Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[kingdurgaking]

You still don't get it, the options can be part of the proposal from the manufacturer, just look at the EF, where most of the new capabilities are options. But that doesn't mean IAF has to accept them for their competition and as the article said, they rejected them before and based their judgment only on those capabilities that can be tested in the trials. So even if GE now would fund the EPE development alone and integrate an engine into the SH, for IAF it is too late and they will not accept it, but as I said, MoD could have a different oppinion.

Yeah options can be disposed by IAF... IAF can stand on one leg and say i dont want your $hit product... but you are not taking the whole picture which is my argument.. when IAF sent an RFP.. where they stated TWR be 1.0 but boeing product has a TWR be 0.8 ... so dont you think the prodcut will be reject in day 1 before trials? and it is not logical for Boeing to provide EPE in the proposal as part of configurations.... And i also cant prove that it is given as part of configuration.. but i go only by the news which he clearly mentions it is given as part of proposal and subsequent news confirming it is mandated with EPE for block 2

 

[dbc]

seems a deleberate 1 engine show

Yes, impressed with the Rafale's ability to complete the performance on one engine. In most cases, flight computer throttle restrictions kick in when the aircraft is supersonic or loaded. I don't recall ever seeing a fully loaded Rafale demo.

 

[rudrakx]

Combat aircraft deal shortlist to be out soon

“The shortlisted candidates for the MMRCA deal would be announced by beginning of May,” said a sourcefrom the ministry.

Simultaneously, their proposals for transfer of technology, critical for the rapid development of an Indian capability to build advanced fighters, are also being examined.

 

[SpArK]

Can The M-MRCA Be Completely Clean? No.​

If the MMRCA competition was indeed the impulse, Defence Minister AK Antony's warning to the Indian Air Force yesterday, asking them to stay alert against "corrupt practices of vested interests in the garb of aggressive marketing", should have ideally been pointed to the Defence Ministry seeing that the IAF has no work left in the selection process. So if there's been any "corrupt practices" (obviously there's been a lot of aggressive marketing) as far as the IAF is concerned, it's done with. Finito.

Considering that that the six companies in the fray for the Indian fighter deal have all signed integrity pacts with the MoD, I thought it might be useful to list, only for the record, each firm's recent brush with skulduggery. Some of these cases had consequences, some of them remain unresolved, some linger as allegations. But they all point, almost unanimously, to the possibility (not certainty) that each one of the competing firms in the Indian M-MRCA competition, indulged in "corrupt practices in the garb of aggressive marketing" at some point or the other. Maybe in the M-MRCA, maybe not. Ok, let's begin, in alphabetical order, and let's remember that this is by no means an exhaustive list, nor does it indicate complicity/guilt in each case:

BOEING DEFENSE: 1. The infamous Darleen Druyun episode, in which the Pentagon bureaucrat helped Boeing during tanker lease negotiations, while getting the company to pony up a post-retirement job opportunity for her and her family. Boeing made her a veep. Both she and Boeing's then CFO Mike Sears served time in prison. 2. In 2002, Boeing was accused of paying Choi Kyu-sun, a former aide to South Korea's President Kim $12-million to ensure that the country ordered F-15s, which Seoul ultimately did.

DASSAULT AVIATION: In 2002, as part of the same deal mentioned above, Dassault stood accused of paying a South Korean air force colonel approximately $10,000 for information on the country's F-X fighter competition. The colonel was court martialled, and Dassault hightailed it from South Korea vowing never to do business with the country again.

EUROFIGHTER: 1. Allegations of corruption in a deal with Austria. 2. Allegations of slush fund bribery against BAE Systems in the sale of Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia as part of the Al-Salam deal. Compounded by the fact that the UK Serious Frauds Office (SFO) decided to call off investigations in the "wider public interest", so the truth may never be known.

LOCKHEED-MARTIN: 1. In 2009, Lockheed's India head reportedly bolted from the country after being found in possession of MMRCA documents that he shouldn't have had access to. Lockheed refuted all the allegations, though the issue wasn't followed up by the Indian MoD. There's a book (I''ve just ordered it) about Lockheed-Martin's practices.

SAAB: Saab has faced bribery/corruption charges in connection with the sale of Gripen fighter jets to South Africa, Hungary (through BAE Systems) and Czech Republic.

UAC / RAC-MiG: 1. Was embroiled in a bribery scandal in the supply of MiG-27 jets to the Sri Lankan Air Force in 2007. 2. Bribery scandal in the supply of eight MiG-29 jets to the Bangladesh Air Force in 1999.

This list is only illustrative. Enough has happened in the M-MRCA competition so far to suggest that it hasn't been completely kosher.


Livefist: Can The M-MRCA Be Completely Clean? No.

 

[jha]

IAF Warned Against Aggressive Mkting, Corrupt Vendors

In what is indubitably inspired by the recent IAF bribery scandal at Aero India, Indian Defence Minister AK Antony today called upon the top brass of the IAF not to succumb to "corrupt practices indulged by vested interests in the garb of 'aggressive marketing’", demanding that the IAF "strive for probity and fair play in their day to day dealings". The Minister made the same call to the Army.

The Minister said, “Time and cost overruns apart, there is always the danger of falling prey to corrupt practices perpetrated by vested interests in the garb of aggressive marketing. I strongly urge you all to stand guard with resolve against any such overtures. You must strive to uphold sincerity, probity and fair play, even in your day to day administrative work.”

Livefist: IAF Warned Against Aggressive Mkting, Corrupt Vendors

 

[SpArK]

Does the vendors just bribe a few officials and can cut the deal??? are they those vulnerable??? sounds ridiculous..

 

[conworldus]

I wonder how much money India has spent on deciding which plane to buy over 10 years....

 

[Abingdonboy]

I wonder how much money India has spent on deciding which plane to buy over 10 years....

I wouldn't say it has cost India (GoI/MoD/IAF) very much at all except for the huge amount of man-hours put in by MoD/IAF officials writing reports and such. But the cost to each individual contender is HUGE literraly in the hundreds of MILLIONS (presentation, advertising, trails, maintenance, logistics etc) each individual competitor paid the costs of their a/c competiting in the MMRCA in the all the trails so these costs alone are massive (fuel, weapons, training etc). Not to mention miscellaneous costs like a slot at 4 Aero Indias (yes, it really has been going on that long!) All of these planes are state of the art and the associated costs of conducting flying and static displays are extensive ( the EFT costs $30-40,000/h of flying time WITHOUT factoring in cost of spent weapons).

 

[sancho]

May be the Rafale engines just fail at air shows? Performance anxiety?

Or you simply overhyping the issue, while the operational facts clearly says something else, but an interesting video.

Yes, impressed with the Rafale's ability to complete the performance on one engine. In most cases, flight computer throttle restrictions kick in when the aircraft is supersonic or loaded. I don't recall ever seeing a fully loaded Rafale demo.

At 8:34 you can see a Rafale in deep strike config with 3 x 2000l fuel tanks and 2 x Scalp cruise missiles

For comparison, other MMRCA fighter demos with heavy strike configs:

 

[sancho]

Yeah options can be disposed by IAF... IAF can stand on one leg and say i dont want your $hit product... but you are not taking the whole picture which is my argument.. when IAF sent an RFP.. where they stated TWR be 1.0 but boeing product has a TWR be 0.8 ... so dont you think the prodcut will be reject in day 1 before trials?

Or more logically, because they want ready and proven systems, that can be inducted fast. The fact that the F18SH offers less performance is a downer, but it's only one part of the requirements, in terms of strike capability, AESA radar and combat proven for example it is one of the leading contenders. Also don't forget that even the vendors openly questioned the RFP and that IAF accepted 6 fighters for the competition, that are pretty different and if IAF really knows what they want? We have air superiority fighters like the EF and the Mig, we have a single engine light fighter like the Gripen, while a heavy F18SH is exactly the opposite, we have proven fighters like the teens, or the Rafale, with paper planes like the Gripen NG and the Mig 35. So the RFP was not too demanding to kick competitiors from the start, even now it is expected that 3, or even 4 fighters will be shortlisted, which means fulfills the minimum requirements of IAF. Some are better, some not, but at the end it will be more than just the performance of the fighter that decides who wins.

Just by judging the technical requirements, I would not shortlist the EF (for not having AESA and strike capabilities ready in time), Gripen and Mig 35 (for not having final prototypes ready yet).
The teens and the Rafale on the other hand, have AESA in time, are ready and combat proven, which means offers less risks of delays, or operational limitations for the forces. But as I said, these are only parts of the facts that needs to be judged.

 

[luckyyy]

Just by judging the technical requirements, I would not shortlist the EF (for not having AESA and strike capabilities ready in time), Gripen and Mig 35 (for not having final prototypes ready yet).
The teens and the Rafale on the other hand, have AESA in time, are ready and combat proven, which means offers less risks of delays, or operational limitations for the forces. But as I said, these are only parts of the facts that needs to be judged.

A.K. Antony Monday warned the armed forces' top brass not to "fall prey to corrupt practices by vested interests".

and i thing this media/internet propoganda against competiters also comes under corrupt practices by vested interests.

 

[sancho]

I recently searched for older reports of the competition, especially about hints on the real requirements and found the following 2:

An analysis about the initial MRCA competition

Selection of MRCA for the IAF

Air Marshal B K Pandey

Former C-in-C, Training Command, Indian Air Force

...The requirement for the IAF is for a 20-tonne class, multi-role, fourth generation combat aircraft or alternatively, a late third generation airframe with fourth generation avionics and weapon systems. The IAF needs a force mix of long and medium range combat aircraft capable of both strike and air defence roles. The SU30 MKI is under induction to undertake long-range tasks in a strategic sense. The proposed MRCA would be expected to perform both roles over own airspace and battle areas in a tactical sense...

...The IAF has the infrastructure and is well trained to absorb higher levels of Russian and French technology, having operated third generation aircraft from both sources. The Indian aerospace industry has also accumulated considerable experience in Russian and French technology. On the other hand, there is complete lack of experience of Swedish technology and the exposure to American equipment is limited. Induction of aircraft from Swedish or American sources would involve further diversification and enlargement of the IAF inventory, necessitating the development of fresh production and maintenance infrastructure and reorientation of training of technical personnel. There are other imponderables with American policy, such as transfer of technology and co-production, which would be a prerequisite from the Indian point of view. With regard to price, the Grippen, the F16 and the MiG 29 M would carry a price tag estimated to be between $ 35 and 45 Million, excluding spares and ancillary equipment. The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 would have a price tag of approximately $ 65 Million, but compared with the MiG 29 M, would have lower life cycle costs. Of the four, only the F 16 and the Mirage 2000 have been tested in actual combat...

...However, the decision makers in the Indian establishment must penetrate the gloss and read the fine print carefully. Apart from the technological attributes, versatility and operational capability of the machine, they need to bear in mind a number of other important factors such as assurance of long-term logistic support, problems of integration with the IAF inventory, technological gains for the Indian aerospace industry, sanctions and denial regimes, financial implications and the nuances of the political dimension. In the final analysis, the process of selection of the MRCA for the IAF will not only be a techno-military dilemma but a challenging politico-economic exercise as well.

Security Research Review: Volume 1(3) Selection of MRCA for the IAF - Air Marshall(r) B K Pandey


If we take these points to account, it wasn't really surprising that IAF had favoured the Mirage 2000-5 back then and although the competition has got bigger now, most of these points should still be important!


This report is about the M - MRCA:

All new MRCA to be purchased from one company
IAF wants multi-mission, long-range, mid-air refueling capable jets


India Strategic had an informative interview session with the Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi major, on the eve of the Paris Air Show. This is the first part of the exhaustive interview, aimed at the IAF’s Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) requirement. The 2nd part, on other issues, will be carried in the next edition...

...India Strategic: There is a rumour that the order for the 126 MRCA could be split into three to “make everybody happy” due to the link between defence and diplomacy. It does not make sense to us but if it is just a rumour, then it is best set aside. If you are looking at Transfer of Technology (ToT), and meaningful offset advantages, dividing the procurement into three, or even two, suppliers is not going to be practical.

ACM Major: All issues related to procurement are analysed in a comprehensive manner at various levels to ensure that the best option is exercised. Factors like technology offered, initial cost, life-cycle cost, transfer of technology, and offsets will play a crucial role in the final decision.

India Strategic: You have a reasonably large choice from among half a dozen types. Kindly spell the broad Air Staff Requirements (ASR) and how are you going to choose one of those magnificent machines? What is the emphasis on?

ACM Major: The Air Staff Requirements are secret documents and cannot be revealed. However, I can assure you that the ASRs are designed to be contemporary and futuristic, and also have a cost-benefit angle.

In a generic sense, we want a medium weight, multi role combat aircraft that can undertake air defence, ground attack, maritime attack (anti-ship) and reconnaissance roles with ease.

We want the aircraft to have adequately long range and endurance to meet our operational requirements. Extension of range through air-to-air refueling is also desired. Ease of maintenance and low life cycle costs would form part of the selection criteria.

..:: India Strategic ::.. Indian Navy: All new MRCA to be purchased from one company


Both reports are good reads, especially because they don't come from unnamed sources, like we often see!

 

[sancho]

A.K. Antony Monday warned the armed forces' top brass not to "fall prey to corrupt practices by vested interests".

and i thing this media/internet propoganda against competiters also comes under corrupt practices by vested interests.

Which is good, but what has it to do with the technical shortfalls of these fighters?

 

[luckyyy]

Which is good, but what has it to do with the technical shortfalls of these fighters?

IAF has yet not disclosed any technical shortfallsof any fighter in the compition , it's only the blogers and internet posters gunning the speculations every day...

 

[sancho]

IAF has yet not disclosed any technical shortfallsof any fighter in the compition , it's only the blogers and internet posters gunning the speculations every day...

They won't do it anyway, but you can see the facts from the official sources of the vendors! EF consortium admitted several times that their AESA will be ready by 2015, if the development is funded, but the companies prefunded it only till last month, so is it just speculation that the EF falls short at here? Same goes for the final prototypes of Mig 35 and Gripen, which still are not available, because both are waiting for a firm order of any customer.
However, I still don't understand the relation to the bribery issue.