India opens bids in $10.4-bn combat plane tender.

[Kunal Biswas]

Sometime i think its the attitude which bring Rafale down..

 

[arundo]

well can u post what in details of which point did france and other disagreed. is an humble request

My French is ok, but not good enough to translate accurately all the technical details.
The major disagreement concerned the concept of the aircraft. While the other partners (under UK leadership) considered that the project should focus on air superiority in the context of Cold War in order to have an edge over the Soviet MIG 29, the French wanted a multirole aircraft. Furthermore, French wanted a "lighter" fighter, while the British wanted a heavier one. BTW there were disagreements between the other 4 members as well - needless to say that the requirements of the airforces were not the same in those countries.
Another source of disagreements consisted in the industrial organization and in mastering the costs of such a complex project. Finally, French feared to lose their technological sovereignty and not to get enough return for the economy and the future; of course, there are economic considerations (the totality of added-value of such a project means thousands of jobs for many years in the country).

Concerning the engine, SNECMA and RR were initially supposed to work together and they already had more or less successfully cooperated on the Concorde Olympus engine in the past. The first problem was, that both competed already as well in the segment of fighter engines (Mirage 2000's M53 and Tornado's RB 199) as in the sector of large engines for passenger planes (SNECMA co-developed CFM 56 with GE which is a major competitor of RR in this segment). SNECMA had only developed single shaft military engines so far.
Technical disagreements were another reason. French wanted a compromise and keep an eye on the costs (development and running costs) and pleaded for a less powerful engine while the British were more power focused. Finally, there were disagreements on the division of responsibilities and tasks in the development of the future engine. The main issue was the realization oft the high pressure parts (turbine and compression chamber) which couldn't be splitted in a satisfactory way for both partners.

 

[arundo]

With reference to Mr. Collins can you please tell us what other modern combat aircraft the former RAF pilot has flown beside that one ride in the Rafale courtesy of the Sales Dept. of Dassault Aviation?
My guess is that you will find out he has not flown much beyond that marketing ride...

No I can't, but you will tell us for sure including reliable references ...

Would you mistrust this article the same, if Collins had praised the EF?

I agree with you that it is impossible to identify so called biased sources, but this is always the case and for both fighters.

 

[arundo]

IAF wants the MRCA aircraft to track a 3m2 target at 130Km while both competitors provided ~200Km(Rafale) and ~300Km(EF) for the same. So, the EF advantage of a bigger radar is nullified as IAF's requirement is smaller. This would mean both aircraft would get similar points for this parameter. Considering the Rafale is technically more advanced, it is obvious the tech points will be greater.

I think we need to knwo, if exceeding initial expectations is not a +

 

[p2prada]

Why not go solely for the MKI instead? It's more capable than the Rafale, already indigenised, full TOT, cheaper, and as it already share a lot of commonality with PAKFA, the IAF can easily transition to the latter. Save on practically everything, money, training requirements, logistics, and more importantly, India can build indigenous accessories for this aircraft... (of course this matter is already passe)

Simply because as a big air force we must have diversified assets. We can't simply have 30 squadrons of MKIs and expect it to work every time. By 2025, the US F-15/F-22 fleet and India's Su-30/Su-50 fleet will be at par in numbers. But even the US has smaller aircraft that are more numerous in number and are as important as the heavies. We are building a similar force structure. A Hi- component of heavy fighters and a lo- component of medium fighters.

The F-15 is way more capable than the F-16, but that does not mean the USAF will go for 90 squadrons of F-15s.

Operational and logistics POV a moderately diverse force is extremely important. If the MKI gets grounded, the others keep flying. A fleet wholly composed of one type would mean a much higher need for quality maintenance.

MKI is a 900mile fighter. EF and Rafale are 300mile fighters. So, the operational needs for High and Low are different. They complement each other rather than compete with one another.

 

[p2prada]

I think we need to knwo, if exceeding initial expectations is not a +

Both aircraft were shortlisted weren't they. So, that means both fit the bill. Both give what is required and as long as the deal is good, MoD won't hesitate to sign on the dotted line. Ultimately both aircraft are meant to do the same job once they are in IAF regardless of each aircraft's advantages and disadvantages.

Both have exceeded expectations. Now they are undergoing the most difficult and most bitter tests that happen in any deal, politics.

 

[asianobserve]

Simply because as a big air force we must have diversified assets. We can't simply have 30 squadrons of MKIs and expect it to work every time. By 2025, the US F-15/F-22 fleet and India's Su-30/Su-50 fleet will be at par in numbers. But even the US has smaller aircraft that are more numerous in number and are as important as the heavies. We are building a similar force structure. A Hi- component of heavy fighters and a lo- component of medium fighters.

The F-15 is way more capable than the F-16, but that does not mean the USAF will go for 90 squadrons of F-15s.

Operational and logistics POV a moderately diverse force is extremely important. If the MKI gets grounded, the others keep flying. A fleet wholly composed of one type would mean a much higher need for quality maintenance.

MKI is a 900mile fighter. EF and Rafale are 300mile fighters. So, the operational needs for High and Low are different. They complement each other rather than compete with one another.

To my understanding the Hi-Lo concept of the USAF was made necessary due to cost not performance (the differences in the latter was simply an offshoot due to compromises on cost). The F15s were simply too expensive to be inducted in sufficient quantity to cover all the needs of the USAF, hence, they produced a cheaper fighter but still capable on A2A role the F16. This is not the case for India. The MKI (Hi end) it appears is much cheaper than the Lo version, either EF or Rafale... The rationally for the USAF force structure does not apply in this case.


Note that the fighter doctrine of the IAF calling for 2 fighter crews (2 heads are better than 1) is also the requirement for Multi-role fighters, so essentially the IAF does not have to extensively reconfigure the MKI for A2G roles.

 

[Yawn]

To my understanding the Hi-Lo concept of the USAF was made necessary due to cost not performance (the differences in the latter was simply an offshoot due to compromises on cost). The F15s were simply too expensive to be inducted in sufficient quantity to cover all the needs of the USAF, hence, they produced a cheaper fighter but still capable on A2A role the F16. This is not the case for India. The MKI (Hi end) it appears is much cheaper than the Lo version, either EF or Rafale... The rationally for the USAF force structure does not apply in this case.


Note that the fighter doctrine of the IAF calling for 2 fighter crews (2 heads are better than 1) is also the requirement for Multi-role fighters, so essentially the IAF does not have to extensively reconfigure the MKI for A2G roles.

In addition to operational differences, the 'Hi-Lo' concept involves a level of commonality of equipment-engines, avionics, weaponry-so you find a lot of similar systems on the F-15/16, F-22/35 and SU-27/J-10 in China. The high-end had a very specific role to sanitise airspace and carry out high-priority strikes while the low-end does most of the mud-moving. It has more to do with requirements than cost or size and is aimed at rationalising resources for maximum operational efficiency. An F-16 Block 60 weighs as much as an F-15A/C model.

As it is, the Hi-Lo classification does not apply in India since there is little commonality between the SU-30 and MMRCA. The MMRCA is not exactly a 'Lo-end' compared to the SU-30. The MMRCA will have lower operational costs and higher sortie rate given their newer and more efficient engine designs. About the SU-30, it's strike capability is limited by the fact that Russian munitions are older than the US/European ones which have constantly evolved-what is the Russian equivalent of the Maverick or the Brimstone? the nearest equivalent, the KH-29 weights almost twice as much as the Maverick. Same goes for their bombs.

 

[vanadium]

A few comments...

* First of all, it is an official evaluation which led to the final decision in the NL. It seems that Dutch have done extrapolations from the existing on the future performances of the fighters, based on information they had from the manufacturers. As we know, the JSF won and this aircraft didn't exist either. The Rafale F3 and even the F2 version didn't exist and it is the same for EF Tranche 3 and 2.

The Swiss, finally, did the same by chosing the Saab Gripen NG, which only exists on paper.
Downplaying the evaluations where Rafale performed much better while overrating Saudi deal (where no technical evaluation was released and which was rigged in advance), the Austrian case (where Rafale was not in the competition) or the Greek one (not really confirmed and probably even canceled) doesn't make sense.



* In Austria, Dassault decided to withdraw the Mirage from the competition. Mirage was never eliminated. Official Austrian source (Defense Ministry): "žDie US-Regierung ließ bereits im November 2001 wissen, sie werde nicht mit der F-18 ins "Rennen" gehen und Dassault Aviation teilte im darauf folgenden Dezember mit, kein Angebot legen zu können. Bis 23. Jänner 2002 trafen drei Angebote (Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH, Saab AB, Regierungsoffert der USA für F-16) fristgerecht beim BMLV ein. "ž

�sterreichs Bundesheer - Abfangj�ger Nachbeschaffung - Die Chronologie(According to the quite EF-friendly Austrian webpage Airpower.at a few years ago, Dassault refused to play the role of a "pro forma contender")

* I couldn't find any source reporting that the Greek decision was based on technical considerations or that Typhoon won the technical-operational evaluation in Greece (on the contrary, sources reporting about evaluations in CH, Brazil, South Korea, Singapore, NL are easy to find..).

* If Rafale performed better in the majority of technical-operational evaluations in countries with different requirements, the conclusion of (btw non proved and not at all confirmed by the Swiss) EF air superiority seems to be obsolete. Explaining it by a specific profile of requirements in one single case can be plausible, but in every single case it is not credible. It just means, that Rafale is more suited to today's requirements.



* The reasons why France left the European fighter project are sufficiently documented.
First, they disagreed on the concept of the future fighter and French didn't accept any compromise, second, there were disagreements on the specifications of the future engine as well, third, SNECMA and Rolls Royce disagreed on many points and did not really want to co-operate, as they were competitors, fourth, French, as a European leader in aircraft technology, wanted leadership or at least a bigger stake in the project. BTW the last point also was the case between the other 4 countries and one of the reasons for delays and cost explosions.

You can read the details from page 104 ff: http://www.chear.defense.gouv.fr/fr/pdef/histoire/6_moteurs_lasserre.pdf


Many more sources confirm those informations.

* France would not sell their mother more than UK or others: UK sold the EF to a dictatorship with unknown future like Saudi Arabia, the German do the same with Leopard, Austria has sold weapons to Iran etc.

I shall only comment on the Dutch "evaluation", as the rest is not worth wasting time upon it.

The Dutch had to formally justify that their favorite baby, the JSF, was the product of a serious analysis of alternatives rather than a sole source selection. So they wrote a requirement around the JSF Operational Requirement Document. Another couple of European Nordic countries (I shall not mention their names...), already wedded to the JSF, did the same, but had the good taste of non publishing their assessment results and just nominated JSF the winner. The Dutch instead carried on the charade to the ultimate and published their so called assessment. JSF won, as it was the fighter which tracked best the Dutch desired qualities in a fighter, i.e. the JSF ORD. Whoever gives value to that scoreboard is a rather gullible poor old chap.

One has to realize that at times such assessments are formalities required by the national auditing authorities to formally comply with some sort of due diligence: Have you checked also the other existing alternatives on the market? Yes Sir, we have! Can I see the results? yes Sir!
I mean, the Royal Navy did the same for their embarked JSF and asked some sort of submissions from Dassault, Boeing and Eurofighter. Would you take their final results as a serious indication of the relative value of the candidates. Would you really believe that Rafale could have won such a race? If you did you would be again a rather gullible poor old chap! Like in the Dutch case. So a pinch of salt is required and some professional experience does also help.

The Indian competition instead, so far, has been a remarkably well executed one. I have already commented on Japan and some other previous tenders in the Asia-Pacific region. You have now my take on some of those European JSF "competitions". We have seen the Swiss spending millions for a flight evaluation and making the competitors spend even more and then choosing the cheaper offer because, allegedly, they are a pretty poor country. If that was their real driver they could have spend 50 cent for a phone call and I would have told them that Gripen was the cheaper choice. Maybe not the best, but the cheapest.

 

[vanadium]

All these evaluations boils down to one thing. Rafale is expensive as compared to others, no matter how good an aircraft it is. Both Dassault and EADS are lucky in India as both aircraft are similarly priced. Anywhere else and it wouldn't be the same as is being proved in other competitions.

There are two polls in the forum about MRCA. One says,

1) Who do you think should Win?

The other says,

2)Which aircraft will win the MMRCA competition?

For 1st I went with Rafale and for the 2nd I went with EF-2000. We should not forget that getting to the top does not mean it is a better aircraft. The aircraft aren't competing based on tech specs. The evaluation is meant to determine whether the aircraft conforms to requirements. Rafale should be able to beat the F-22 in tech specs, but that does not mean it is better than the F-22 in A2A.

The Swiss evaluation which put the Rafale on top for A2A may have taken their Rules of Engagement into picture. If you are looking at their perspective, the Rafale, in the F4 version, provides as much and a bit more capability as the Bars PESA does. The EF-2000 will exceed the Bars PESA. So, it depends on what the Swiss wanted. IAF wants the MRCA aircraft to track a 3m2 target at 130Km while both competitors provided ~200Km(Rafale) and ~300Km(EF) for the same. So, the EF advantage of a bigger radar is nullified as IAF's requirement is smaller. This would mean both aircraft would get similar points for this parameter. Considering the Rafale is technically more advanced, it is obvious the tech points will be greater.

Both aircraft are good. But considering Rafale is the Jack of all trades, like the MKI, we should go for it.

It is the hallmark of a thinking man, of a professional who has the intellectual judgement and experience to understand what may lie behind cold numbers, when he states: "The Swiss evaluation which put the Rafale on top for A2A may have taken their Rules of Engagement into picture".
I may add that is very likely that the WVR played a bigger role than BVR. Rafale in the subsonic WVR domain is an excellent machine. As you know Typhoon excels in the top end BVR game, while being more or less in the same bracket as Rafale and Raptor in the subsonic maneuverability. If the bar is set "low" you do not score points for your extra capabilities. Capabilities which may not be relevant in the rather sedate Swiss threat scenario.

In a low threat scenario everybody does well and you cannot really pick what the top end fighter has to offer. As you gradually escalate the threat, you will see the weaker falling off and the top fighters starting to emerge. It is truly in the high end threat scenarios that you will start appreciating some key design choices in the top fighters and understand in full their value. But if you do not "go there", you cannot measure that intrinsic value and conclude--erroneously--that it does nor exist!!!

I may also add that Rafale showcased their AESA radar and probably collected more points there as well. It is likely that the Swiss then risk-adjusted some capability demonstrated on rigs but not in flight. Last but not least, one would have to know if there were some failures of major equipments during the flight trials as these can happen, and if they do they can be detrimental to your final score.

 

[vanadium]

So the French don't have any money to spend on upgunning the engines (which could be easily be shared with prospective partners like the UAE) but have enough to splurge on new sensors, weapons integration and everything else. There's something seriously wrong with that logic. About shorter life/higher maintenance costs, there is hardly any confirmation that it is significantly behind or ahead of the EJ-2000.

Did you say: "easily shared with UAE" ?
Where have you been in the past two years mate? Pluto? Uranus?

 

[vanadium]

No I can't, but you will tell us for sure including reliable references ...

Would you mistrust this article the same, if Collins had praised the EF?

I agree with you that it is impossible to identify so called biased sources, but this is always the case and for both fighters.

If Mr. Collins would state that Typhoon is the best fighter he has ever flown, but he had never flown an F-15 or a Flanker or a Rafale, then I would conclude that his opinion is of little relevance. What else could one say?

You see, when the former Chief of Staff of the USAF, General Jumper, said that Typhoon was one of the best jet he´s ever flown (and don´t ask to find you the quote because I am rather lazy for that kind of stuff, but it was in Laage some 5 years ago when he was CAS), that carries a lot of weight and credibility. As it is well known that the guy has flown almost every modern fighter in existence, including the F-22 Raptor.

 

[Yawn]

Did you say: "easily shared with UAE" ?
Where have you been in the past two years mate? Pluto? Uranus?

No apparently on the same planet with a clown who thinks it's ok for India to pick up the tab to upgrade the Eurofighter.

 

[p2prada]

To my understanding the Hi-Lo concept of the USAF was made necessary due to cost not performance (the differences in the latter was simply an offshoot due to compromises on cost). The F15s were simply too expensive to be inducted in sufficient quantity to cover all the needs of the USAF, hence, they produced a cheaper fighter but still capable on A2A role the F16. This is not the case for India. The MKI (Hi end) it appears is much cheaper than the Lo version, either EF or Rafale... The rationally for the USAF force structure does not apply in this case.

To add to Yawn's point. The F-15E actually lost to the F-16 XL. But F-15 was chosen for political and industrial reasons. Too many people would have lost jobs had F-15 production discontinued even though the F-16 was the better aircraft as a fighter bomber. The F-16 performs best at low altitudes while the F-15 dominates the skies.

USAF's greed could not overcome Gate's stubbornness. This time the truly better aircraft(F-35) will handle the strike role rather than a not so capable FB-22.

One handles air threats while the other handles ground threats. It is a different point that they can handle other roles, albeit less capable.

Note that the fighter doctrine of the IAF calling for 2 fighter crews (2 heads are better than 1) is also the requirement for Multi-role fighters, so essentially the IAF does not have to extensively reconfigure the MKI for A2G roles.

IAF doctrine for 2 crews may change once PAKFA comes in. There is perhaps place for both. However by 2022, half our air force will have 2 seaters(MKIs).

I may add that is very likely that the WVR played a bigger role than BVR. Rafale in the subsonic WVR domain is an excellent machine. As you know Typhoon excels in the top end BVR game, while being more or less in the same bracket as Rafale and Raptor in the subsonic maneuverability.

I believe the Rafale's supposed superiority in A2A had more to do with it's ability to passively detect and track enemy presence rather than aerodynamics. It could be a fleeting advantage which may disappear once EF is fully customized to Rafale's standards(2013) by 2018. Today the Super Hornet will detect, track and kill both Eurocanards from extreme ranges, but again this is temporary.

Also, Typhoon was known to have "whacked" MKIs in dog fights, if we are to believe the British Air Chief. In Garud 2010, the Rafales won against MKIs as well. It goes to show the MKI is ancient by today's standards and our need for superior avionics which the Europeans are more than willing to provide.

Both aircraft are expected to outclass the Flanker in their respective roles. EF in air to air and Rafale in air to ground.

 

[Yawn]

To add to Yawn's point. The F-15E actually lost to the F-16 XL. But F-15 was chosen for political and industrial reasons. Too many people would have lost jobs had F-15 production discontinued even though the F-16 was the better aircraft as a fighter bomber. The F-16 performs best at low altitudes while the F-15 dominates the skies.

.

Prada,

The F-16XL had advantages like enhanced kinematics and arguably lower operating costs but you can't necessarily say that the F-15E lost to it. The XL would have required significant research and development given its newer cranked-delta configuration compared to the lower risk Strike Eagle. Additionally, the Eagle had better range/payload capability with its bigger conformal fuel tank capability (more than 800 gallons each); the XL was not exactly suited for carrying a number of heavy munitions like the GBU-28 or even GBU-15 without compromising fuel load. And of course the F-15E's twin engines would have been a factor given the risk of battle damage in the strike role.

Afterall this was a replacement for the F-111, not a hot-rod fighter.

 

[arundo]

@ p2prada
so why do you think that India should go for Rafale, but it is more likely that they will chose Typhoon? What are, according to you, the decisive points in the case of India - are they just checking figures with the main focus on overall costs now or will strategic considerations (which should be pro EF) make the difference?

According to German press the EF is the favorite, according to French sources the Rafale (what a surprise). I just read an article in the German SPIEGEL reporting that both aircrafts could be too expensive, that the deal could be canceled and a new tender launched, bringing the Russians, US and Swedes back in the race.

Of course, we do not know what is happening behind the scene right now and which benefits or details are being negotiated with both contenders.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

MBDA bags Euro 950 million missile deal for Indian Mirage 2000 upgrade

India will procure 500 air-to-air missiles from French firm MBDA for IAF's Mirage 2000 aircraft fleet which are being upgraded by Dassault-Thales. The missiles are worth Euro 950 million, nearly three fourths as much as what the aircraft upgrade will cost. A Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cleared the procurement of 490 MICA missiles, agency reports said quoting Indian Defence Ministry sources in New Delhi.
The missiles would be deployed on the 51 Mirage 2000 aircraft, which are already undergoing upgrades at French facilities under a Euro 1.47 billion deal signed earlier this year.
Under the deal, MBDA will have to do offsets worth 30 per cent of the deal meaning that they will have to invest 315 million Euros back in the Indian defence sector.
MBDA already has a tie up with Indian government owned missile manufacturer, Bharat Dynamics Limited as the offsets will most likely be executed through this venture.

From:
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6428&h=MBDA bags Euro 950 million missile deal for Indian Mirage 2000 upgrade
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/11363887.cms

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In case Rafale wins, Both Mirage-2000 and Rafale will use same Missiles..

Hence ease the logistics, Also not to mention about Super-30 upgrade..

 

[trackwhack]

In case Rafale wins, Both Mirage-2000 and Rafale will use same Missiles..

Hence ease the logistics, Also not to mention about Super-30 upgrade..

Nice, this basically means the Rafale Won?

 

[nitesh]

MBDA bags Euro 950 million missile deal for Indian Mirage 2000 upgrade


From:
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6428&h=MBDA bags Euro 950 million missile deal for Indian Mirage 2000 upgrade
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/11363887.cms

With signing of this deal, I think Rafale has an edge now.