Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The New Deal of +40 ACs will definately make companies rethink.
Its a win win situation for All Sides.
The Companies will get a huge Cash even in recession era as of now, and will get even more for spares and future support.
IN will have a Cheaper buy, IAF can go for even better arm twisting and negotations and get what they really want.
IMO, since im a big Rafale Fan..
if we are going for 240 ACS we should have...
124-200 - SH18 [ for IAF ]
40 - Rafale [ for IN ]
[ So ONE platform for Each Arm ]
So Its SH18 or Rafale or Both.
It is already with combined deals of EADS (Eurocopter) and Dassault (Rafale) in Brazil and as I said, the French Gov directly is a shareholder of EADS, so no doubt about support for me.
France is a veto power in the UN, just like US, Russsia, or Britain and one of the leading countries in the EU. So it is not comparable to Sweden, the only problem is that France already supports India.
That's why I said, F18SH for IAF would mainly be a political decision, to get the US on our side for a permanent UN seat.
It's not only for the speculated 36 fighter, the real need of Brazilian air force is nearly equal to the MMRCA tender around 100 fighters. That's why so much ToT and other benefits are in the game, even from Boeing.
EADS already said that India can't be an equal partner, but could be a partner in production of avionics.
True, but technically it will be inferior to LCA MK2 and the upg per fighter cost more than buying a new LCA MK2.
Has it? I know that there was a RFP issued and Harpoon and Exocet are the contenders, but never heared that they bought it.
Because the Rafale is not primarily a stealth air superiority fighter! F22 techs like stealth, supercruise, TVC, long range radar are nearly useless in Afghanistan and you don't need a $300 million dollar fighter, if F15s and F18s can to the same too.
The only need for fighters their are for strike missions and because the Rafale can do this kind of missions now it is there and EF is not.
And as I told you that is not correct, most of it only in testing stage.
CESAR was only a tech demonstrator of the coming Captor E which is not developed now!
Even the Gripen NG Demonstrator had a AESA tech demonstrator for a long time, but now they made the first flight of the new Selsex AESA radar. As you can see, the EF is even behind the Gripen NG in this field and as long Italy is against the AESA development, it will be more delayed.
That's 3 years before the Cesar tech demonstrator made its first flight in the nose of a test aircraft.
As simple as it is, they brought AESA to the trials, because the competiton is for fighters with AESA radars and they have their radar ready!
Even Euro Radar officials has stated, if the final decision about the Captor-E won't be taken till dec, it will be more than difficult to have the radar ready for export customers like India and that the first versions for the consortium members could only be ready by 2013.
That's why I said, the EF is a great fighter, but way too delayed in development that IAF can't take the risk and pay such high costs. Rafale instead is more mature now and offers good performance in all roles where IAF needs it. It might be inferior to EF in air superiority missions, but for this role IAF already has MKI and is developing FGFA.
By the fact that no other French companies are involved in EF, it should be clear that the Dassault bid is way more beneficial for the country and where their focus is.Well since France is a major part of EADS, I suppose they would support Eurofighter's bid.
First of all, are the other countries not selling everyone? Russia sells arms to China and engines to Pakistan. US is a prime supporter of Pakistan and only turns to us, because of more money to earn and India as a counter weight against China. Even our number 1 weapon supplier Israel, sold several techs and weapons to China and even our Phalcon AWACS was originally sold to them before US vetoed.France supports everyone. Point is how would an Indian order change the status quo of relations; it wouldn't. India can't expect any strategic decisions(esp. with regard to arms exports) by France, that would improve/support India's position in South Asia. If it weren't for US pressure, China would have been fielding well over 126 Rafales in the PLAAF.
Full ToT is only proposed by France and Russia and equal partner means that India should have some amount of incluence to guide the project (or future developments of it) in directions that are important for us. But that's not gonna happen, because 1 we wasn't in from the start and 2 we only get a minor part of production. In short term it might get our companies some deals and some more experience, but we should take the chance and see MMRCA as a key to future co-developlents and long term stratigic advantages!Depends on what you mean by equal partner. India gets full ToT plus a share in manufacturing. I'm pretty sure if the DRDO would like to participate in the further development cycle of the aircraft, the EF consortium would probably be amenable to that.
But for what? Most likely for radar and avionics, but they can't upgrade the airframes, or the engines right? So if we want to upgrade them, we have to go to France.In any case, the Israelis have offered to upgrade the Mirage-2000 for half the cost of the French proposal.
By the fact that no other French companies are involved in EF, it should be clear that the Dassault bid is way more beneficial for the country and where their focus is.
Btw, just think about how good the EF would be, if France still would be in the project! EF with FSO, Spectra EWS, AASM an european bomb kit, less funding problems.
One more reason why I hope for a French – German co-development after EF and Rafale with combined power of EADS and Dassault and other German and French companies.
First of all, are the other countries not selling everyone? Russia sells arms to China and engines to Pakistan. US is a prime supporter of Pakistan and only turns to us, because of more money to earn and India as a counter weight against China. Even our number 1 weapon supplier Israel, sold several techs and weapons to China and even our Phalcon AWACS was originally sold to them before US vetoed.
We can't stop anybody to sell arms, or techs to Pakistan, or China, the point for us is, as long as we get the better stuff and the better deals that brings more advantages, we can live with it!
Secondly, France can even be a bigger and better arms supplier for us than Israel, because they can offer us way more different techs that Israel can't. Fighters, helicopters, ships including carriers, subs, also space and civil nuclear techs. There should be no doubt about the stratigic benefit of France as a long term partner of India.
And in Europe, I see only France to be politically, militarily and financially powerful enough to be such a long term partner for India .
But for what? Most likely for radar and avionics, but they can't upgrade the airframes, or the engines right? So if we want to upgrade them, we have to go to France.
It is in german, but I think you won't have a problem to see that only the RAF EFs hardly gets some a2g capability with the integration of litening targeting pod and older Paveway 2 bombs, what is not even better than IAF Mirage 2000. As far as I know only a few of RAF EFs get such a targeting pod so far, which also is a reason why they are not deployed in Afghanistan. In comparison, RAF Harrier and Tornados have Paveway 4 operational now and using it there. This weapon is only in testing and integration stage for EF of Tranche 2 so far and might be operational somewhere next year. As you can see in the geplant für Tranche 2, Block 15 (2010 - 2013) EOC 2 part, weapons like Taurus, Storm Shadow and Brimstone are planed to be integrated till 2013, however because of delays in the development and the split into Tranche 3A and B it is not sure what exactly will be included in 3A. So a fully developed EF with all weapons and techs integrated, might only come from 2015 onwards.
Italy say they don't need it, because they see EF only as an air superiority fighter and already working on F35 as the main strike fighter with next gen techs like AESA and stealth. That's why they are not really interested in funding AESA development and if even the consortium members have doubts that it will be ready in time, India as a export customer should be warned don't you think?
And now think about the IAF requirment! With upg MKI by 2014, long range Bars AESA radars and several AWACS aircrafts, is another mainly air superiority fighter with another long range radar, but less developed multi role capabilities for such high costs really what they need?
Of course these parts of EADS won't help in Rafale development, but it should be clear that they will never block any sale of a common products like Eurocopter helicopters, or Airbus aircrafts, neither would France.That's exactly where their focus is. EF GmbH's pitch is a completely independent offer. With respect to getting them to pitch for the Rafale (why?), France has minimal influence with EADS Deutschland and EADS CASA.
Wrong! With France in the consortium, they would have way less funding problems, more independent a2g weapons. UK only went for F35, because developing N-EF alone was far too expensive for them, with France it would have been no problem.Yes, but I guess it wasn't a bad decision in retrospect(except for France). France wanted to be the project leader, which wasn't acceptable to UK and Germany who wanted a more equitable distribution of work. Also, a naval Rafale didn't appeal to countries like the UK and Italy, since they were a part of the JSF project. Opting for the F-35 instead of the N-Eurofighter was a smart decision.
How should that happen with UK and Italy already partners in F35 development? The only Countries left are Germany, Spain and Sweden. Spain has to take F35B for their carriers, Sweden is planing something own, if they will be able to sell Gripen NG, so only Germany could be left.Well France has stated its next fighter will be a co-development with Europe(including UK, Italy and Spain I'm guessing).
Isn't Germany is selling state of the art AIP subs to PN? US couldn't sell AESA to PAF, because AESA upg for F16 is not ready so far (by 2016 countries like Korea, or Greece might get it), Russia is the only country we have some influence and mostly because they have no other option, but even they are selling to Pakistan.Difference is India can influence decisions made by Russia, UK/Germany and the US. US has held back from selling state of the art equipment(AESA particularly) to Pakistan, Russia has shifted to co-development with India as a priority(though it was primarily due to Chinese indigenization efforts) and India now has sufficient pull with Israel to make sure its security concerns are kept in mind.
You mean that UK that is nearly bankrupt, is only a lapdog of US foreign policy with no own political power and highly reliable in any terms on US?In my opinion the UK is a better partner and more importantly a more reliable partner.
Tranche 3 aside, I see nothing in the development schedule that is an unfavorable prospect from India's perspective. From your link: Employment of JDAMs and Paveway IV has been included since 2007, the Litening pod has been integrated and the Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Taurus will be available in a few months time. None of which should be a worry for the IAF which will receive its first batch by earliest 2012(more likely 2013).
In comparison, Rafale is already using Paveway II, III and the AASM (french JDAM) in Afghanistan, has Scalp integrated in 2004, also Exocet anti ship missile. These weapons are operational and tested in war missions, not only in tests and simulations. There is really no way you can't admit a clear advantage in development and integration of these weapons for Rafale!Entwicklung abgeschlossen 6/2007 = development finished:
Paveway II / GBU16 / GBU 10 and Rafael Lightning III Laser Designator Pod.
All this only for RAF EFs!
geplant für Tranche 2, Block 10 (7/2007 - 2009/10)
EOC 1 = development planed:
Laser Designator Pod (not decided which type)
Paveway IV (tested by Spanish and German EFs this year, but still not integrated)
GBU 32 JDAM (might come after paveway4 integration)
Development unclear so far:
Paveway III
ALARM
TAURUS/ Storm Shadow
Brimstone
??? 8t payload, equal to F18SH, Rafale 9,5t.Well the MKI has a very robust air-to-ground capability, and a payload that exceeds every other aircraft in the world(incl. the F-22).
That's based on pure hope, but not on facts! Not a single IAF a2g fighter can compete with the any of the MMRCAs and I compared MKI and Mig 35 with Rafale before, if you search for that post you will see the advantages of Rafale in a2g. Rafale has anything for strikes ready now, EF has nearly anything of it only under development. In this field, it simply can't compete at the moment.Also, India still has dedicated strike aircraft in the MiG-27(till 2015) and Jaguar(for a long long time). And finally, the Eurofighter if and when it enters service in the IAF, will have an air-to-ground capability comparable to that of the Rafale. With respect to price, the Eurofighter and Rafale have almost the same fly away cost(for domestic orders).
With a second crash of Su30 MKI, I think Indian Buyers wil think twice before they go for the Mig 35.
IMO, Mig 35 is Now Totally Out.
Its an Open war between Rafale and SH18.
See the Service of Mirage 2000s, Expensive but Durable.
@XiNiX
I always advocate to chuck out MIG 35 and F16 from MRCA and competition should be between EF, SH, Rafale.
leave grippen and work on Tejas instead.
Of course these parts of EADS won't help in Rafale development, but it should be clear that they will never block any sale of a common products like Eurocopter helicopters, or Airbus aircrafts, neither would France.
Wrong! With France in the consortium, they would have way less funding problems, more independent a2g weapons.
UK only went for F35, because developing N-EF alone was far too expensive for them, with France it would have been no problem.
Also with only one main fighter from Europe, the export chances against US fighters would have been way better. But it only shows the old stupid problems between those 2 countries, France wanted a EF with Snecma engine and UK is ready to take an inferior carrier config, just because they don't want to take Rafale For all parties it was a clear disadvantage!M.
How should that happen with UK and Italy already partners in F35 development? The only Countries left are Germany, Spain and Sweden. Spain has to take F35B for their carriers, Sweden is planing something own, if they will be able to sell Gripen NG, so only Germany could be left.
But unless Europeans can cooperate and move away from domestic champions, they will suffer in the race to supply the next generation of fighters, said Mr. Kogan from the Vienna-based institute.
Dassault appears to be thinking along the same lines. Eric Trappier, executive vice president at Dassault Aviation, said that Rafales successor will probably be designed through a European cooperation, from 2025.
Westchester NY
Isn't Germany is selling state of the art AIP subs to PN?
US couldn't sell AESA to PAF, because AESA upg for F16 is not ready so far (by 2016 countries like Korea, or Greece might get it),
Russia is the only country we have some influence and mostly because they have no other option, but even they are selling to Pakistan.
You mean that UK that is nearly bankrupt, is only a lapdog of US foreign policy with no own political power and highly reliable in any terms on US?
Again,
In comparison, Rafale is already using Paveway II, III and the AASM (french JDAM) in Afghanistan, has Scalp integrated in 2004, also Exocet anti ship missile. These weapons are operational and tested in war missions, not only in tests and simulations.
There is really no way you can't admit a clear advantage in development and integration of these weapons for Rafale!
??? 8t payload, equal to F18SH, Rafale 9,5t.
That's based on pure hope, but not on facts! Not a single IAF a2g fighter can compete with the any of the MMRCAs
and I compared MKI and Mig 35 with Rafale before, if you search for that post you will see the advantages of Rafale in a2g.
Rafale has anything for strikes ready now
, EF has nearly anything of it only under development. In this field, it simply can't compete at the moment.
We already saw blockings in MMRCA! France blocked their AESA techs for Gripen NG, US blocked Israeli AESA co-development for Gripen, because they use US techs too (that's could be an issue on Eltas 2052 for Tejas too btw!). But my point was, Germany wouldn't block any combined airbus sales with Rafale, aswell as France wouldn't if EF is combined with Eurocopter.Block?! That's pretty obvious. India can buy pretty much anything in the world as long as it is within international laws and norms and is non-Chinese. I'm not sure where the question of blocking comes in.
To be self-reliant, or to use techs that was developed in britain too. Isn't that also the reason why Britain developed and uses ASRAAM, instead of AIM9, or ALARM instead of HARM? Metor will phase out AMRAAM and the Europeans already have several cruise missiles and are not limited to US weapons.From a British perspective: why all the emphasis on independent air-to-ground weapons?
As far as I know the main issue was the engine.Well why should Britain and Germany have ceded design leadership to France?
Carrier config, skijump vs. catobar! They evaluated different configs and mainly for EF and even for Rafale, befor they decided to go for F35. That's why I said, if France didn't leave the consortium, they would have developed a N-EF jointly, just like they develop the new carrier jointly.Also, 'inferior carrier config'?!! If the F-35 even approaches the F-22 in performance, its a far better option than the Rafale.
For UAE, who payed for the development and integration, not for PAF.Not for the MLUs certainly, but the AN/APG-80 was available for the new build block 52+.
AESA Radar Competition For S. Korean F-16s | AVIATION WEEKThe South Korean air force will likely issue a request for proposals in 2010 or early 2011 for an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for its F‑16C/D aircraft. The air force has around 40 Block 32 aircraft and 140 Block 52-standard aircraft....
...Either country could make the first selection between Northrop Grummans SABR, which is a derivative of the APG‑80 in the F-16E/F, and the Raytheon RACR, which has been developed from the APG-79 fitted to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
Could be wrong, but aren't our Sea Harriers and Sea Kings in such a bad shape, because we didn't get the spares from UK?Britain didn't toe the US line in 1998 and refrained from sanctions against India(though it did criticize them). Even when Indian relations with the US were at its worst, India had pretty cordial relations with the UK.
So the confidence of having a war proven platform and weapons (what btw is one of the main advantages of US fighters) means nothing to you?They're not flying against any air defence or ECM. Getting these weapons 'validated' in Afghanistan isn't much of an improvement over validating them at test ranges back home.
In either case, the weapons onboard the Typhoon namely the JDAM, Paveways and Brimstone are operational and in the case of the first two, have been tested in war missions.
As I said before, IAF can't wait till their new high tech and costly toy will be ready in all capabilities. They need a ready and proven fighter, that could be in service as soon as possible, to reduce the sqadron shortage, and new threats like J10, so any risk of delays must be a big disadvantage in MMRCA.Well for what its worth, Rafale did integrate them before the Eurofighter, so kudos I guess. Shouldn't have a bearing on the MMRCA competition though.
That's right of course in the field of long range and heavy weapons MKI will remain the best.I'm sorry I should've been clearer. Not higher payload in absolute terms ofcourse. At extended ranges, the MKI's massive fuel capacity allows it to carry more, for a longer distance and faster(the pilot can afford to be less stingy with the afterburner).
IAF might have a balanced a2a and a2g fleet at the moment, but most of them will be phased out soon. Only 40 Mig 27 will remain in service, all Mig 21 M/MF will be phased out in nearly 2 years. The number Jags that will be upg is not decided so far and even if, how comparable will their performance be against actual multi role fighters and ground threats?The point I'm trying to make is that the IAF isn't hampered by limited strike capacity while having a good air superiority potential. It is a quite well balanced force, and whichever aircraft wins the MMRCA contract will be expected to do both.
That's right, it's still the fighterThe weapons aren't under development, its the integration that hasn't been achieved. And that's for the Taurus(which India wouldn't be getting I'm guessing) and the Storm Shadow. That'll be done next year.
We already saw blockings in MMRCA! France blocked their AESA techs for Gripen NG, US blocked Israeli AESA co-development for Gripen, because they use US techs too (that's could be an issue on Eltas 2052 for Tejas too btw!). But my point was, Germany wouldn't block any combined airbus sales with Rafale, aswell as France wouldn't if EF is combined with Eurocopter.
They went for different fighter developments, but still sell mainly the same arms.
To be self-reliant, or to use techs that was developed in britain too. Isn't that also the reason why Britain developed and uses ASRAAM, instead of AIM9, or ALARM instead of HARM? Metor will phase out AMRAAM and the Europeans already have several cruise missiles and are not limited to US weapons.
As far as I know the main issue was the engine.
Carrier config, skijump vs. catobar! They evaluated different configs and mainly for EF and even for Rafale, befor they decided to go for F35. That's why I said, if France didn't leave the consortium, they would have developed a N-EF jointly, just like they develop the new carrier jointly.
Btw UK will use F35B on their carriers, which is less capable than the C version and only a2a , or small a2g weapons can be carried internally so far. Harpoon, or cruise missiles must be carrierd externally, what makes the F35 not so stealthy anymore and more comparable to Rafale again.
For UAE, who payed for the development and integration, not for PAF.
Could be wrong, but aren't our Sea Harriers and Sea Kings in such a bad shape, because we didn't get the spares from UK?
So the confidence of having a war proven platform and weapons (what btw is one of the main advantages of US fighters) means nothing to you?
As I said before, IAF can't wait till their new high tech and costly toy will be ready in all capabilities. They need a ready and proven fighter, that could be in service as soon as possible, to reduce the sqadron shortage, and new threats like J10, so any risk of delays must be a big disadvantage in MMRCA.
IAF might have a balanced a2a and a2g fleet at the moment, but most of them will be phased out soon. Only 40 Mig 27 will remain in service, all Mig 21 M/MF will be phased out in nearly 2 years.
The number Jags that will be upg is not decided so far and even if, how comparable will their performance be against actual multi role fighters and ground threats?
On the other side, with over 200 Flankers, all Mig 29 to be upg and FGFA under development, IAF already had done their work for air superiority.
That means MMRCA must add capabilities in the a2g role, especially with good western a2g weapons.
Again that makes Rafale and F18SH to frontrunners!
That's right, it's still the fighter