Not important, the point was US supported them for years and not us, even with military power against us (unlike France). To me that means they have to show us that they are reliable first.
So
show meaning what exactly?
Let's see, they gave us Mirage 2000, which is one of the best fighters in our fleet at the moment and didn't had the quality problems like Russian techs.
They didn't really
give it(they charged us a hefty bundle for them). And Mirage 2000 was available to everyone, with the exception of perhaps USSR, PRC, Cuba and a few others.
They gave us Scorpene class subs,
And ink had barely dried on that contract before they were marketing the Marlin to PN(as superior to the Scorpene).
offered now Rafale with full ToT and source codes, something that no other country except Russia will offer.
EF, Gripen offer that I believe. Just a question of degrees really.
Also, they'd have offered that to anyone(like say Pakistan) for a substantial order of aircraft.
They cleared the nuclear deal right after Russia and provided us civil nuclear power plants.
The US support enabled a waiver for India in both the IAEA and NSG which is no mean achievement and is something no other country could have done.
They support us for a permanent seat in the UNC,
What they have to lose? France is the most passive member of the UNSC P5 by a long long stretch.
we already have co-developments in avionics and they offered a co-developed Kaveri-Snecma engine.
Sure but India has strong military-industrial relations with other EU countries as well.
But most important they were reliable during sanction times!
I can confidently say sanctions aren't going to happen again. Times have changed. Tomorrow if Japan were to conduct nuclear tests it wouldn't be sanctioned. While India's situation isn't exactly the same, the logic remains the same. On the global stage, India's standing is a leagues ahead of what it was in 1998.
BTW with regard to the Eurofighter; UK didn't sanction India either.
Looks like they sold and sell us state of the are arms, gives us the chance for co-developments, support us politically and in the civil nuclear field,
Like I said.. they support everyone. A Rafale purchase isn't going make any major difference to India's equation with them.
so everything that Russia offers us too!
After the arm-twisting the Russians have engaged in with regard to the Gorshkov, and considering the fact the MiG-35 seems to be the 'budget fighter' relative to its competitors, I don't think that the MiG-35 is anywhere close to winning the contract (or atleast I'm praying its not).
Can you name me another country that can offer us the same, especially co-developments and nuclear power?
Everyone. Except for shared R&D with the US; they don't need any collaboration.
MMRCA is the chance for us to get France even closer to us than ever before, on levels like we have with Russia and Isreal.
Err ......... not going to happen. While not quite Switzerland, they're a pretty hands-off country.
Are they? Or do they only open the door for US arms with buying less important patrol and transport aircrafts in smaller numbers? MMRCA is a totally different thing and US have to come up with more, if they want to get a part of this market.
That's over $5 billion worth of contracts and big affirmative on the govt./IAF's confidence vis-a-vis the US.
Also, I don't think you appreciate the kind of performance the P-8 brings to the table. Its going to be the first defence against the PN's Agostas and U-214s. At ASuW it will be a generation ahead of anything and everything flying today; its absolutely cutting edge and speaks volumes about the progress, India's politico-military ties with US, have made.
You still didn't understand it, it means that the aircraft is wired to the use such weapons, but it still needs integration and testing of them. That exactly is what the members are doing with Paveway 4 at the moment:
This is Block 10, but only IRIS-T is integrated so far Paveway 3, ALARM, Brimstone and the cruise missiles will only come in Block 15, or even later in Tranche 3A.
Unless, major obstacles are encountered(extremely unlikely), individual weapons integration trials are generally pretty short. The JDAM/Paveway being a possible exception since they are free-fall and can be carried in clusters. But, as your link said, the Paveway IV tests concluded in July this year.
India's deliveries as I've stated before are expected over
three years from now.
That's what I try to make you understand, the integration is delayed and nobody knows if all the claimed weapons will be integrated at all.
Where did you get that notion from? It would be pretty mind-boggling to see the wiring and software upgrades completed, tests completed and then the whole plan scrapped? Only the Storm Shadow and Brimstone remain to be integrated.
Intended is the key word and with RN having F35 on their carriers, it should be clear that integrating a2g and anti ship weapons on them will be more important, than on any other land based fighter, because they will be the first to fight in any future UK war.
They're not mutually exclusive objectives. Integrating A2G weaponry on the F-35 doesn't come at the cost of doing the same with the EF or vice-versa.
Integration and testing of weapons, see above!
Did that.
Funny but not correct, the one is mainly for air superiority, with secondary strike capabilities. The other mainly for strike with BVR capabilities. This is a normal concept that you can see in several forces. F22 and F35, Su 35 and Su 34, even FGFA and a hypothetical MCA are intended for the same kind of roles. Of course all of them are multi role fighters, but always one mainly geared with capabilities for air superiority and the other for mainly for strike.
How about the F-16, Mirage-2000, Tornado, F-15E? I don't see how the Rafale is similar to them and the EF is not, except in terms of time-frame?
Unless EF has integrated heavy a2g payload you are right. Rafale instead already uses heavy payloads:
http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale-super-nounou.jpg
Rafale in buddy refueling mission with 2x 2000l and 2x 1250l, centerline refueling pod + 2 Mica ~ 6t
That's the heaviest mission profile and an unlikely one considering the availability of air to air refuelers in the IAF. In a typical scenario, the payload would be lower and matched by the Eurofighter.
Rafale in long range strike mission with 3x 2000l tanks, 2 Scalp and 4 Micas ~ 8t
Well in the regional scenario, the long range strike role is likely to be carried out by the Su-30MKI, which is inherently better at it.
Any source for that claim?
The
Eurofighter's flyaway price is expected to be about
€63 million.
For EADS, India represents perhaps the next and certainly the biggest potential customer for the Eurofighter Typhoon. Though Typhoon’s £42m/€62m unit flyaway cost make the aircraft more expensive than the US, Swedish and Russian contenders, the aircraft offers low support and through life costs, and a compelling mix of capabilities. Typhoon is claimed to have better air-to-air capabilities than its rivals, with its mechanically scanned radar offering better range than the other fighters’ AESA radars.
Flight Global:
ILA 2008: Indian bids add spice
The
Rafale's cost varies from
€64 million to €70 million. The naval variant is likely to be at the higher end of that spectrum while the air force version will be cheaper.
Google Translate
(Its a English translation of French document tabled in the parliament).
Point is that the Rafale is far from being an economical alternative to the Eurofighter.