What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then you have to understand that not everything the companies develop, will be funded and procured by the partner countries.

For example, the consortium companies had developed TVC for the EF nearly a decade ago and it would be ready for T3A, but so far no partner country had shown interest in funding and integrating it. That's the reason why the consortium companies are offereing it to international customers like India, if we pay extra for it, that feature will be integrated and could be available for all EFs.
That is the same with F18SH and the growth plan options like the GE 414 EPE engine, it is on offer for us, but only if we pay for development and integration, because USN has no interest in it. Or like HMS and CFTs at Rafale.

I am sorry.. the basic knowledge on RFP is.....the Proposal document from the vendors will contain , AMC, support and software along with hardware ++ all other requisites.. when Consortium raises these are the features they are going to offer to IAF ... they will charge the same for the features.. it is not going to land on the head of IAF ... feel free to disagree... how the wildest imagination it is going to increase further once the deal is sealed?
secondly FSH road map is a future offer... not the one given to IAF... i guess you are getting confused on multi dimensional..
 
Really :what:...

Yes you did, but leaving the context out of the quote doesn't help to understand it don't you think?

It was you that claimed the data link singnals can be detected, but besides the fact that you didn't say how, I said even if that would be true, one could detect the signals only when the missile is already launched (for mid course correction). Before that, the data link is not in use, but IRST, the MICA IR seekers and mainly SPECTRA, all these are passive and don't emit and you didn't denied that!


You are confused Radar+data link is not passive

Again you should have checked the context of the discussion, it was about ways to guide weapons and transfer the data to them.


Rubbish , PIRATE dosen't depend on AWACS to launch or guide weapons
IRST device on Eurofighter can calculate bearing data, know precise location to launch IR missile passively

And for the 3rd time check the context before you comment!
We talked about long range weapon guidance by the EWS an not short range guidance only by the IRST.

SPECTRA slaves FSO and feeds it with target data by it's sensors to use MICA and AASM at long ranges. DASS can't do that, because it is not able to locate the target as accurate, therefor it can't slave PIRATE to guide weapons on targets at BVR ranges. PIRATE can do that only with external data feeded by data links, for example AWACS data!
 
secondly FSH road map is a future offer... not the one given to IAF... i guess you are getting confused on multi dimensional..

Not really, from the growth plan, the EPE engine and the spherical MAWS/LWR are on offer for the F18SH in MMRCA, they have to do it to fulfill the technical reequirements of the RFP, but on offer doesn't mean funded, developed and integrated!


That will result in more costs to replace a already capable radar with a true next gen AESA plus this states from 2015 who knows if there will be delay further.

Right and even the consortium companies are warning about delays and not meeting the time lines of MMRCA, if the partners will not get to a decision and fund the development. Time is runing, because they pre-funded the development only till next month, anything above that is completly unsure and might depend on the shortlistings of MMRCA.
 
Not really, from the growth plan, the EPE engine and the spherical MAWS/LWR are on offer for the F18SH in MMRCA, they have to do it to fulfill the technical reequirements of the RFP, but on offer doesn't mean funded, developed and integrated!

so if it has to qualify means... it would have provided the proposal with the appropriate cost.. so the final cost will be on MoD's bench... i dont think any vendor will be stupid to quote more than $10^9... if they need to get the deal
 
Eurofighter faces pivotal year for Typhoon programme, says chief executive

This year will be pivotal for the Eurofighter programme if production lines are not to stop in 2015.
The four-nation project has to secure orders for either Tranche 3B aircraft - now under review by Italy and the UK - or export sales in 2011 or face making mass lay-offs in four years' time.
That is the stark message from Eurofighter chief executive Enzo Casolini, who describes this as a "year of transition" for the company. He adds: "At the moment the situation looks a little bit dark. If you judge from 25 January what will happen at the end of 2015 I have to tell you that we will close production lines. But we are making a lot of effort in several directions."

getAsset.aspx


Chief among these is the ongoing competition for the Indian air force's medium multi-role combat aircraft, which has the potential to deliver orders for up to 126 fighters. Casolini believes that intensive political lobbying from Eurofighter's four partner nations will be vital to secure the contract.
Aside from India, he identifies Japan, Malaysia and the Gulf states as other key potential customers for large orders.
There is also the possibility of selling smaller numbers into eastern Europe, he points out, particularly if nations can be persuaded to pool resources to lower their in-service costs.
"If they all have the same sort of fighter then it is easier to create a common logistic support system and therefore cost is minimised," Casolini says. He identifies the Czech and Slovak Republics and Poland as ideal for a system of shared support.
Eurofighter has also seen Denmark make a tentative approach towards re-igniting its interest in the Typhoon, having apparently backed away from an earlier preference to order Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter without staging a competition.
Casolini believes there is a global requirement for around 800 fighter aircraft, of which Eurofighter could secure 200.....?
Could this be a hint that he has smelled getting the MMRCA contract?
 
I found an interesting quote from a former F-14A pilot that converted to the F/A-18 F. His comments published in the Wings of Gold a Association of Naval Aviation publication supports what I've been saying about the Super Hornet all this time. If a vanilla F-414 400 allows the F/A-18 E/F to "accelerate faster than anything out there" imagine what the F-414 EPE will do..:azn:

"The first impression every new aircrew experiences is the E/F's impressive acceleration, especially at low altitude. The jet jumps off the deck and climbs much quicker than anyone is used to from previous platforms. I've never had a takeoff roll in afterburner of more than 2,000 feet in the Super Hornet. A favorite demonstration for someone on a first flight is to accelerate from 250 to 550 knots on the deck. The jet holds your head back in the head box the entire time and picks up 100 knots every nine seconds all the way to 550. The EIF doesn't have the topend interceptor speed of the Tomcat or Eagle, but will accelerate faster than anything out there."

LT Kevin Aanestad (Pilot, F-14A and F/A-18 F):

Super Hornet update | Wings of Gold | Find Articles at BNET
 
That is the stark message from Eurofighter chief executive Enzo Casolini, who describes this as a "year of transition" for the company. He adds: "At the moment the situation looks a little bit dark. If you judge from 25 January what will happen at the end of 2015 I have to tell you that we will close production lines....

Confirms what I stated often before, the EF is in big trouble and the future potential is totally dependent on big export order!
UK and Italy reviewing T3B order and most likely will switch to more F35 Bs, although it might be slightly more expensive ($109 vs $133 millions fly away) and delayed, but they are partners as well and will have to fund way less weapons and techs, that the EF badly needs.
Germany is cutting not only the defense budget, but the size of the forces completelly, by making it a fully professional force. That's why the size of the AF fleet is now under review as well, which makes T3B orders doubtful as well. Not to mention Spain, that are close to bankruptcy.

So the question is, will they offer enough cost reductions and ToT/offset advantages to equal the operational disadvantages?



Production line comparison of MMRCA contenders:

Mig 35 - not started, no orders in sight

F16 - according F16.net the production will end around 2013

Gripen C/D & E/F - the production for Swedish AF will end around 2014, no E/F ordered yet and will depend mainly on an export order

EF - without export, or additional T3B orders, the production will end around 2015

F18SH - with new orders orders for USN, the production will be extended till 2017

Rafale - production for France alone runs beyond 2020
 
Could this be the nail in the coffin for the US MMRCA contender(s)?
Here's why:
Without CISMOA, U.S. M-MRCA Contenders Come Minus Kit
Livefist: Without CISMOA, U.S. M-MRCA Contenders Come Minus Kit

FA-18%2BAIRCRAFT-755286.JPG


Without a communications interoperability and security memorandum of agreement (CISMOA) or information security (INFOSEC) agreement between India and the United States, the Boeing F/A-18I Super Hornet and Lockheed-Martin F-16IN Super Viper -- both contenders in the IAF's $12-billion M-MRCA aircraft competition -- won't come with certain pieces of equipment that are categorized under the highly restricted US C4ISR list. While a specific list of the withheld equipment is not yet available, my sources sent me this list:

* IFF transponder equipment (Mode IV IFF CRYPTO)
* "KY" radios
* GPS/PPS
* Data links
* Sensor source codes for all AN/APG

According to the same sources, US rules dictate that exceptions can be made on a case by case basis, and that India doesn't need to sign the CISMOA if it is granted a waiver by the US government. However, that may not be the case any more. To quote from a 16 March 2006 policy memorandum authored by USAF Lt Gen (Retd) Jeffrey B. Kohler, then head of the Pentagon's foreign military sales agency (and since 2008, ahem, VP at Boeing IDS for international strategy):

Transfers of U.S. C4ISR systems to eligible countries and international organizations must support a U.S. Combatant Commander’s (COCOM) interoperability requirements. The COCOM must require the transfer of the capability. A purchaser’s desire to be interoperable with the United States is insufficient justification for release. Additionally, the purchaser must negotiate and sign a Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) or other bilateral INFOSEC agreement (e.g., COMSEC MOU, INFOSEC Equipment Agreement) with the COCOM, prior to physically receiving any U.S. INFOSEC products or services associated with a secure C4ISR system. The COCOM and the purchaser’s authorized official sign the bilateral CISMOA unless covered under a multilateral treaty and/or separate bilateral agreements, which negates the requirement to sign a CISMOA. The COCOM may negotiate exceptions to a CISMOA on a case-by-case basis. A purchaser should be approved for access to classified C4ISR data and INFOSEC prior to submitting a C4ISR Letter of Request (LOR).

Interestingly, a year later on 23 March 2007, Kohler rescinded the earlier policy. In the new one, among a lot else, the line noting the possibility of exceptions to CISMOA on a case-by-case basis was summarily expunged. No exceptions.

When I asked the Indian Air Force chief last in October last year about his concerns with the CISMOA overhang and what it would strip from American aircraft being delivered to his force, he had said it would make no substantial difference. Someone needs to ask him specifically about the M-MRCA.
 
SeaGripen-02.jpg

Sea Gripen will be ready for Indian Navy in no time: SAAB Official


SOURCE : VINAYAK SHETTI FOR SECURITY MAGAZINE FEB EDITION

At Saab Aero India 2011 Pavilion, Indian air force’s MMRCA competition was highly discussed topic at each six aircraft manufactures Pavilion, but we managed to get some information on Sea Gripen which has been offered to Indian navy which seeks buy a new naval fighter for its second line of 4++ Gen fighter rather than already purchased Mig-29k.

Saab official re-confirmed that SAAB has responded to Indian navy’s request for information (RFI) on a new naval fighter last year, he also added that Sea Gripen would be part of long term industrial development package for India if it selects Gripen NG for its MMRCA Competition.

When asked about the changes that are required in Sea Gripen, he responded “Sea Gripen will require Stronger and longer nose wheel, with larger tires and new shock absolvers and new under carriage with 6.3m/sec sink rate, new materials to avoid corrosion risk and new FCS system for carrier landing and takeoff”

When asked how long will it take to make these new changes? , official responded that since Sea Gripen is targeted only for few countries (Brazil and India) technical and feasibility study has already been carried out but Demo aircraft can be ready in no time if interest are shown for the platform, well he could not disclose time required to carry out this changes, but experts put it at 2 years for the SAAB to carry out this Structural changes in the aircraft.

When asked about the developmental cost required for making a Demo Sea Gripen? Official responded “I could guess it will be half of the developmental cost of Gripen NG since Sea Gripen will be based on Gripen NG platform”

When asked if Rafale and F-18 SH holds a upper hand in Navy deal since they already have a developed Naval version of it ? , Saab official first tried to be evasive but finally did agree that Rafale and F-18 SH will have upper hand since this aircrafts are in operational with their respected navies and are Carrier capable, but also added the SAAB had already conducted in depth study on Sea Gripen for years now, and aircraft will be ready if Gripen NG is selected for IAF and Navy also selects the same in no time.

Sea Gripen will be ready for Indian Navy in no time: SAAB Official


Important points:

- Sea Gripen development offered as offset/ToT package in MMRCA (which is not useful by the fact that we already develop N-LCA)

- Development is dependent on final Gripen E/F design and could be ready around 2 years later (around 2015, the same time when N-LCA will be ready)

- Development costs half the ammount of Gripen NG development (additional costs for us, because Sweden has no interest in naval fighters)

- Rafale and F18SH are better naval choices
 
SeaGripen-02.jpg



Sea Gripen will be ready for Indian Navy in no time: SAAB Official


Important points:

- Sea Gripen development offered as offset/ToT package in MMRCA (which is not useful by the fact that we already develop N-LCA)

- Development is dependent on final Gripen E/F design and could be ready around 2 years later (around 2015, the same time when N-LCA will be ready)

- Development costs half the ammount of Gripen NG development (additional costs for us, because Sweden has no interest in naval fighters)

- Rafale and F18SH are better naval choices

rafale naval is the best choice( or increse no. of m29k or nlca)
 
India wants fighter jets

As Boeing vies for a contract to build 126 new fighter jets for India, an estimated 35,000 new US jobs are at stake. But America’s foreign policy may tilt India toward European firms instead.

0225-India-wants-fighter-jets_full_600.jpg


An Indian Air Force pilot dressed in a flight suit and sunglasses struts up to an F/A-18 flight simulator and a Boeing salesman engages.

“Your call sign must be Maverick,” says the Boeing agent, referencing "Top Gun," an ‘80s film probably older than this Indian jet jockey. “You look like Tom Cruise."

After a curt “no,” the Indian pilot asks to test out the machine. He lauds the F/A-18's maneuverability and touch-screen cockpit display. It's a far cry from what he currently flies: A Soviet MiG-21 that was outdated even in Maverick’s day. India is looking to buy 126 new fighter jets and Boeing is dogfighting against five international firms to land the deal this year.

Despite some of the sales tactics on display at the recent Aero India 2011 show in Bangalore, there’s more to selling fighter jets than moving Chevys. Giving "test-drives" and offering value for money is important, but so are international politics. And on that score, US firms have hurdles that European competitors do not.

Much is at stake for the American economy, including a $10 billion-plus sale and an estimated 35,000 new US jobs. Trips by presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush to India have increased US chances of bringing home that bacon. But America’s not-so-humble foreign policies over the years may prove costly in an era of strong European competition in the defense industry.

“The quality of European airplanes today – for that matter the Russians, too – has now reached a point where countries like India really do have choices,” says Ashley Tellis, author of a study on the jet fighter tender for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “In that sense, [US] political choices are more constrained than they were before.”

India's 'trust deficit' toward America

Retired Indian generals and industry analysts say Indian officials have two reservations about buying American.

First, New Delhi worries about relying on US parts given the sanctions Washington imposed in 1998 when India went nuclear. In case of a war with archrival Pakistan – a US strategic ally – would Washington curtail military trade again?

Second, US law requires defense agreements to be signed by any country purchasing certain high-tech military equipment. The US failed during Obama’s visit last year to get Indian sign-off on two such agreements: the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), and the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMoA).

According to Mr. Tellis, the CISMoA would keep India from transferring sensitive US encryption technology to another country. The BECA, meanwhile, has been misunderstood as a deal that would plot Indian military units on a global grid visible to the US and its partners.

“The fact of the matter is that this is not true,” says Tellis, who has served on the US National Security Council.

He and other analysts doubt the defense agreements will be central to Delhi’s decision on the fighters. But the suspicion about the agreements speaks to the lingering distrust of the US.

An Indian defense industry consultant who works with international firms and the Indian military says the Indians will only buy American for systems where there is no good competitor. The trust deficit, he says, comes not just from the 1998 sanctions, but US treatment of other friends.

Do European firms have less baggage?

It’s a point other nations bring up.

Ravit Rudoy, marketing communications manager for Israeli firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., argues the US will be careful to ensure a military balance between India and Pakistan, while that concern is not shared by the one Russian and three European firms also vying for the fighter jet deal.

Tellis sees Europeans as more willing to provide equipment with no questions asked because their firms need foreign sales more to stay afloat. “The European market is so small, so they cannot afford to make their commercial products playthings of geopolitics.”

Representatives of Boeing and Lockheed Martin say international politics are not a hurdle for US firms here. Rick McCrary, Boeing’s lead on the jet fighter bid, points to the “ongoing, improving relationship” between Washington and New Delhi that has now spanned three administrations, both Republican and Democratic.

Obama builds goodwill toward US firms

Much has changed since 1998, including the signing of a nuclear deal under Mr. Bush and the lifting of export restrictions on Mr. Obama’s recent visit, he adds.

Ramesh Phadke, a retired Indian Air Force officer, agrees that Indian suspicions about the US have diminished in recent years, signaled by some purchases of equipment.

“America maintaining a special relationship with Pakistan has always been a major factor in all decisions India has made with Americans, but it’s also been accepted up to a point,” says Air Commodore Phadke. “That does not mean that India likes it.”

Privately, one US executive who is not authorized to speak argues the defense agreements are a “barrier” for the American bids.

“The playing field isn’t level” with the Europeans, says the executive. “We’re perceived by the Indians as being heavy handed. If you actually read the language of the agreements they are not as intrusive as the Indians are making them out to be…. [But] they want a relationship on an equal footing.”

Obama has played to that desire by endorsing India’s bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat. And Tellis says the administration will continue to be accommodating if a US firm is a chosen as a finalist.

“I think the Obama administration will really do its utmost to make sure that whatever concerns India has both on a political and technical level are assuaged, because the US at this point for economic reasons really wants to see this deal.”
 
The Promotional video for new Eurofighter display skin which will fly for the first time at the Virtual TUKUMS Airshow



:what::what::what:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom