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

[Blackwater]

Q is not why and how Euro fighter selected. Q is what we are getting back diplomatically from UK ???

 

[Bhadra]

MMRCA Rumors | idrw.org Read the story here, although its just a rumour, which the article claims is from some military officer

Tiranga, it can not to ascribed to Military officer as they do not make such decisions. The Babus of MoD make that decisions in the name of the "people of India".

Lare fauaj Naam Sarkaar Ka !!

 

[arundo]

Let me sum up all that i know till now, please correct me if I am wrong

1 It seems both the aircraft are more or less equal in capabilities.... what air superiority the Typhoon has it presently lacks in A2G but will be developed, Rafale seems to have good A2G and not as good air superiority .... Rafale has ASEA Typhoon not until 2015 at least, but experts are saying Typhoon will have a larger radar so hence a better one....

2 looks like prices are about the same with the Rafale lower fly away cost but high weapons and spares cost with a higher overall cost
,Typhoon lower over all cost with an agreement for all spares to be produced in India ...

3 Rafale has commonality with the Mirage weapons plus in general commonality with the IAF, Typhoon will be a completely new type of aircraft for the IAF

4 According to rumors the ToT with Eurofighter is the better than the Rafale, along with an offer for partnership to India in future development of Typhoon, dont know what this really means though it might be they just need cash for further development of the A2G capabilities and other stuff also dont know if this partnership will extend to future aircraft development. As far as i know there is no such partnership offered by Dassult.

5 Dont know about other perks that are offered please anyone tell me if I missed anything.... In my opinion the French have a slight advantage in the fact that they themselves make the decision in what can be given as added perks with the deal for example help with nuclear submarine construction... where as with the consortium all the nations would have to agree I dont think the Brits will help India with a SSN. but we can get a lot more out of a 4 nation group than with France if we play our cards right....

will the experts who are neutral tell me if what i posted is correct?

Without taking upon the right to say I am an expert, I would say this is a good, sober, not one-sided summary.

 

[noob101]

Without taking upon the right to say I am an expert, I would say this is a good, sober, not one-sided summary.

thank you, if this is the case then I think it will come down to the kickbacks if there are any to the brass and MOD.... but the additional perks may also have a role to play...

 

[amitkriit]

Eurofighter:  Home

look at the banner on the front page, it definitely means something.

 

[Galaxy]

 

[weg]

Rafael spares being expensive, WTF ..aren't we getting ToT so we could manufacture our own spares ​

I beleive it means India would make spares for all nations as well as itself. So it could profit from sales to other nations.

I hop the French finally get it into their head that going it alone is a stupid, expensive mistake. Economies of scale over-rule ego.

 

[arundo]

I beleive it means India would make spares for all nations as well as itself. So it could profit from sales to other nations.

I hop the French finally get it into their head that going it alone is a stupid, expensive mistake. Economies of scale over-rule ego.

Why should they, since it is not?
1) The strategy change of EF shows, that the French were right in the 80's. EF had developed an air superiority fighter and has been trying to make an omnirole jet (= the French strategy from the beginning).
2) Rafale program costs exceeded initial budget by not more than 5%, EF by 75%. A EF would not have been cheaper for the French Airforce than a Rafale so far (on the contrary), but would have been less suited to the needs of French Airforce. UK will have to pay 37 billion £ (around 31 billion €) for the whole program for 160 jets, the French 43,6 billion € for a total of 286 jets.
3) Conclusion: unit costs of RAF EF are higher than unit costs of French Rafale
4) Furthermore, the participation to the European program would have generated much less added value, income, jobs, for the French economy.
5) Those facts and the huge delays and cost explosions of the EF program could lead the French to develop their own next gen aircraft again.

It would be nice if countries like Poland could start to think European and would less be US-oriented. I remember that 48 F-16 were ordered just after having negotiated huge economic and structural aid from the EU. European aircrafts like EF, Mirage and Gripen were in the competition.

 

[arya]

yaar select any one at least select

i want any one in iaf ASAP

we need to increase our numbers , Pakfa will be our front linner we have to increase our number with quality .

pls declare and induct them ASAP

 

[vanadium]

Why should they, since it is not?
1) The strategy change of EF shows, that the French were right in the 80's. EF had developed an air superiority fighter and has been trying to make an omnirole jet (= the French strategy from the beginning).
2) Rafale program costs exceeded initial budget by not more than 5%, EF by 75%. A EF would not have been cheaper for the French Airforce than a Rafale so far (on the contrary), but would have been less suited to the needs of French Airforce. UK will have to pay 37 billion £ (around 31 billion €) for the whole program for 160 jets, the French 43,6 billion € for a total of 286 jets.
3) Conclusion: unit costs of RAF EF are higher than unit costs of French Rafale
4) Furthermore, the participation to the European program would have generated much less added value, income, jobs, for the French economy.
5) Those facts and the huge delays and cost explosions of the EF program could lead the French to develop their own next gen aircraft again.

It would be nice if countries like Poland could start to think European and would less be US-oriented. I remember that 48 F-16 were ordered just after having negotiated huge economic and structural aid from the EU. European aircrafts like EF, Mirage and Gripen were in the competition.

Eurofighter Typhoon was designed from the start to be a multirole fighter because some of its customers had a surface attack requirement, in addition to the air-to-air need. So it is patently wrong to state what you say in point 1. The same is true for Rafale, and that is the reason initially the projects were joint. If Typhoon´s requirement had been solely for an air superiority fighter (a´ la F-15 "Not a pound for air to ground!" was displayed in the F-15A Project Office), there would have not been a joint programme at the beginning.

The difference in the two operational requirements were in terms of emphasis (Rafale more driven by A-G and Typhoon by A-A) and in the timing of those capabilities. UK, Germany, Italy and Spain needed to replace first their aging air superiority fleets (Germany and Italy had only A-A requirements), whereas in France it was the opposite, except for the Navy.

With this quick background in mind, the multirole design concept of Eurofighter differed from the one from Dassault, as it put more emphasis on the air-to-air aspects. If for a certain design solution there was a conflict between the A-A and A-G requirement, the priority was given to the A-A. As the design for air superiority is more demanding in most areas, this would in the end result in a more capable and longer lasting multirole fighter. And it would rarely penalize its A-G capability. The F-15A (designed just for air superiority) turned out to be an excellent multirole machine and a powerful striker. The same evolution can be seen in the F-16A to the F-16E Block 60.

To sum up: Typhoon was designed from the very beginning as a multirole fighter. So there is no change in strategy. Air-to-surface capabilities required by the RAF and the Spanish AF are introduced as and when needed by the customers. In the military aviation business the customer is king! As I said initially, the timing was driven by the urgency to replace the A-A fleets: Tornado ADV F3 in UK, F-4F Phantom in Germany, F-104S in Italy (absolutely urgent) and Mirage F1 in Spain. Then came the replacement of strike Jaguars in the UK.

Further to that. The multirole capability of the Typhoon design is so outstanding that the Luftwaffe--which with Italy had only an air superiority requirement--has decided to employ Typhoon also for strike roles and will replace the Tornado IDS fleet with it.

I am not commenting on the other historical chronicles (what was the budget, how it changed, what delays and all that bullshit) as irrelevant to the Indian public and to this forum. Maybe in a bureaucrats forum these items would be of high interest...

 

[weg]

It would be nice if countries like Poland could start to think European and would less be US-oriented. I remember that 48 F-16 were ordered just after having negotiated huge economic and structural aid from the EU. European aircrafts like EF, Mirage and Gripen were in the competition.

Poles have a misguided view of the USA, they think that it saved Poland from the Soviet occupation (and was an occupation, not a pact). In fact the USA couldn't really give a shit about the former communist states - it was simply looking after its own interests. This is slowly sinking in, the patriot missiles they installed here didn't even have warheads, as useful as plant pots to quote a Polish minister. There are virtually no Nato forces defending Poland, so buying the cheapest and to sucking up to the USA was the only option at the time.

However, thing are changing, Poland economy is growing, it even helped with the bail out of the Euro. The Prime minister and Foreign ministers are getting very friendly with Germany (Germany is reciprocating) becuase an economic union with the Germans is preferable to another Russian occupation. So maybe, with time, Poland will be able to buy the equipment it needs rather the what it can afford.

As for other countries, questions are being asked in Italy, Holland and Norway about the F-35 selection (no competition was held), it being an overweight, expensive white elephant. Thing is, as a bomber its good enough in tandem with Nato's F-22's and Euro fighters.

If for a certain design solution there was a conflict between the A-A and A-G requirement, the priority was given to the A-A. As the design for air superiority is more demanding in most areas, this would in the end result in a more capable and longer lasting multirole fighter.

A point emphasised by the fact that the US uses C-130's and B-52's for A2G. Any old junk will do it. Super Tucano?

 

[Syd]

Q is not why and how Euro fighter selected. Q is what we are getting back diplomatically from UK ???

Why only the UK? BAe is responsible for about 40% of the Eurofighter . Germany, Spain and Italy are responsible for the remaining 60%. That is why it is called Eurofighter!

 

[noob101]

What developments would the Typhoon need for it to be have decent A2G capabilities? And how much would it cost? if we select the Typhoon and the A2G abilities don't pan out what strike air craft will we have after 2020?

 

[sukhish]

Eurofighter Typhoon was designed from the start to be a multirole fighter because some of its customers had a surface attack requirement, in addition to the air-to-air need. So it is patently wrong to state what you say in point 1. The same is true for Rafale, and that is the reason initially the projects were joint. If Typhoon´s requirement had been solely for an air superiority fighter (a´ la F-15 "Not a pound for air to ground!" was displayed in the F-15A Project Office), there would have not been a joint programme at the beginning.

The difference in the two operational requirements were in terms of emphasis (Rafale more driven by A-G and Typhoon by A-A) and in the timing of those capabilities. UK, Germany, Italy and Spain needed to replace first their aging air superiority fleets (Germany and Italy had only A-A requirements), whereas in France it was the opposite, except for the Navy.

With this quick background in mind, the multirole design concept of Eurofighter differed from the one from Dassault, as it put more emphasis on the air-to-air aspects. If for a certain design solution there was a conflict between the A-A and A-G requirement, the priority was given to the A-A. As the design for air superiority is more demanding in most areas, this would in the end result in a more capable and longer lasting multirole fighter. And it would rarely penalize its A-G capability. The F-15A (designed just for air superiority) turned out to be an excellent multirole machine and a powerful striker. The same evolution can be seen in the F-16A to the F-16E Block 60.

To sum up: Typhoon was designed from the very beginning as a multirole fighter. So there is no change in strategy. Air-to-surface capabilities required by the RAF and the Spanish AF are introduced as and when needed by the customers. In the military aviation business the customer is king! As I said initially, the timing was driven by the urgency to replace the A-A fleets: Tornado ADV F3 in UK, F-4F Phantom in Germany, F-104S in Italy (absolutely urgent) and Mirage F1 in Spain. Then came the replacement of strike Jaguars in the UK.

Further to that. The multirole capability of the Typhoon design is so outstanding that the Luftwaffe--which with Italy had only an air superiority requirement--has decided to employ Typhoon also for strike roles and will replace the Tornado IDS fleet with it.

I am not commenting on the other historical chronicles (what was thebudget, how it changed, what delays and all that bullshit) as irrelevant to the Indian public and to this forum. Maybe in a bureaucrats forum these items would be of high interest...

AMEN brother,
People are very emotional on this forum about rafale,
Rafale is an aero Museam fighter, AtoA requirements are very stringent
Compared to A to G. These capabilities can be added later On

 

[utubekhiladi]

our poll is tie

55:55

but let me assure you one more time

French lobby has already won MMRCA

 

[vanadium]

What developments would the Typhoon need for it to be have decent A2G capabilities? And how much would it cost? if we select the Typhoon and the A2G abilities don't pan out what strike air craft will we have after 2020?

Typhoon is operational as of July 2008 as a multirole fighter in the RAF. See article below about the preparation to achieve such milestone:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-typhoon-proves-close-air-support-credentials-for-raf-224826/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...close-air-support-credentials-for-raf-224826/


In A-G ops you basically need to go so far with a given payload, locate the target and attack it, survive the surface and airborne threats, come back and do it again and again.


In terms of new weapons to integrate one would need to cover the standoff range of 100km with a low cost precision gliding bomb and the long-range standoff with cruise missiles (two available and planned: Storm Shadow and Taurus). The a/c has 13 weapon stations. The shorter range laser guided and GPS-guided munitions are already integrated. Brimstone is also planned for integration and has shown remarkable effectiveness in Libyan ops on Tornado.


In terms of targeting sensors a/c has radar surface modes, E/O targeting pod, FLIR/IRST and connectivity with off board assets. The new re-positionable AESA radar will provide a quantum jump in terms of SAR imagery definition and allow attacks from bigger standoff range. This is a key advantage over the competition! In addition the HMD helmet mounted display gives the LDP superior targeting capability in CAS role.


In terms of survivability against airborne and surface based defenses the a/c has the capability to self-escort itself if needed (can always carry 4 MRM + 2 SRM), has a very powerful active ECM, including highly effective towed decoys. Can do standoff jamming. It has a very low signature and passive terrain following. It is highly maneuverable and even fully loaded in A-G config can pull 5.5G. Carefree handling to concentrate on the battle scenario.


Designed to operate from austere forward locations and from battle damaged runway thanks to short T/O and landing performance. Low maintenance for high mission availability.


In a nutshell Typhoon is already today a highly capable A-G platform. The new radar will provide best in class high definition SAR imagery for even more surgical strikes. The integration of weapons required by the IAF will be carried out as per agreement with the operators and does not carry any major risk as these class of weapons are already planned for existing operators.


Last but not least. Typhoon will allow the IAF to achieve the air superiority, which is a fundamental pre-requisite for the conduct of all other war operations; in the air, on the ground and on the sea. With control of the skies, surface attack ops will be conducted in a more permissive environment with much reduced losses. Having helped in achieving air superiority, Typhoon will swing into strike operations with great effectiveness.

 

[arundo]

To sum up: Typhoon was designed from the very beginning as a multirole fighter. So there is no change in strategy. Air-to-surface capabilities required by the RAF and the Spanish AF are introduced as and when needed by the customers. In the military aviation business the customer is king! As I said initially, the timing was driven by the urgency to replace the A-A fleets: Tornado ADV F3 in UK, F-4F Phantom in Germany, F-104S in Italy (absolutely urgent) and Mirage F1 in Spain. Then came the replacement of strike Jaguars in the UK.

Further to that. The multirole capability of the Typhoon design is so outstanding that the Luftwaffe--which with Italy had only an air superiority requirement--has decided to employ Typhoon also for strike roles and will replace the Tornado IDS fleet with it.

I am not commenting on the other historical chronicles (what was the budget, how it changed, what delays and all that bullshit) as irrelevant to the Indian public and to this forum. Maybe in a bureaucrats forum these items would be of high interest...

It is a matter of a fact that the multirole capability of Typhoon is very restricted so far and you should know that. The NAO highlighted it earlier this year in its EF-Report. In Libya, most of the RAF strikes were performed by Tornados (while EF showed up only sporadically in A2G operations).RAF pilots were very evasive in their replies, if asked about A2G missions performed by EF. What you wrote about the multirole potential of EF is much in the future. It is not excluded that Rafale will get an upgrade in the next years (including the stronger engine)
My reply was more focused on weg's remark, that Rafale was a more expensive project... and I even had a calculation error on my side: of course 37 billion £ are not 31 billion, but almost 45 billion Euro... 160 EF jets cost as much as the 286 Rafale... in other words, British Typhoon are nearly 80% more expensive. My conclusion is, that the co-operation of the 4 countries was not conducive to meet timetable and budgets (many differences and self-interest guided attitudes slowing down the program). BTW it is the same with the Meteor program which is already 2 years behind timetable and causes additional 50 million Euro cots only for Germany.. as a consequence from disagreements between the countries.
Shall I remind, that you started to point out the costs of the Rafale program, yesterday..?

 

[arundo]

“Omnirole” Rafale Steals Lead Over Eurofighter Typhoon in Libyan Operations : Defense news

 

[mayfair]

At this stage, it is not so much about the capabilities of the two aircraft but what price are we expected to pay for those capabilities

Statistical jugglery can show either aircraft to be cheaper than the other in unit fly away cost or lifetime costs. But how about looking at it from a practical perspective? Our Mirage upgrade deal is worth $2.1 billion or thereabouts and the recent MICA purchase is worth another $950 million, which by general consensus is exhorbitant. So one may assume that Rafale will be prohibitively expensive to purchase and maintain over the years.

Not sure about Typhoon, but have the either consoritum done anything to assuage or allay our concerns? All I recall with certainity is French smugness, arrogance and instrangience about their product and its abilities and their intentions to shaft us blind on one hand, and the European consortiums slick half baked, evasive, filled with more than a hint of condescension and arrogance with no less intention of robbing us blind.

If there was a choice between devil and the deep sea this may not be far from it.

 

[arundo]

At this stage, it is not so much about the capabilities of the two aircraft in system but what price are we expected to pay for those capabilities

Statistical jugglery can show either aircraft to be cheaper than the other in unit fly away cost or lifetime costs. But how about looking at it from a practical perspective? Our Mirage upgrade deal is worth $2.1 billion or thereabouts and the recent MICA purchase is worth another $950 million, which by general consensus is exhorbitant. So one may assume that Rafale will be prohibitively expensive to purchase and maintain over the years.

I agree on the 1st point.
Regarding the MICA price we should not forget that European products are penalized by unfourable exchange rate EUR-USD. We will see how much the Meteor will cost vs. US products, once it is ready. We should not forget that MICA is a MBDA product today, which is the main manufacturer of European missiles. Still unfavourable exchange rates EUR-USD are penalizing the pricing as well of Rafale as of EF in general. EUR is expected to become a little weaker in the next years and European products will be more attractively priced vs. US products. Of course, US manufacturers can base their calculation on much larger numbers of produced missiles.

Taking into account the costs Typhoon will cause to RAF over the whole duration of the program, I cannot imagine that Rafale is more expensive at the end of the day (unless EF GmbH has made numerous immense concessions to the Indians and dropped their trousers). And there will be a need for more money for sure.
If Typhoon emerges as the less expensive aircraft for India, the French have made one more big strategic or tactical error (after Morocco and UAE). The trouble is, that Dassault and French state do not share the same interests and some say that Dassault is not willing to make big concessions to customers.