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

[weg]

MBDA is just a holding company. Each nation is responsible for hocking and making its own wares. MICA is a product of MBDA France.

But wouldn't the profit go to MBDA shareholders?

What alternative missile could be chosen instead of MICA? This purchase looks like a forgone conclusion as there isn't an alternative for the Mirage.

 

[vanadium]

EADS is 30% French owned (each 15% Lagardère and French state).
30% German owned (Daimler AG)
5,5% Italian (SEPI)
34,5% belong to a dispersed number of shareholders

As you aim for accuracy...let me note that SEPI is Spanish state-owned and not Italian.

 

[vanadium]

But wouldn't the profit go to MBDA shareholders?

What alternative missile could be chosen instead of MICA? This purchase looks like a forgone conclusion as there isn't an alternative for the Mirage.

That is the problem with French weapon system: they will skin you with very expensive munition packages and upgrades (just look at the Mirage 2000 prices!).
MICA is the most expensive medium range A-A missile on the market. AMRAAM is much more affordable.
On Typhoon you have AMRAAM and a choice of three competing short range IR missiles: ASRAAM, IRIS-T and Sidewinder.

 

[p2prada]

Again look at the layout of the XL and ask yourself how many 'heavy' munitions it can deploy-it is given in the F-16.net article. You would lose fuel capacity if you decided to deploy 2,000 lb bombs and you would never be able to deploy the 5,000 lb GBU-28. Number of hardpoints is not as relevant as layout-it's the same problem with the Eurofighter Typhoon. As I said earlier, the F-15E came closest to the F-111 in its role as a tactical strike aircraft. The only folks who talk about politics are those who designed and lobbied for the XL.

The F-16XL has 4 wet stations. It has plenty of fuel on internal, as much an Eagle did and it ran on only one engine. The thrust was plenty. The F-16XL surpassed the ETF requirements and this is what matters. The F-15 scraped through but it still does not perform as well as the F-16 at low altitudes, which matters.

The GBU-28 was not even on the drawing board when the ETF winner was decided. It was still 6 years away from being on the drawing board. Current developments of bombs are looking at greater penetration with lesser weight, like the German HOPE. So, weapons developments cannot be compared to the development of a platform before the weapon is even thought off.

The current F-16 can carry 2 GBU-10s and still give excellent range with 3 drop tanks and CFTs as compared. The F-16XL had nearly twice the fuel.

 

[sukhish]

EU fighter will win this no matter what. French economy and pride is crumbling down. next they are unilateraly going to start selling weapons to china.

 

[p2prada]

But wouldn't the profit go to MBDA shareholders?

What alternative missile could be chosen instead of MICA? This purchase looks like a forgone conclusion as there isn't an alternative for the Mirage.

Derby would have been an option had we gone for Israeli upgrade along with Python V.

 

[vanadium]

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.



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 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.

To detect with passive means you will the need your enemy´s co-operation. A formation of Typhoons is unlikely to comply with such a request from its opponents, as it is equipped with long range passive sensors such as ESM and IRST. It is also likely to be receiving information from off boards assets and to use formation tactics to spare the activation of the onboard radar. All this is smartly sensor fused. Radar will eventually have to be used to launch an attack. I cannot see neither Rafale nor the Superbug being able to initiate an attack earlier. Typhoon will generally enjoy a higher altitude CAP station or cruising, and thus higher entry energy status. Now the end game is mainly dependent on gaining energy (speed and altitude) to achieve max launch range (we assume for the time being same class missiles), on sustained turn rate at high Mach/high altitude and radar field of view to avoid counter-fire, and finally on highly automated ECM (towed decoys are very critical in this phase).

Now, the Superbug has the eyes but not the muscles for this type of combat and will be very badly bruised in such encounters. Sensors without kinematic power to launch your missiles with a high Probability of Kill is a serious shortcoming in modern warfare. Especially in a network centric environment on both sides. Rafale will accelerate better, but it is still weak in the high supersonic region. Give it 20% more thrust and the fighter may deliver its full potential.

In the Indian perspective Typhoon will deliver a few more extra capabilities to cope with the evolving threat. First the so-called "game changer" Meteor missile (and we have talked enough about that in the past). Secondly a re-positionable large aperture AESA radar. Aperture is clearly important, but many people fail to recognize the correlation between the radar field of view FoV (and capability to sustain a high G turn at high Mach) and the successful outcome of a combat. This is a KEY CORRELATION. A fixed AESA radar has the disadvantage of narrowing the FoV with respect to a similar mechanical scan radar. Accepting a performance degradation in this vital area was never on the cards for Typhoon. Eventually the solution, after much hard work, came, it is brilliant and it works. It is the re-positionable antenna which scans across 200deg versus your typical fixed AESA 120deg. It is the difference between winning and losing. How much value do you assign to such a parameter? How is a bean counter going to assess such quality?
Last but not least in the important cards available to stay ahead of the threat, is an engine with some 15%-20% of in-built growth capacity and more with deeper interventions. It is there, untapped and it is a very important reserve. Give it the due recognition please!

I think that looking at a multirole fighter, which will be in service for the next 35-40 years, fixated on the timeline 2015-18 is a bit shortsighted.

Observation on the good old McAir providentially saved by the F-15E development vs the F-16XL. And again—after the failure of the A-12—by assigning to McAir the development of a modification of the Hornet without a competing tender. A clever political escamotage to ensure that the new aircraft (hardly a modification!) would be designed in St. Louis rather than Forth Worth. Without the ensuing Super Hornet life would have been very tough where the two big rivers meet. Especially after the loss of the JSF competition in the first round.

 

[sukhish]

I'm just hoping now that this thing gets cancelled. the way Eu is behaving with iran and with other countries makes me sick to my stomatch.

 

[Yawn]

The F-16XL has 4 wet stations. It has plenty of fuel on internal, as much an Eagle did and it ran on only one engine. The thrust was plenty. The F-16XL surpassed the ETF requirements and this is what matters. The F-15 scraped through but it still does not perform as well as the F-16 at low altitudes, which matters.

The GBU-28 was not even on the drawing board when the ETF winner was decided. It was still 6 years away from being on the drawing board. Current developments of bombs are looking at greater penetration with lesser weight, like the German HOPE. So, weapons developments cannot be compared to the development of a platform before the weapon is even thought off.

The current F-16 can carry 2 GBU-10s and still give excellent range with 3 drop tanks and CFTs as compared. The F-16XL had nearly twice the fuel.

Prada, here's the information on the trade-off between fuel and payload from the same site you quoted-
However, on each wing, the "heavy / wet" station was at the same buttline (distance from the center of the Fuselage) as two of the wing weapon stations. This means that you could use either the one " heavy / wet" or two weapon stations but not both at the same time.

Furthermore, if the "heavy / wet" station was used for an external fuel, the tank physically blocked one more wing station This meant that with external fuel tanks, the maximum number of weapons on the wings was 10. Two weapons could also be carried on a centerline adaptor. If no underwing fuel tanks were used, the maximum number of 500 lb class weapons was increased to 16. Although the XL could carry the centerline 300 tank, it was not really an operational loadout since mission range would actually be decreased unless the CL-300 could be dropped when empty.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1.html

You can draw your own inferences-but I'd rather believe the nearly half a dozen customers who decided to pitch for the Strike Eagle.

 

[Minh]

Get the Euro Typhoon India, it look nice and mean.

 

[sukhish]

Yes,
Eventually it's going to be euro fighter, rafale is short listed to show to the world that there are two competitors,
And to extract more bargain from the euro guys. Other than that rafale has no meaning in this competition.

 

[Immanuel]

Immanuel, agreed it is a high priced deal. But it would essentially have been the same if we had opted for any MMRCA contender other than the Mig-35 (which can use existing stocks). You would have had to buy American systems for the two teen series jets and European systems for the others. At least with the Rafale and upgraded Mirage-2000s, there is a degree of cross-subsidization and streamlining of logistics. If the Rafale is chosen, it would share a common weapons train with the Mirage while the Jaguar and LCA would likely use similar (short-range) systems.

Well i am talking about the Derby. Derby is in the same class as the MICA and is many respects a cheaper and better missile. WE are getting it for the LCA MK-1, we should have simply gone for them for the mirage with Python-5 which is by far one of the most potent SR missiles. Going for MICA seems to have been done under pressure rather than choice. We are already acquiring lots of derbys and python-5 with the spyder ads, ordered more for mirage would have allowed for local manufacture of the derby and python-5 and commonality. Python-5 would be ideal for Jaguar SR missile deal as well, Python-5 can easily be the standard SR missile in the IAF. Python-5 can be integrated on the apache, LCH, Jag, mirage, su-30mki, lca mk-1, Mig-29 upg.

 

[Immanuel]

Well even after upgrades of the EU birds, the SH will remain superior, the USN will have SH international upgrades beginning MLU for the SH. New engines, uprated AESA, conformal tanks, IRST, new MAWS, upgraded cockpit, stealth pods, higher range etc It is already the most potent EW aircraft in the world, once the new jammer comes out in 2018, it will only get deadlier. EU birds will have certain key features but full-spec SH with Aim-120D will still detect every one else first, fire first and can carry upto 14 A2A missiles in A2A mission. I hope the deal is cancelled due to high price and we sign a FMS for the upgraded SH. Its engines are the most reliable ever made, not a single loss due to engine failure, the aircraft is far more robust and can deploy an array of some of the neatest weapons on the planet. I believe with a large enough order of say 200 aircraft, we get enough leverage to force unkil to drop a lot of the intrusive agreements they want us to sign.

 

[Yawn]

Well even after upgrades of the EU birds, the SH will remain superior, the USN will have SH international upgrades beginning MLU for the SH. New engines, uprated AESA, conformal tanks, IRST, new MAWS, upgraded cockpit, stealth pods, higher range etc It is already the most potent EW aircraft in the world, once the new jammer comes out in 2018, it will only get deadlier. EU birds will have certain key features but full-spec SH with Aim-120D will still detect every one else first, fire first and can carry upto 14 A2A missiles in A2A mission. I hope the deal is cancelled due to high price and we sign a FMS for the upgraded SH. Its engines are the most reliable ever made, not a single loss due to engine failure, the aircraft is far more robust and can deploy an array of some of the neatest weapons on the planet. I believe with a large enough order of say 200 aircraft, we get enough leverage to force unkil to drop a lot of the intrusive agreements they want us to sign.

The USN has not expressed any solid interest in the Super Hornet International package-it was from the begining meant for the export market. And no amount of upgrades will undo the disadvantages of slow-speed configuration of the Super Hornet which was designed ground-up as a carrier-based strike bird.

The Rafale and Eurofighter can do most of what the Super Hornet does and much more and most importantly have a higher chance of surviving in air to air combat against near equal foes like the PLAAF.

You want American, I'd rather wait for the F-35 or even go for the F-15E.

 

[Immanuel]

well USN is bound to perform MLU on the older SHs and MLU will begin in the next few years. The oldest SH in inventory of the USN has over 3800 hrs on it. MLU will begin by mid 2015 or so just in time for many of the upgardes to go on board on the SH. The uprated engine should provide a similar T/W ratio to that of Raffy. Furthermore, new developments in the engines would furhter cut down weight by upto 500lbs per engine. To say that the SH is purely a strike fight is pure hogwash as well since, it forms the formiddable first line of defense for the carrier battle group. USN CBGs are the deadliest battle formations on the planet.

Furthermore, SH remains one of the only fighters to have scored a gun kill and Aim kill against the infamous raptor. The growler has EW equal. Having a few squadrons of the growler would allow us to jam any PLAAF threat before kills. Neither the EF or Raffy offer such EW capability. SH is well on it way to begin using the next gen jammer being developed. Being the first line of the CBGs, USN has always given priority to keep the SH upto date. None of the MRCA offer the net centricty of the SH, SH in USN also plays awacs roles since it's radar has detection ranges of well over 500km. It also plays tanker roles as in it can tank other types of aircraft as well.

It is the most multirole of all the aircraft out there. Besides, we will have Super MKI to take on air superiority missions while SH can play a host of roles. Due to its low rcs, new larger cockpit, new stealth pods, high payload ability combined with the latest of unkil's deadly cost effective arsenal, it can prove to be the most useful aircraft in our arsenal. With MRCA we an aircraft that can do pretty mcuh everything well.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/avd/2010/09/17/10.xml&headline=New%20GE%
20Engine%20Has%20Potential%20For%20Commercial%20Use

Redirect Notice
Redirect Notice

Even if we have to fund some of them, having the SH would bring in advantages that Raffy and EF don't. For pure A2A roles super mki is more than enough to take on everything China or Pak has to throw at us.

 

[Yawn]

well USN is bound to perform MLU on the older SHs and MLU will begin in the next few years. The oldest SH in inventory of the USN has over 3800 hrs on it. MLU will begin by mid 2015 or so just in time for many of the upgardes to go on board on the SH. The uprated engine should provide a similar T/W ratio to that of Raffy. Furthermore, new developments in the engines would furhter cut down weight by upto 500lbs per engine. To say that the SH is purely a strike fight is pure hogwash as well since, it forms the formiddable first line of defense for the carrier battle group. USN CBGs are the deadliest battle formations on the planet.

Furthermore, SH remains one of the only fighters to have scored a gun kill and Aim kill against the infamous raptor. The growler has EW equal. Having a few squadrons of the growler would allow us to jam any PLAAF threat before kills. Neither the EF or Raffy offer such EW capability. SH is well on it way to begin using the next gen jammer being developed. Being the first line of the CBGs, USN has always given priority to keep the SH upto date. None of the MRCA offer the net centricty of the SH, SH in USN also plays awacs roles since it's radar has detection ranges of well over 500km. It also plays tanker roles as in it can tank other types of aircraft as well.

It is the most multirole of all the aircraft out there. Besides, we will have Super MKI to take on air superiority missions while SH can play a host of roles. Due to its low rcs, new larger cockpit, new stealth pods, high payload ability combined with the latest of unkil's deadly cost effective arsenal, it can prove to be the most useful aircraft in our arsenal. With MRCA we an aircraft that can do pretty mcuh everything well.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/avd/2010/09/17/10.xml&headline=New%20GE%
20Engine%20Has%20Potential%20For%20Commercial%20Use

Redirect Notice
Redirect Notice

Even if we have to fund some of them, having the SH would bring in advantages that Raffy and EF don't. For pure A2A roles super mki is more than enough to take on everything China or Pak has to throw at us.

Buddy hogwash or not, I'd rather believe what the USN said about the type and its shortfall in turn rates, transonic acceleration and wing-drop issues. The Super Hornet is a wonderful aircraft but it was never designed for high-end kinematic performance. That is why there are people criticising it as the F-14 Tomcat's performance. No amount of upgrades can beat basic design limitations.

You talk about a gun-kill against the Raptor. A month ago, Stephen Trimble published pictures of the Raptor being targeted by the Rafale's IR sensor. So what does that prove-nothing. Again-what makes you think the US would release to us comprehensive 'electronic attack' systems-the Growler configuration currently released for export is lower-end and there are already concerns about performance shortfalls with legacy systems like the ALQ-99 jammer against new SAMs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aero-india-boeing-reveals-plans-for-growler-lite-322542/

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/09/us-navy-alq-99-pods-no-match-f.html

You talk about the Super MKI-compare its RCS with that of the Typhoon/Rafale or even the Super Hornet-it will be at a disadvantage against the J-20 and at best be on par with the upgraded J-11B. Can it supercruise-no. Does it have the sensor fusion of the Euro-canards-no. Does it have the lower operating costs/down time of the Euro-canards-no. Does it come integrated with US origin weapons like the Paveway series the way the Euro-canards are-no. There's a reason why the IAF went for the MMRCA in the first place.

 

[Zebra]

Germany Might Sell Used Eurofighters to E. Europe


By ALBRECHT MÃœLLER
Published: 5 Jan 2012 12:50

BONN - In the wake of its military restructuring, Germany could sell some of its used Eurofighter jets to Eastern European countries. The Financial Times Deutschland newspaper reported on Jan. 4 that Bulgaria is interested in acquiring eight aircraft.
According to the newspaper, the topic could be raised during the visit of Bulgarian Prime Minister Bojko Borissow Ende to Berlin at the end of January.

Other Eastern European countries, such as the Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovakia and Romania, are also looking at similar options, said the newspaper.
Earlier reports have linked Saab, with its Gripen fighter, and the U.S., with the Lockheed Martin F-16, as having made similar overtures to Eastern European nations.
As part of Berlin's overall military reduction, the future planned number of Eurofighter jets in the German Air Force has been reduced from 177 to 140. This could be achieved without selling any Typhoons as Germany still has not signed an order for 37 aircraft as part of the Eurofighter Tranche 3B deal, the final batch of aircraft earmarked for the four-nation program that also includes Italy, Spain and the U.K.
None of the nations were expected to fulfill their commitment to buy 3B aircraft even before Europe's worsening economic crisis took hold. However, there had been occasional speculation that Germany could sell some of its Tranche 1 aircraft and order the latest version of the jet instead.
A German Ministry of Defense spokesman said he did not want to comment on any such possible deals. The spokesman said the Bundeswehr is still planning for a total of 140 aircraft and there is no obligation to purchase Tranche 3B aircraft.

Germany Might Sell Used Eurofighters to E. Europe - Defense News

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Rafale in the home stretch to win the Indian market

New Delhi will have next week all the elements to choose which of the French aircraft or the Eurofighter, will equip its Air Force.

From next week, the timing of the tender for the sale of 126 combat aircraft (M-MRCA project) with an amount initially estimated at $ 12 billion will accelerate. Started November 4, 2011 after the opening of envelopes containing the Dassault and Eurofighter consortium ( EADS , BAE Systems and Italy's Finmeccanica) commercial tender, the long and tedious work of synthesis of the Indian Air Force (Air Force) on the two bids submitted, should be completed next week. India buys not only a fighter but also the MCO (operational maintenance) and support equipment. The cost of ownership - the costs of combat aircraft throughout their lives, including in terms of fuel - should be decisive for the contract now valued at $ 20 billion and called "the mother of all deals ". A report should be sent without a break to the Indian Defence Minister, who will send it too Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

One country against four
Policy makers will decide based on the operational side of both units and commercial proposal presented by the two manufacturers ... or not.
"The Rafale is supported by a country, Eurofighter by four", said a source familiar with the matter. In this respect, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, wrote last month on behalf of the four European partners in the Eurofighter consortium (Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain) to Indian Prime Minister to encourage him to choose the Eurofighter, which has yet experienced two failures, one in Oman (in front of F-16 Lockheed Martin) and one in Switzerland where the Gripen has won (the Rafale was also nominated). It also encounters difficulties in Saudi Arabia, Riyad being unhappy about the aircraft delivered.

For now, it seems that the Rafale keeps an operational advantage over the Eurofighter, the Indian Air Force put the french aircraft ahead of its European rival. However, it is the ink bottle case with the commercial offerings. Ideally, the Rafale should be cheaper because in previous tenders, its price was, on average, between 10% to 15% cheaper than the Eurofighter. Unless, as suggested by some industrial partners in the Rafale, the Eurofighter program's competitors have made great efforts on the price of the unit to remain competitive. Because according to Indian rules, the lowest bidder is deemed the winner.

Google translated from:
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-...he-indien.html

 

[pankaj nema]

In another forums there are people who have begun calling RAFALE as the winner

They are saying that there is a buzz in IAF circles that Rafale has won

And high priced MICA missiles and Mirage upgrade are all going to be amortised through
Rafale deal

 

[vanadium]

Buddy hogwash or not, I'd rather believe what the USN said about the type and its shortfall in turn rates, transonic acceleration and wing-drop issues. The Super Hornet is a wonderful aircraft but it was never designed for high-end kinematic performance. That is why there are people criticising it as the F-14 Tomcat's performance. No amount of upgrades can beat basic design limitations.

You talk about a gun-kill against the Raptor. A month ago, Stephen Trimble published pictures of the Raptor being targeted by the Rafale's IR sensor. So what does that prove-nothing. Again-what makes you think the US would release to us comprehensive 'electronic attack' systems-the Growler configuration currently released for export is lower-end and there are already concerns about performance shortfalls with legacy systems like the ALQ-99 jammer against new SAMs.

AERO INDIA: Boeing reveals plans for 'Growler Lite'

US Navy: ALQ-99 pods no match for "today's" threat - The DEW Line

You talk about the Super MKI-compare its RCS with that of the Typhoon/Rafale or even the Super Hornet-it will be at a disadvantage against the J-20 and at best be on par with the upgraded J-11B. Can it supercruise-no. Does it have the sensor fusion of the Euro-canards-no. Does it have the lower operating costs/down time of the Euro-canards-no. Does it come integrated with US origin weapons like the Paveway series the way the Euro-canards are-no. There's a reason why the IAF went for the MMRCA in the first place.

The Navy retired the Tomcat at the end of the Cold War in the knowledge that for the next 25 years there would no serious peer competitor. In such a scenario the strike optimised Super Hornet would be also tasked to contribute to the air defence umbrella of the battle group. From 2020+ the threat in the Far East will increase considerably and the USN carrier battle group will have to move to the rear (say 600nm instead of the normal 200nm), as the air and ballistic missile threat will become heavy. The Super Bug will be replaced by the so called 6th generation fighter and the naval aviators will finally fly a real fighter again. JSF will of course be at the limits of its 600nm radius and, if the USN really buy it, will become rather irrelevant for tha theatre. Enter the X-47 UCAV now in development anvd the writing is on the wall for JSF in Navy colours. They never liked that ugly single engined duckling anyhow!