What's new

PAF & the ramifications of Rafale's sale to India

View attachment 300992

View attachment 300999

* Develop 1 Standard for upgrade for Existing 165 planes and the new 200 planes to be picked
from open market. MLU could be done locally or with international collaboration


* Under this proposal , if Air-force decides we can even just move with J11 , production line

One day you are going to say Pakistan should get the Iranian made Saeqeh...

If you remember the statement of Pakistan Air Chief has said no more French aircraft.
 
Exorbitant by what measure? Compared to what?


Rafale M is a certainty for the IN now, the Naval FGFA is of no interest to the IN neither is the F-35C and the N-AMCA is 20+ years away. The Rafale-M will be the future of the IN's fighter stream as it allows them the ability to standardise on a single type with the Rafale able to launch from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carries. If the Rafale-am was noticing you'd have seen some more MIG-29K orders by now given the IAC-1 will be going To sea trails in 2 years. There isn't even a whiff of such a deal (like the S-400s,SSNs, more V5s etc).

We have 45 Mig-29K, which will be split between the INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant, IN doesn't need more aircraft as far as these 2 carriers are concerned. INS Vishal is over 10-12 years away. N-AMCA should be ready for testing around 2026, so the INS Vishal will have N-AMCA and LCA MK-2. Rafale-M is highly unlikely in those timelines. The IN is far more progressive and won't settle for a 4.5 gen aircraft in 5th gen timelines.
 
View attachment 301089

Advertised combat range and theater specific operational range are two different things, It's similar to a mileage 24 mpg advertised on my 335 whereas getting less than 10 on a track day.

Now to get an apples to apples comparison, mig35 and Mig29K's are good candidates as they actually have a more advanced variant of the rd33 series - MK on them compared to a 93 variant on the J31.

Now with similar wing loading, and weight, there is a high probability that J31 carries the same internal fuel, and with a higher core temp for compressor stage, it is safe to assume that the RD93 actually has a lower specific fuel consumption rate than the RD33MK, or else you wouldn't see the MK variant on Mig35 and the 29K.
Another reason why J31 will take a internal fuel penalty is due to the internal weapons bay in the airframe with the same wing area as the fulcrums, these factors to me indicate a 20-30% lesser range on the J31 compared to a mig 35 or a Mig29K.

Now coming to F16 and rafales,
the GE F110 has a SFC of 1 98lb/hr/lb compare that to m88 's SFC of 0.78 lbm/lbf·h. It is evident that from performance aspect you have a more efficient engine on the rafale, in addition to that rafale's can supercruise which is incredible advantageous when it comes to getting from point A to point B in the most efficient manner. So to answer your query, yes Rafales will have a better fuel utilization and a better combat range than the F16Blk52's.
well the rd-93 is an old engine and was over powered originally for the jf-17 as its specific to the jet.
as for the fuel consumption the blk52+ for pakistan the engine is not the ge f110 bu this is the f100-229 eep which uses the same tech on the f119 and he f135 used on the f22 and the f35 respectively. i dont know its sfc so it would be less than the ge f100 and much less than the higher thrust 129 variant. oh and the rafale has 2 m88 engines so it would be 0.78*2 which is still lower at 1.56 as compared to the ge engines.
the rafale can hle 4.5 tonnes of fuel [1] the the f16 holds 2.85 tonnes of fuel [2]
so yeah it does have a better range. i just wanted to add to what you said.
also the rafale hold more payload at 9 tonnes as compared to the f16's 7+ tonnes.
also do note the j31 wont be mass produced with the rd-93 engine.


[1]: http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/specifications-and-performance-data/
[2]: http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/f16/F-16Specifications.html
 
hello to all
I just have one simple question. looking forward answer from senior members here I will also try to tag them.
As we already using F16, JF17 and Mirage (normal wing and delta wing) can this is possible that we change or replace our delta wing birds with new gen delta wings , It will not only brings different type of extra operation capability also brings diversity (which we still have) that lot of other air forces around the world have. (India is one of them).
If the Answer is YES then what about J10C(p) a new gen 4++ single engine get with delta wings easy and earliest possible availability even with full TOT means home production, Upgrade to Pakistani needs will bring extra capabilities which include better engine (if needed) , Western avionics ,etc etc ..
It will going to cost us $$$$ and we need some efforts on political front too but surly this bird can be in air and on production line till 2019 or 2020 if we start in 2016 (bird is out there , the upgrades or changes will surly not gone take more the 3 years if china and Pakistan do it together ) .
That's the time line of changing 190 old birds especially mirages which also have to go 2020 or 2022 or 2025 they have to go.
Our Own J10c(p) can bring a diversity and next gen 4+ or 4++(by time) delta wing tech in to paf.
Single engine deep strike and air superiority and good for maritime role too one hell of a brother in arm to our JF17.
Thanks for reading looking for your answers , :-)
@Manticore , @Horus, @MastanKhan @ DESERT FIGHTER @ Zarvan ,@ AZADPAKISTAN2009
 
According to prasun!!-"After the Rafale MMRCA deal is inked by India, expect China to announce that the PAF will be the launch customer for the Shenyang FC-31 twin-engined MRCA. I was told about it by CATIC & AVIC officials last February during the Singapore Air Show. That's the reason why the FC-31 comes powered by twin RD-33 turbofans--the very same engines powering the JF-17 light MRCA. The PAF desperately requires a twin-engined combat aircraft that can be employed as a deep interdictor. CATIC/AVIC officials are of the view that series-production of the FC-31 will get underway only by 2020.

Will try to get some more updates from them when I meet them over the next 24/48 hours during the DSA-2016 expo in KL, Malaysia."
So no more worries for PAF!!
This is a possible out come along with some other single engine aircraft ... Do post updates you receive.


When I say negotiate, I mean make sure Afghan militants don't help their Pakistani counterparts and keep themselves outside of Pakistan. The Northen Alliance can go to hell, they don't pose any threat nor are they significant.
The issue is there is a concern that the Tango's would be coming out of their hibernation along with the spread of ISIS so Pakistan has to look to their own safety and not rely on the Afghan's.

Pakistan Army has worked very hard to attain success on the Western Border.


So we fall back to F-16's once again, despite the defeat that we have seen in the US Congress on the potential sale of a mere 8 of these Jets. And this while we have a relatively supportive US President.

People like you live in a fools paradise and this is one of the reasons why Pakistan is in such a sorry state of affairs. The MKI alone can give F-16's a run for their money and India has like 4 MKIs for each F-16 that we have!

Every time I hear the word F-16 and further procurement from US, I cannot do anything but shake my head and pray that my fellow countrymen start using their brains!!!
F-16's are available for Purchase if Pakistan has the funds. The issue is Congress does not want US tax payers paying for them. The US President intends to increase employment and raise funds to further develop the F-35, that is the reason the sales would be possible.

There is also an other way to get EDA articles. Aircraft that are available in the open market can be transferred with executive order however if MLU is required then these need the approvals.

The initial requirement was for 110 aircraft which has been increased to 150 aircraft. This is very much possible as funds would be available once the sales of JF-17's.


No friend. Obsolescence is part of life; Mirage 3/5 has reached its end of life. The alternative is to move to Mirage 2000. It is the most comparable to F-16; there are plenty out there being phased out; just have to look at Greeks vs Turkish jet skirms; Mirage 2000 knocked f16s out twice. The Mirage rebuild can be leveraged to move toward this new platform; they already know the mirage itself.
We went the Cheetah route back in late 80s and took apart the Mirage and rebuilt it into a completely new aircraft but there comes a time when you ahve to state that it has reached its limits.


If this was to be done; please contact Atlas - they will be very happy to do the entire work based on Cheetah. Our teams have already collaborated with you on many aspects on the Mirage.
The age of Mirage III/ V is over.

Mirage 2000's are available but upgrade and infrastructure cost would be similar to F-16 blk52's hence getting F-16's is preferable.

Chinese J-10 does not provide the extra punch otherwise it would have been in PAF.
SAAB Grepin is available but that too is similar to JF-17... hence it would be a waste of resources.


Why Not LCA is Indeed a 4th gen fighter
  1. LCA Has Ability to Fire HOBS IIR CCM Missile With DASH III HMDS
  2. Use of High Composite Material & Kevlar which generate Low RCS
  3. Totally Indigenous Spare Flow chain & MRO's Which Make its Serviceability High
  4. Elta 2052 AESA
You are replying to a misconception that was created by @zebra7.


IAF Su-30 MKI and PLAAF Su-30 MKK difference
1. MKI is Twin Seater, and always have the advantage of the interleaved operation of two Pilot.
2. MKI have TVC -- 2.5 D , which MKK don't have.
3. MKI pocess Powerfull N01 M Bars, a powerful PESA Radar, which MKK don't have.
4. MKI have Cannard, which MKK don't have.
5. MKI have western (French, Israeli, Indian) avionics components.

As far as flight profile is considered, the Cannard, and the 2.5 D Thrust Vector Nozzle makes, both the flight profile different.

The MKI and MKK are two different aircraft. The MKI incorporated the canards on the request of India. This gave it better dog fight capability.

As far as Thrust Vectoring capabilities the Chinese do not have the same engine as MKI, but once the SU-35 deal is finalized that dissimilarity would also be eliminated.

Other J11 series have been updated and are equal to the MKI.


Now coming to F16 and rafales,
the GE F110 has a SFC of 1 98lb/hr/lb compare that to m88 's SFC of 0.78 lbm/lbf·h. It is evident that from performance aspect you have a more efficient engine on the rafale, in addition to that rafale's can supercruise which is incredible advantageous when it comes to getting from point A to point B in the most efficient manner. So to answer your query, yes Rafales will have a better fuel utilization and a better combat range than the F16Blk52's.
Delta wing is more economical and hence the endurance is more than F-16's.


I think it's better to have N-LCA on IAC-I than Mig29K, IN Air Arm is planning to become strongest air force in subcontinent in near future, IN will not stop on Mig29K for IAC-I will get a aircraft which will built through MII as Rafale is going to invest around ₹30,000 crore in India so it's most probable that IN will get Rafale-M for IAC-I or N-LCA, as IN have ordered around 40 NLCA, around 20 may go to INS Baaz.
@PARIKRAMA & @[URL='https://defence.pk/members/abingdonboy.28303/']Abingdonboy[/URL] can you tell me can/will INS Baaz host NLCA?
The N-LCA would be compatible to what the French did before they made the Rafales.

They keep throwing around numbers like 300 Rafales, but if this happens. We might as well cancel AMCA and many other projects as the funds will dry up. Buy a minimum of 90 to a max of126 Rafales, 90 for the 5 air commands and may be 36 for SFC and get it over with. Invest in the AMCA. Get it ready for 1st flight around 2023 and FOC around 2028 also with the IN.
It is not what India wants but what other countries want.


hello to all
I just have one simple question. looking forward answer from senior members here I will also try to tag them.
As we already using F16, JF17 and Mirage (normal wing and delta wing) can this is possible that we change or replace our delta wing birds with new gen delta wings , It will not only brings different type of extra operation capability also brings diversity (which we still have) that lot of other air forces around the world have. (India is one of them).
If the Answer is YES then what about J10C(p) a new gen 4++ single engine get with delta wings easy and earliest possible availability even with full TOT means home production, Upgrade to Pakistani needs will bring extra capabilities which include better engine (if needed) , Western avionics ,etc etc ..
It will going to cost us $$$$ and we need some efforts on political front too but surly this bird can be in air and on production line till 2019 or 2020 if we start in 2016 (bird is out there , the upgrades or changes will surly not gone take more the 3 years if china and Pakistan do it together ) .
That's the time line of changing 190 old birds especially mirages which also have to go 2020 or 2022 or 2025 they have to go.
Our Own J10c(p) can bring a diversity and next gen 4+ or 4++(by time) delta wing tech in to paf.
Single engine deep strike and air superiority and good for maritime role too one hell of a brother in arm to our JF17.
Thanks for reading looking for your answers , :-)
@Manticore , @Horus, @MastanKhan @ DESERT FIGHTER @ Zarvan ,@ AZADPAKISTAN2009
There are advantages and disadvantages of a Delta design. Most of the European aircraft are delta where as US aircraft have a conventional wing (swept) design.

Air Forces around the world select aircraft that offer them the best solution. One can not replace Delta with delta and swept back with swept back and so forth.
 
View attachment 301089

Advertised combat range and theater specific operational range are two different things, It's similar to a mileage 24 mpg advertised on my 335 whereas getting less than 10 on a track day.

Now to get an apples to apples comparison, mig35 and Mig29K's are good candidates as they actually have a more advanced variant of the rd33 series - MK on them compared to a 93 variant on the J31.

Now with similar wing loading, and weight, there is a high probability that J31 carries the same internal fuel, and with a higher core temp for compressor stage, it is safe to assume that the RD93 actually has a lower specific fuel consumption rate than the RD33MK, or else you wouldn't see the MK variant on Mig35 and the 29K.
Another reason why J31 will take a internal fuel penalty is due to the internal weapons bay in the airframe with the same wing area as the fulcrums, these factors to me indicate a 20-30% lesser range on the J31 compared to a mig 35 or a Mig29K.

Now coming to F16 and rafales,
the GE F110 has a SFC of 1 98lb/hr/lb compare that to m88 's SFC of 0.78 lbm/lbf·h. It is evident that from performance aspect you have a more efficient engine on the rafale, in addition to that rafale's can supercruise which is incredible advantageous when it comes to getting from point A to point B in the most efficient manner. So to answer your query, yes Rafales will have a better fuel utilization and a better combat range than the F16Blk52's.


Thanks for the nice comparison !
Have a doubt regarding Drag, with J31 having weapons in internal bay
Won't the drag be lesser , increasing the range..?

I mean two ranges, one with internal weapons only
Other range with both internal and external
 
View attachment 301089

Advertised combat range and theater specific operational range are two different things, It's similar to a mileage 24 mpg advertised on my 335 whereas getting less than 10 on a track day.

Now to get an apples to apples comparison, mig35 and Mig29K's are good candidates as they actually have a more advanced variant of the rd33 series - MK on them compared to a 93 variant on the J31.

Now with similar wing loading, and weight, there is a high probability that J31 carries the same internal fuel, and with a higher core temp for compressor stage, it is safe to assume that the RD93 actually has a lower specific fuel consumption rate than the RD33MK, or else you wouldn't see the MK variant on Mig35 and the 29K.
Another reason why J31 will take a internal fuel penalty is due to the internal weapons bay in the airframe with the same wing area as the fulcrums, these factors to me indicate a 20-30% lesser range on the J31 compared to a mig 35 or a Mig29K.

Now coming to F16 and rafales,
the GE F110 has a SFC of 1 98lb/hr/lb compare that to m88 's SFC of 0.78 lbm/lbf·h. It is evident that from performance aspect you have a more efficient engine on the rafale, in addition to that rafale's can supercruise which is incredible advantageous when it comes to getting from point A to point B in the most efficient manner. So to answer your query, yes Rafales will have a better fuel utilization and a better combat range than the F16Blk52's.


Thanks for a detailed reply, pardon me to disagree with you on couple of points.

There are issues with empty and gross weight values usually quoted for Mig 29K and Mig 35. The reason is that that manufacturer is not quoting gross and empty weights but a 'normal' weight and providing no information about whether it is with fuel, without fuel or even contains any other payload. This has lead to even wild speculation in analyst circles as well, different journals and publications quote different values and some suspect the reason is that manufacturer do not want other to calculate fuel fractions. Also it is a bigger issue because western pilots actually got a chance to original Mig 29 when a squadron in East german airforce got available after unification. It lacked seriously in combat range as I have already mentioned in my last reply.

As you already will certainly know that it is neither the gross weight nor the empty weight which affects range, it is actually the fuel fraction per engine available. The reason for original Mig 29 low combat radius was found to be its very low fuel fraction, otherwise engine was found to be efficient engine. Its overall fuel fraction was 0.22, and for each engine that is 0.13 percent, that is why it's combat radius even with a centreline tank was estimate by german luftwaffe as just 150 nm. And the reason why it was analysed as basically a point defence interceptor more like old Mig-21 and has very low utility as a air superiority fighter or as a multi-role aircraft.

Now I do not want to speculate about fuel fraction and resulting range of Mig 29K, Mig 33 (although the values I have seen do not inspire any confidence in there ranges as well). I think it is enough of an argument that its manufacturer do not provide its standard gross weight and internal fuel capacity even knowing about issues with range of original Mig 29.

The SFC you mentioned for F110 is actually incorrect, the one you quoted is for wet (reheat) thrust. The value for dry (military) is 0.761 lb/hr/lb and is slightly more efficient the senecma engine Rafale carries. The fuel fraction for Rafale with two engines is (as mentioned by its manufacturer) is 0.32 for both engine, per engine it is .16. It is slightly better than Mig 29 but it very low compared to F16 C/D and JF-17 Block 1. Whose fraction fuel values from official data are:

Rafale B = 0.16 per engine
F-16 C/D = 0.26 per engine (Note: this fuel fraction is without CFT added fuel capacity).
Jf -1 7 = 0.26 per engine ( this is for block 1 only, data for block 2 is not released yet)

Rafale will have better range on internal fuel than point defence fighter like Mig-29 but quite lower than F-16 or JF-17 and will need to carry large drop tanks to extend its range.

Now about J 31, all stealth fighters(or prototypes) have large internal fuel capacities added by design. And as you will already know, the main reason is to reduce need to carry drop tanks because drop tanks result in significant increase in frontal RCS. This no doubt result in more induced frontal drag but much better fuel fraction as well. The gross weight I have read about J-31 prototype being flown is about 15 tons with designed capacity of 6.5 tons of fuel. which results in a fuel fraction 0.43 for both engines. Much nearer to twin jet fighter with good range such as F22, F-15E and Su-30/35.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Thanks for a detailed reply, pardon me to disagree with you on couple of points.

There are issues with empty and gross weight values usually quoted for Mig 29K and Mig 35. The reason is that that manufacturer is not quoting gross and empty weights but a 'normal' weight and providing no information about whether it is with fuel, without fuel or even contains any other payload. This has lead to even wild speculation in analyst circles as well, different journals and publications quote different values and some suspect the reason is that manufacturer do not want other to calculate fuel fractions. Also it is a bigger issue because western pilots actually got a chance to original Mig 29 when a squadron in East german airforce got available after unification. It lacked seriously in combat range as I have already mentioned in my last reply.
You are comparing Mig29M, which had Rd33 engines, I am specifically comaring Mig29K and Mig35 with RD33MK the most recent variant of Rd33 , a variant newer than RD93.
As you already will certainly know that it is neither the gross weight nor the empty weight which affects range, it is actually the fuel fraction per engine available. The reason for original Mig 29 low combat radius was found to be its very low fuel fraction, otherwise engine was found to be efficient engine. Its overall fuel fraction was 0.22, and for each engine that is 0.13 percent, that is why it's combat radius even with a centreline tank was estimate by german luftwaffe as just 150 nm. And the reason why it was analysed as basically a point defence interceptor more like old Mig-21 and has very low utility as a air superiority fighter or as a multi-role aircraft.

This 150NM is most likely based on interceptor scramble moad at certain altitude, this does not reflect a CAP combat radius.

Now I do not want to speculate about fuel fraction and resulting range of Mig 29K, Mig 33 (although the values I have seen do not inspire any confidence in there ranges as well). I think it is enough of an argument that its manufacturer do not provide its standard gross weight and internal fuel capacity even knowing about issues with range of original Mig 29.
Empty weight + Internal fuel+ Consumable fluids+ Sraam = Gross Weight
Example
F16
18900lbs (EW) + 7000lbs (internal fuel) +224 lbs (hydraulic fluids, nitrogen charge, r134A, brake fluids) + 376lbs (2xAim9) = 26500 Lbs.


The SFC you mentioned for F110 is actually incorrect, the one you quoted is for wet (reheat) thrust. The value for dry (military) is 0.761 lb/hr/lb and is slightly more efficient the senecma engine Rafale carries. The fuel fraction for Rafale with two engines is (as mentioned by its manufacturer) is 0.32 for both engine, per engine it is .16. It is slightly better than Mig 29 but it very low compared to F16 C/D and JF-17 Block 1. Whose fraction fuel values from official data are:

Rafale B = 0.16 per engine
F-16 C/D = 0.26 per engine (Note: this fuel fraction is without CFT added fuel capacity).
Jf -1 7 = 0.26 per engine ( this is for block 1 only, data for block 2 is not released yet)

Rafale will have better range on internal fuel than point defence fighter like Mig-29 but quite lower than F-16 or JF-17 and will need to carry large drop tanks to extend its range.

Now about J 31, all stealth fighters(or prototypes) have large internal fuel capacities added by design. And as you will already know, the main reason is to reduce need to carry drop tanks because drop tanks result in significant increase in frontal RCS1This no doubt result in more induced frontal drag but much better fuel fraction as well. The gross weight I have read about J-31 prototype being flown is about 15 tons with designed capacity of 6.5 tons of fuel. which results in a fuel fraction 0.43 for both engines. Much nearer to twin jet fighter with good range such as F22, F-15E and Su-30/35.

You are correct about the SFC of F110, irrespective the F16 with the SFC and the given payload, Without afterburner Rafale can fly supersonic, I feel rafale will still hold a range advantage.
 
You are comparing Mig29M, which had Rd33 engines, I am specifically comaring Mig29K and Mig35 with RD33MK the most recent variant of Rd33 , a variant newer than RD93.


This 150NM is most likely based on interceptor scramble moad at certain altitude, this does not reflect a CAP combat radius.


Empty weight + Internal fuel+ Consumable fluids+ Sraam = Gross Weight
Example
F16
18900lbs (EW) + 7000lbs (internal fuel) +224 lbs (hydraulic fluids, nitrogen charge, r134A, brake fluids) + 376lbs (2xAim9) = 26500 Lbs.




You are correct about the SFC of F110, irrespective the F16 with the SFC and the given payload, Without afterburner Rafale can fly supersonic, I feel rafale will still hold a range advantage.

I think Mig 29K is the naval variant of Mig 29 M, I may be wrong.
The aircraft luftwaffe operated were I think Mig 19B/UB which are also operated by india I believe. But indians ones have been upgraded or are in the process of being upgraded with french avionics, I have heard.

I have never heard/read of using a portion of weapons payload to Gross Weight, but may be it is different in different air forces, Empty weight does include crew member/s and fluids weight. Here is a screen shot of translated Mig 29B pilot manual: (I am unable to upload a file or image to this forum, being new to this how do I do it?)

Yes you are basically correct, Combat radius is usually calculated for a transonic (0.8-0.9 mac) flight to area of operation, a 10 minutes of manoeuvres and 1 minute of afterburner, transonic flight back to base, it may be an air superiority operation or just an intercept. CAP basically depend on loiter time, mostly means 30,000+ altitude and near to idle power. Again less combat range means less loiter time. You may actually be mentioning cruise range. But that also will be low as well.

If there is not any significant differences in SFC of two engines that fuel fraction is a good raw estimate and I think it is used every where as a reliable way to estimate and compare flight performance of two jet fighter aircraft, I think there is a standard formula as well, if I find it I'll let you know . I certainly do not agree that Rafale on internal fuel has better range that F-16 Block 50+ but I respect your opinion. Thanks
 
If there is not any significant differences in SFC of two engines that fuel fraction is a good raw estimate and I think it is used every where as a reliable way to estimate and compare flight performance of two jet fighter aircraft, I think there is a standard formula as well, if I find it I'll let you know . I certainly do not agree that Rafale on internal fuel has better range that F-16 Block 50+ but I respect your opinion. Thanks
Fuel fraction is Weight of the fuel divided by the gross take off weight of the Aircraft.

This indicates the weight to fuel ratio of the system.
SFC indicates the fuel consumption of the engine .

So yes you are right given the SFC is similar for two engines , Fuel fraction will determine the available range, and another aspect is Wing loading of an aircraft, Lighter loaded airframe will have better cruise performance compared to heavier loaded wing. F16's take a bit of penalty there.
upload_2016-4-19_15-23-55.png
 
First try to know difference between Teja & Tejas then counter it with Mirage.
Also difference between Bharat, Bharati & Bharatiya.

I tried before you posted this but I didn't find, you might have read any old news.

Which 5G aircraft will be in service in 2020?
There are still 4G aircrafts under development.
Fourth-generation jet fighter
by 2020 fgfa might be in service with iaf
j 31 project could be 80% done

guys still the deal is in last stages

NEW DELHI — After three dozen rounds of negotiations since April 2015, India will finally sign an €7.8 billion (US $8.9 billion) contract next month with France to purchase 36 Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft.

"We are in advanced stages of negotiations and the contract will be inked soon," said a source in the Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD).

Dassault declined comment but Dassault chairman Eric Trappier said April 13 on Radio Classique he expected a contract could be signed “in the next few days," adding “I have high hopes this contract could be signed fairly quickly.”

"Weaponry and other modifications have been finalized based on the earlier Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft [MMRCA] tender," the MoD source said. The French will also sign a 10-year agreement for maintenance of the aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

"We have agreed to execute 50 percent offsets in the Rafale deal but we have not compromised on the cost," a source in the French Embassy in New Delhi said.

Refusing to give details, the French Embassy source said, "Thirty percent offsets will be embarked for future military aviation research and development (R&D) programs and the remaining 20 percent will be with Indian [defense] industries making components for Rafale."

To execute the offsets, several French companies including Safran and Thales will join Dassault in providing state-of-the-art technologies in stealth, radar, thrust vectoring for missiles, and materials for electronics and micro-electronics, the French Embassy source said.

Meanwhile, the "state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has almost finalized the future defense R&D projects in which French defense companies will participate as technology partners," the MoD source added but refused to give details on the R&D projects.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced in his April 2015 visit to Paris the intention to buy 36 Rafales on a government-to-government (G2G) basis. However, finalizing the cost, and agreement on the size of offsets had become the major hurdles in the yearlong negotiations.

India had put forth the list of weaponry during the negotiations which the IAF wants and includes Mica air-to-air missile, Scalp cruise missile and Meteor beyond-visual-range missile and precision-guided munitions. An IAF source said India-specific Rafale aircraft will be able to carry 10 tons of weaponry.

Out of the 36 aircraft,18 will be deployed at Ambala air base bordering Pakistan and another 18 will be deployed at an air base in the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, bordering China.

The first Rafale is expected to be delivered within 20 months of signing the G2G agreement.

The Rafale order is driven by a sense of urgency as the Indian air force has operational needs which cannot be met with by the Russian fighters they fly today, said Robbin Laird of ICSA, a consulting firm based in Washington and Paris.

There are effectively two separate forces, one flying Russian fighters, the other the Mirage 2000, when the service needs to have a more integrated air force, Laird said.

An acquisition of the French fighter could also strengthen the Indian Air Force's ties with the French Air Force, which has flown combat operations in Iraq and Syria.

“French pilots are highly capable and have a professional inventiveness that tap into their experience,” Laird said. “I would not underestimate French pilots. If India fails to get the Rafale into operation in three years, that would be a strategic failure.”

"The IAF has assessed the need for Rafale-type fighters 10 years ago which is a calculated operational requirement based on government approved norms and enough to equip six squadrons (with about 15 percent assets as maintenance and war reserves)," said Subhash Bhojwani, retired IAF air marshal.

"There is a long-term requirement of about 10 squadrons of Rafale aircraft (say 200 aircraft, including missile warning radar)," Bhojwani added.

"Currently IAF has a significant shortage of combat aircraft. The numbers are well below the authorized level and continue to dwindle as older machines retire. Considering the low rate of induction, IAF may take more than a decade or two to reach its authorized strength," Srinivasapuram Krishnaswamy, retired IAF air chief marshal and former IAF chief had told Defense News earlier.

IAF's fighter aircraft strengthis down to 25 squadrons (one squadron is equal to 18 aircraft) as against the required strength of 45 squadrons.

Out of the 25 squadrons, 14 squadrons are equipped with Russian made MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters that are on the verge of retirement.
 
hello to all
I just have one simple question. looking forward answer from senior members here I will also try to tag them.
As we already using F16, JF17 and Mirage (normal wing and delta wing) can this is possible that we change or replace our delta wing birds with new gen delta wings , It will not only brings different type of extra operation capability also brings diversity (which we still have) that lot of other air forces around the world have. (India is one of them).
If the Answer is YES then what about J10C(p) a new gen 4++ single engine get with delta wings easy and earliest possible availability even with full TOT means home production, Upgrade to Pakistani needs will bring extra capabilities which include better engine (if needed) , Western avionics ,etc etc ..
It will going to cost us $$$$ and we need some efforts on political front too but surly this bird can be in air and on production line till 2019 or 2020 if we start in 2016 (bird is out there , the upgrades or changes will surly not gone take more the 3 years if china and Pakistan do it together ) .
That's the time line of changing 190 old birds especially mirages which also have to go 2020 or 2022 or 2025 they have to go.
Our Own J10c(p) can bring a diversity and next gen 4+ or 4++(by time) delta wing tech in to paf.
Single engine deep strike and air superiority and good for maritime role too one hell of a brother in arm to our JF17.
Thanks for reading looking for your answers , :-)
@Manticore , @Horus, @MastanKhan @ DESERT FIGHTER @ Zarvan ,@ AZADPAKISTAN2009


Hi,

This is I believe what happened with the J10---. Because Gen Mushy ordered it---ie---2 sqdrns---and paf being pi-ssed off at Gen Mushy for cancelling the swedish awacs and getting the chiense awacs without the consent of the paf.

Other than that---a sqdrn of a J10 B should have been ordered 4-5 years ago---and then ordered the J10C with aesa.

If not then---then at least 1 1/2 to 2 years ago----the J10C should have been procured. It would have given paf enough time to integrate and get the right package for the aircrafr---.

Paf has really fckd up the NATION one more time----it has compressed all these major purchases to be integrated in a very short time----and forced it to spend a massive amount of funds all at the same time----.

Bad management---bad policy---bad choices---bad analysis---a total lack of direction
 
Hi,

This is I believe what happened with the J10---. Because Gen Mushy ordered it---ie---2 sqdrns---and paf being pi-ssed off at Gen Mushy for cancelling the swedish awacs and getting the chiense awacs without the consent of the paf.

Other than that---a sqdrn of a J10 B should have been ordered 4-5 years ago---and then ordered the J10C with aesa.

If not then---then at least 1 1/2 to 2 years ago----the J10C should have been procured. It would have given paf enough time to integrate and get the right package for the aircrafr---.

Paf has really fckd up the NATION one more time----it has compressed all these major purchases to be integrated in a very short time----and forced it to spend a massive amount of funds all at the same time----.

Bad management---bad policy---bad choices---bad analysis---a total lack of direction


Hi MK, you doin' alright? Long time......I have to tell you your favorite line as a response to your post. The J-10 saga wasn't about Mushy at all or elated to buying Swedish vs. the Chinese.As you say it all the time, the PAF leadership fukked up ONE more time. The thing was, there was so much trust in the French that the JFT block II would have Mirage 2005-N type avionics, giving is much closer Rafale like capability with Meteor, etc, that they didn't even care to create a backup, just in case. As the history has it, they got screwed at the end just like the 90's!!!! India jumped in and started the Rafale drama and told the French that this would be at the cost of them saying no to Pakistan and that's where the story ends!!!! Pretty stupid and sad how these people take one party and put ALL their weight behind that one party. And cry when things don't workout. No such thing as "Strategic Planning"!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom