would imply a maximum of 16-20% of the IAF combat force level with the Su-30MKI far outstripping it in numbers. There is also an advantage if the United States is willing to transfer (on lease or sale) 100-odd partially used F-16s from its Air National Guard to the IAF.

However, the choice that comes closest to the 'medium' multi-role aircraft that the IAF has been seeking since a decade ago (the Mirage-2000 type) is the Swedish Gripen IN which has maximum and empty weights at around 17,000 kg and 7,000 kg respectively, almost equal to that of the Mirage-2000. Since the Mirage 2000 is not in the running anymore, this makes it necessary to focus on the aircraft type closest to the medium combat aircraft, that is, the Swedish Gripen and Lockheed-Martin F-16, with the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon included at the higher end. Gripen's manufacturers could also offer some aircraft from Swedish Air Force reserves as an interim. However much would depend on what is carried by the aircraft in terms of avionics and weapons apart from its flying performance that meets our needs.

But there is a larger issue that should receive serious attention: this refers to the other matter we set out to deal with, that is the impact of acquisitions from abroad on our aircraft industry in the future. It is vital that the next fighter deal must go well beyond simple purchase and even local manufacture of the fighter and its major systems. Even the license manufacture option leaves the country dependent on external sources of supply. We were lulled in the past into the belief that 'transfer of technology' was taking place while the reality that it was 'production technology' that was actually transferred and not the essential design technology and data. This is why we have had to go back to Moscow to upgrade even the comparatively less sophisticated aircraft like the MiG-21. We now have the Su-30 being manufactured under license though we don't know how much design data is being transferred to HAL. This is probably the reason for Russian discomfort over inclusion of the offsets clause on new purchases from them.

Large investments in defense modernization with high-technology weapons, particularly the acquisition of new fighters must be leveraged to energize our defense (especially aerospace) industry once it is clear that they fit into our doctrine and strategy in the larger context of what quality and quantity of aerospace forces are required for the next several decades. This should aim to serve two key purposes: build interdependence through horizontal and vertical partnerships and, secondly, empower India's industry through capacity building with acquisition of modern aerospace technology. Both these principles are crucial to strengthening self-reliance through enhancing mutual dependence with countries and their industries that are willing to do so. These are also important for sustaining our broader techno-economic growth rates. But these requirements can be met only through process of acquisition and horizontal diffusion of technology beyond our present vertically organized hierarchical aircraft design and development model remotely, but firmly, managed from South Block. Global trends in aerospace industry on one side and India's growing technological and economic capabilities on the other, point towards seeking mutual advantages in pursuing the horizontal technology diffusion route. This is where the issue of offsets assumes great importance.
The offsets clause in our procurement policy may be seen by many as infusing FDI to the extent of 30-50% of every contract into our economy. In spite of large reserves of foreign exchange available, future FDI would continue to be an important factor. But this cannot be the primary reason for seeking offsets. We will need spare parts for thirty years or more. In between there will be many requirements of modifications and upgrades of the systems. We should be able to provide as much as possible from indigenous (mostly private) industry through joint ventures that must be negotiated now. The importance and extent of such agreements would be crucial to maintaining high serviceability and low accident rates of the combat force and hence its effectiveness during war over the next three decades, and more.

The IAF's new fighter would require a mid-life upgrade 10-15 years after it enters service and this should provide a benchmark criterion for offsets to establish the ability to design and undertake that in India. This can be expected only if the prime manufacturers establish the necessary design, development and production facilities in country. The Maruti-Suzuki experience of vendor development which has led to high levels of automotive parts exports needs a special look in this regard. It needs to be remembered that design and development is the foundation for self-reliance and till recently this had suffered in our aircraft industry. The new M-MRCA has already been designed elsewhere. But we still have opportunities to access design and development of components, systems and sub-systems in partnership with foreign enterprises.


Ultimately all this must fit into the principle of broader national interests and (grand?) geopolitical strategy to sustain them beyond system costs and performance factors. The question of American 'reliability' will continue to worry a lot of minds for a long time. But in this business, most suppliers would be under the same scanner. European policies in the past have raised doubts about the impact of US policies on even product support and now some EU partners' differences may also impact their future actions. The Soviet Union (and the relationship it had with us) disappeared long ago and new dimensions are already impacting Indo Russian arms relationship, not the least of them being the Russian high-end military technology flows to China and the China-Pakistan strategic nexus where China is one of the two suppliers of high-technology arms for the Pakistan Air Force. The signals that Moscow is sending out are not very encouraging.

In the ultimate analysis our decision on the new M-MRCA must rest on broader national interests.

A well-known authority on aerospace in India, Air Cmde Singh is currently Director of the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS). The former Canberra pilot has also headed the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in New Delhi. This column appears in the latest issue of Vayu Aerospace & Defence Review. A copy of the column was sent to Livefist by CAPS.
 
.
^^^^^

The Article do makes lots of sense..though lot of fellow Indians would be disappointed at what is being suggested.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom