What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^^
Actually it wasn't clear. They never mentioned our name. I don't know how news agencies got to this conclusion. But even if US has barred Israel from selling this, we can go for a JV on next gen aesa based on e/l 2052, after-all we will be using these aesa on 5th gen fighter jet and radar will be very important for that. Also, Israel loves to exploit loopholes and become pain in the a** for US.
 
@ Prateek

P.S. If you take a closer look at this pic, especially at the EFs in the background you will see, that they all are loaded for strikes, but don't carry BVR missiles:

http://www.eurofighter.com/typo3temp/pics/a01bf2f02b.jpg


So we are not talking about a single pic, or a single fighter, but a real EF strike config in it's first real combat missions. There must be a reason for it and I'm curious what this might be?

Oh common - Stop your dream speculation .

Here is official press release from Horse's mouth

5859270497_ff8cb20a3f_b.jpg


I have highlighted in red box

Source -
Eurofighter:  News Detail

Pic is from official eurofighter's magazine .
 
^^^
Hey Sancho is there any indication that India will be building separate aesa for different fighters ?/ If not then i think we should opt for Elta because e/l 2052 is only one of the aesa which can fit on every fighter as we can change the number of modules based on the diameter of the nose. While in other aesa we cannot change as per our requirement. In short e/l 2052 can fit on lca as well as mmrca as well as su30mki (or fgfa or amca) while other aesa's doesnot have this feature.

As Jha correctly said, the Elta 2052 is only possible with US approval and even joint developments based on this radar is not possible. Saab wanted the same for Gripen NG in the MMRCA, but the US jumped in and put pressure on the Israelis to reject the offer. The US knew quiet well that a Gripen NG with Elta radar, Litening LDP, Python V, Spice PGMs, would be hard to deny for Indian forces and would have been a good competitior, even the fighter needs years for development.
A single radar for different fighters is possible of course, that's why a radar co-development based on the winning MMRCA AESA would be a good idea as well, but if they would be as good as the AESA that is under development for Pak Fa is difficult to say, because Russians and Europeans are only in development stage now.


Oh common - Stop your dream speculation .

Here is official press release from Horse's mouth

And all they say is that they used AMRAAM, not how many. The pic on the right is even the same that I posted as well and it has no AMRAAM fitted! The fact is, that most of the EFs in strike role carry only a single BVR, others even none and I already provided clear proves for it.
 
^^^ Indian own MMR shaping well...It will be interesting to see the AESA variant..
 
^^^ Indian own MMR shaping well...It will be interesting to see the AESA variant..

Any reliable infos on that? To be honest, I didn't find a single reliable source now, we don't even know if the Tejas prototypes now using Israeli MMR, or the Indian MMR now for sure. That and that IAF searches for an foreing partner for AESA radar developments makes clear, that the indigenous developments in that area are by far not as capable as the froeign right?
We could also look at DRDO AWACS, where the specs hints to an comparable radar performance like the older Erieye system, whic for the first attemped is great of course, but I still would go for an more capable Russian AESA in FGFA, than an less capable indigenous one on the top end fighters.
 
And all they say is that they used AMRAAM, not how many.

So you came to conclusion that only 1 can be carried .

That to from different angle pics of a single jet , on a single day .

The pic on the right is even the same that I posted as well and it has no AMRAAM fitted! The fact is, that most of the EFs in strike role carry only a single BVR, others even none and I already provided clear proves for it.

OK , so by that pic one should also conclude that Eurofighter can't carry a single AMRAAM in A2G config.

And all other pictures taken worldwide by photographers in last 8 years, like the one below are

work.5644176.1.flat,550x550,075,f.bae-eurofighter-typhoon.jpg


probably fake / photo shopped ???

Wait or you want to say this capability of carrying load declined in 2011 from 2006 .

And Indian Air force evaluation team is biggest fool on earth , to have seen demonstration by Eurofighter in A2G and A2A mission and found it fully compliant to indian req .
If we believe your theory of only 1 BVR - Then Typhoon = Mig21 . And still it cleared the evaluation trials of A2G mission

Oh , yes then we have another theory of your's - Eurofigter was selected to put pressure of Dassault .
Great - same company on which we are putting pressure for last 6 years for mirage upgrade and still struggling and begging .
 
So you came to conclusion that only 1 can be carried .
That to from different angle pics of a single jet , on a single day .

That's your claim not mine, I just said that that is a strange load for and multi role fighter and that there must be a reason for it. And again there were several EFs on several occasions. One pic from the official Eurofighter website alone showed 4 EFs without the normal BVR load, so get over it and take it as it is.
All the old pics during training, or weapon trials are no point here, because this is a real war situation and the so called "most advanced fighter of the world" is not limiting it's already limited capabilities even more, without a reason.
 
Really , I never claimed that only one can be carried .
I still say - 4BVRAAM+2SRAAM+2Drop tanks+1 LGB pod + 4 Paveway4 PGM .

I just said that that is a strange load for and multi role fighter and that there must be a reason for it.

Now you come to point , yes its strange . Even i have no clue about that .
Only RAF would know why .

Better ask this question at Keypub forum - EFLitening , Quadbike would have some info on this . You are registered as Sancho78 if i am not mistaken.

And again there were several EFs on several occasions. One pic from the official Eurofighter website alone showed 4 EFs without the normal BVR load

Which one is this pic with 4 eurofighters ?????


All the old pics during training, or weapon trials are no point here, because this is a real war situation and the so called "most advanced fighter of the world" is not limiting it's already limited capabilities even more, without a reason.

Of course its a point there- no doubt . If Eurofighter is so limited in A2G capability - How the Hell did IAF cleared it .
If they can not deliver - firstly they would have been rejected outright .

real war situation

I am quoting this from KeyPub forum shamelessly :P

"As one Typhoon pilot more or less put it; theres not much difference operating on CAPs in Libya than it is in the UK. Only difference is is that they're more likely to actually shoot something down over Libya. Other than that, normal days work."
credit EF-LIGHTNING
 
So you came to conclusion that only 1 can be carried .

That to from different angle pics of a single jet , on a single day .

OK , so by that pic one should also conclude that Eurofighter can't carry a single AMRAAM in A2G config.

And all other pictures taken worldwide by photographers in last 8 years, like the one below are

probably fake / photo shopped ???

Wait or you want to say this capability of carrying load declined in 2011 from 2006 .

And Indian Air force evaluation team is biggest fool on earth , to have seen demonstration by Eurofighter in A2G and A2A mission and found it fully compliant to indian req .
If we believe your theory of only 1 BVR - Then Typhoon = Mig21 . And still it cleared the evaluation trials of A2G mission

Oh , yes then we have another theory of your's - Eurofigter was selected to put pressure of Dassault .
Great - same company on which we are putting pressure for last 6 years for mirage upgrade and still struggling and begging .

Prateek,

No doubt EFT is one of the greatest fighter.... but you have to understand that.. EFT has demonstrated only limited A2G promising in Tranche 3A it will be fully compatible.... Even IAF has choosen these two though they didnt have any functional AESA during the trails only under written/Signed document that .. these will be delivered otherwise IAF will file suit claiming damages from these firms .. secondly there was a progress made in the areas that made IAF to accept these two aircrafts... currently Rafale is fully compatible in all specs as compared to EFT.. though it will not outclass EFT (incase they developed what is promised trance 3) but Rafale definitely lives upto or exceeds IAF's expectation.. what is important is the money and industrial offset which both of us will provide...

As far as Sancho's argument that we will end up paying money for EFT consortium is totally wrong also.. but there is a risk factor .. where as Rafale has made progress in all the areas... which ever is cheaper and providing us the best Industrial offset .. will be the best fighter for us
 
King....^^^^^ , Few corrections . Eurofighter for Indian evaluation flew with AESA radar

"Eurofighter too test-flew a prototype AESA radar for the IAF evaluation team, convincing them that it would be ready by 2014-15."

Broadsword: Rejected MMRCA vendors fight to return


The problem is - Everyone is comparing Eurofighter with Rafale based on present specs and Libyan conflict .

But you have to accept Eurofighter flew for first time good 8-10 years later than Rafale . You got to give time for Eurofighter to close this gap of 10 years by Rafale , which it probably will in next 4-5 years.
Eurofighter is still in evolution stage of its cycle .

Even the Tornado took a few years to get where they are today, same said for the Rafale, F-16, F-18, F-15, Mirage, Jaguar, Harrier etc, you name them, they've all taken time to develope through out the years, so we can say they're late developers and immature too .


Rafale has certainly proved its worth and I take my hat off to it. It deserves its praise but at the end of the day, it was designed to do this type of work . But just because Eurofighter only rushed in last minute effort to show A2G capability in LIBYA - is in no way indicator of how good Aerodyanmic design it will turn out when fully developed .
 
Now you come to point , yes its strange . Even i have no clue about that .
Only RAF would know why .

Better ask this question at Keypub forum - EFLitening , Quadbike would have some info on this . You are registered as Sancho78 if i am not mistaken.

That's what I said from the start, or better what I asked, because you first replied exactly to that question! I am, but use that forum and BR only when I search for specific infos.


Which one is this pic with 4 eurofighters ?????

Check the pics that I showed you, there is one with an EF taking of and 2 or 3 in the background, all with strike config and all without the normal BVR missile load. You can even check the serials and can see that they are different fighters on most of the pics. It's defenitely a common loadout of the EF in Libya during strikes!


Of course its a point there- no doubt . If Eurofighter is so limited in A2G capability - How the Hell did IAF cleared it .
If they can not deliver - firstly they would have been rejected outright .

Because the trials were not all that was taken into account, the proposal of EF includes more weapons and capabilities, weapons like RBS 15, Storm Shadow, Brimstone..., we can have them integreated if we want, we just have to pay for it!
All they was able to really prove in the weapon trials in Europe was dropping the Paveway 2 that they use in Libya and the Paveway IV that they integrate now, nothing else!
Even RAF pilots in the recent articles confirmed, that the EF is accompanied by Tornados, because the latter can carry more variety of weapons, compared to the limited EF. Or that it is useful to have an WSO that can takeover the guidance of the LGB, which the EF don't have as well.
The Rafale on the other hand has it all and has it all now, without additional costs, or time for developments, that's an undeniable fact!


I am quoting this from KeyPub forum shamelessly :P

"As one Typhoon pilot more or less put it; theres not much difference operating on CAPs in Libya than it is in the UK. Only difference is is that they're more likely to actually shoot something down over Libya. Other than that, normal days work."
credit EF-LIGHTNING

Which is not even surprising, because the EF was deployed in the Libyan conflict only as a 2nd day fighter, when the air defence and airbases where taken out by cruise missiles, Rafale, Tornado, F18 Growler and F15 strikes.
These are the prime frontline fighters, or most capable fighters, that will be deployed in any war at first, while the less capable fighters will assist them later in secondary missions and that's what the EF did, assisting the Tornado and providing cover!
 
India averse to inking military pacts with U.S

The Hindu : News / National : India averse to inking military pacts with U.S.


Washington upset after Boeing and Lockheed Martin knocked out of race for combat aircraft

As the dust over rejection of two U.S. companies from the Rs. 11,000-crore Indian Air Force tender for fighter aircraft settles, official sources said the United States would also have to reconcile with India's unwillingness to sign three military pacts.

The U.S. was extremely upset after Boeing and Lockheed Martin were knocked out of the race for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

The issue figured in the May 9 conversation between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President Barack Obama after the U.S. Embassy contended that the evaluation was not transparent.

The final report listed some qualitative requirements not met by the U.S. companies. But Washington claimed that these deficiencies were not mentioned in the initial report.

However, India has been unwavering in backing the evaluation of some 600 qualitative requirements of the six fighters in contention.

While the U.S. was denied a strategic foothold in the IAF's offensive capabilities segment, it could face continued stonewalling with respect to three military pacts — Logistics Sharing Agreement (LSA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA).

The Indian attitude a month ahead of the strategic dialogue between External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to keep the issue away from the main agenda.
No hidden objective

The U.S. argues that there is no hidden aim behind the LSA. It is an inter-bank type of clearing arrangement — there will be periodical settlement of accounts for the use of each other's facilities.

For instance, Indian naval ships have had 45 refuellings from the U.S. ships in the Gulf of Aden. Under the LSA, payments need not be made each time. The expenses could be adjusted against the money owed to India if U.S. ships came calling here.

But the Indian leadership feels that the LSA will give the impression of a strategic agreement with the Pentagon in military operations.

After the Defence-Secretary level Defence Policy Group (DPG) meeting in Washington earlier this year, both sides agreed to work towards a more “mature arrangement.'' But there was no “question of a blanket agreement,'' said the official sources.

India confronts a technical issue in signing the CISMOA, though officials feel it sounds heavier than it is. They also feel that interoperability, as argued by the U.S., need not be dependent on signing the CISMOA.

The communication will be encrypted and no other algorithm can be used on the system. During joint exercises, U.S. personnel sit on Indian ships with their own equipment.

But on aircraft there is no space for two or three different kinds of equipment.

The Navy and the Air Force have said they had no problems either way but politically this remains a sensitive issue though officials say it is not as heavy as it sounds.

India also has reservations on the third military agreement sought by the U.S. — BECA. The U.S. says the pact will enable C-130 and C-17 planes to fly close to the ground.

This entails installation of ground sensors, which none in the security establishment, except the Defence Research & Development Organisation is keen on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom