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

The final call! Show your support. Who do you think should Win?

  • Eurofighter Typhoon

    Votes: 66 51.2%
  • Dassault Rafale

    Votes: 63 48.8%

  • Total voters
    129
Status
Not open for further replies.

arundo

New Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
116
Likes
17
The reasons a lot of people support Rafale has nothing to do with A2A capability. IMO the A2A capability on Rafale is probably adequate but the strike punch the Rafale can provide is way better than EF's. Unlike the EF, the Rafale does very well in the subsonic regime at low altitudes. It has an additional 2 wet points and carries quite a bit to very long distances.

The MKI is the jack of all trades, like the Rafale. The EF will beat both in the sky. The IAF wants to replace their Jags and Mig-27s with the MRCA. So, it is clear the IAF prefers the Rafale and this was mentioned twice by the IAF as far as I can remember. Let's not forget IAF rejected the Mi-28 and only Apache was shortlisted for contract negotiation in their attack helicopter tender. IAF could have done the same and just selected Rafale in the beginning. However, considering EF was shortlisted, we know IAF wouldn't mind their second best option as well.

Rafale was built as a ground attack aircraft like the F-35. EF was built with air superiority in mind. No matter which aircraft wins, the primary goal for IAF is to find replacements for their own ground attack aircraft. Now we can say, Rafale will win and things will go as planned. If EF wins, then it is possible some MKI squadrons will become the mud movers while EF will replace the MKIs role. It's all a big maybe because we don't have official IAF views on what either aircraft are meant to do when selected.
So you say that ground attack capabilities matter a lot. I always thought that it mattered a little, but there was an emphasis on a2a in the defined specifications.
 
Last edited:

arundo

New Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
116
Likes
17
Talking about price again.
According to that French source it is a surprise that Rafale is more expensive than EF. So far it has always been cheaper by 10-15%.
(However, I remember that in CH Rafale was the most expensive).

Le Rafale plus cher que l'Eurofighter
 

Immanuel

New Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,605
Likes
7,574
Country flag
The reasons a lot of people support Rafale has nothing to do with A2A capability. IMO the A2A capability on Rafale is probably adequate but the strike punch the Rafale can provide is way better than EF's. Unlike the EF, the Rafale does very well in the subsonic regime at low altitudes. It has an additional 2 wet points and carries quite a bit to very long distances.

The MKI is the jack of all trades, like the Rafale. The EF will beat both in the sky. The IAF wants to replace their Jags and Mig-27s with the MRCA. So, it is clear the IAF prefers the Rafale and this was mentioned twice by the IAF as far as I can remember. Let's not forget IAF rejected the Mi-28 and only Apache was shortlisted for contract negotiation in their attack helicopter tender. IAF could have done the same and just selected Rafale in the beginning. However, considering EF was shortlisted, we know IAF wouldn't mind their second best option as well.

Rafale was built as a ground attack aircraft like the F-35. EF was built with air superiority in mind. No matter which aircraft wins, the primary goal for IAF is to find replacements for their own ground attack aircraft. Now we can say, Rafale will win and things will go as planned. If EF wins, then it is possible some MKI squadrons will become the mud movers while EF will replace the MKIs role. It's all a big maybe because we don't have official IAF views on what either aircraft are meant to do when selected.
There are no sources as to IAF's preference for a ground attack aircraft. IAF has never mentioned wanting Raffy more than EF or vice versa. IAF has thus far been very quiet about what they want. So again stop with saying that IAF wants Rafale. Rafale was almost kicked out of the competition due to miscommunication early on even before trials. They may want MRCA to replace the Jag and MIG-27 but considering China's massive air force it can be clearly seen that IAF would like to have an aircraft that can perform both roles well.

Rafale's low level ability has no real added value, looking at the mere fact that both our enemies have lots of MANPADs deployed all over the their terrain, you may not see the Raffy coming in low on the radar but there are hundreds of troops on the ground who can clearly spot it and no matter how advanced it is, to out run and out fly a barrage of cheap manpads is not easy. The pilot may be able to dodge a few shots but they could as well deploy tens of manpads launchers in a small piece of air space.
 

weg

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
203
Likes
37
The first Gulf war demonstrated that you do not fly low level (look at what happened to the Tornado's) and since then most weapons have been stand off long range for ground attack.
 

noob101

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
394
Likes
104
There is at least one thing that is for sure with MMRCA, It will hopefully simplify logistics... IAF is loosing more than gaining by keeping those Mig-27s operational they are little more than flying tin cans.... Jaguars too are not much better.... Whatever the IAF gets it will be money well spent
 

Cola

New Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
40
Likes
3
So how can you say that performance will be the key criterion here?
Who said the performance is the main parameter in India and where?
I think you'll discover quite the contrary and I've tried to explain you, what does the performance mean in the first place and why are you using it incorrectly.

Both aircrafts were selected and obviously met IAF requirements. This is a cost-related, political, economic, industrial and strategic decision now.
Ah, so you're an economy expert, with insight in Indian selection process, as well?
According to you, Gripen obviously must have met requirements, since it won in Switzerland. If there was no leak, you'd just knew it, wouldn't you?
In Brasil, the AF gave a recommendation for Gripen over Rafale (which consisted of over 500 pages of evaluation, not a single chart), so I guess that settles it and Gripen is better than Rafale.

Do you even realize what you write here?
 
Last edited:

arundo

New Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
116
Likes
17
Ah, so you're an economy expert, with insight in Indian selection process, as well?
According to you, Gripen obviously must have met requirements, since it won in Switzerland. If there was no leak, you'd just knew it, wouldn't you?
In Brasil, the AF gave a recommendation for Gripen over Rafale (which consisted of over 500 pages of evaluation, not a single chart), so I guess that settles it and Gripen is better than Rafale.
Do you even realize what you write here?
Yes, but obviously yo are not understanding what I am writing or perhaps y do not want to.

First of all I never said that the winner of a competition or the recommended fighter is the best one, as the technical operational evaluation is just an element of the final decision. I know that Saab Gripen is preferred by the Brasil AF and I know that Gripen didn't meet CH requirements (at least the initial requirements), but won for financial and industrial reasons. I am convinced that Saab Gripen is the best choice for the Swiss, even if it is a compromise. I never said that Rafale should have got the deal in CH, but it is a matter of a fact that it was on top of the Armasuisse evaluation. However, it was by far the most expensive bid and obviously not the best bid.

So I distinguish between the technical-operational evaluation (where Rafale performed well in most cases and this is, in my opinion, a good indicator of its qualities) and other elements that have to be considered. I know that the final decision has rarely to do with pure technical or operational considerations.
I do not have insight in Indian selection process, but I know what some Indian guys have posted here and what numerous articles in and outside India have published. Both fighters were downselected and meet the IAF requirements and it seems that both passed or exceeded all IAF requirements. Now it's numbers and industrial considerations that will decide (probably in favor of EF) which bid is L1. Pls go through the thread, it has been mentioned many times.

Of course the charts we have seen are just summaries of the evaluations.
 
Last edited:

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
The reasons a lot of people support Rafale has nothing to do with A2A capability. IMO the A2A capability on Rafale is probably adequate but the strike punch the Rafale can provide is way better than EF's. Unlike the EF, the Rafale does very well in the subsonic regime at low altitudes. It has an additional 2 wet points and carries quite a bit to very long distances.

The MKI is the jack of all trades, like the Rafale. The EF will beat both in the sky. The IAF wants to replace their Jags and Mig-27s with the MRCA. So, it is clear the IAF prefers the Rafale and this was mentioned twice by the IAF as far as I can remember. Let's not forget IAF rejected the Mi-28 and only Apache was shortlisted for contract negotiation in their attack helicopter tender. IAF could have done the same and just selected Rafale in the beginning. However, considering EF was shortlisted, we know IAF wouldn't mind their second best option as well.

Rafale was built as a ground attack aircraft like the F-35. EF was built with air superiority in mind. No matter which aircraft wins, the primary goal for IAF is to find replacements for their own ground attack aircraft. Now we can say, Rafale will win and things will go as planned. If EF wins, then it is possible some MKI squadrons will become the mud movers while EF will replace the MKIs role. It's all a big maybe because we don't have official IAF views on what either aircraft are meant to do when selected.
At a certain stage one has to look at how the military instrument will be used in case of conflict, the best way to employ it and then one might appreciate better the relative utility of the two candidates under examination.

A conflict involving India is likely to be characterised by extremely high threat scenarios over multiple fronts: north, west and from the sea. It is highly unlikely to imagine India as the aggressor. Having observed the effects of air power in the most recents campaigns in the Middle East and in the Balkans, one should assume the aggressor/(s) to want to achieve a decent level of air superiority in support of its/their surface manoeuvre. Without air superiority every operation would be more difficult and costly in overall casualties, and eventually it might fail. The airborne threat is expected to be extremely high, supported by ISR assets and the tempo of operations also very high to produce several breakthroughs.

It seems clear to me that the problem is very serious and that the solution hinges on the aspect of air superiority. This must be denied to the aggressor in the first place. And then air superiority must be established by the Indian forces. If this does not happen, there will not be much use for the A-G strike assets. Without air superiority no modern war has ever been won. The losing side in modern wars has never managed to achieve and maintain air superiority. This condition is ESSENTIAL and the key pre-requisite to win the air campaign and eventually the war.

So I would argue that a multirole fighter delivering the highest level of proficiency in the BVR air combat against a high threat scenario is the most appropriate response to the set of problems illustrated briefly above. Typhoon in the air-air role can suppress a threat fighter force quickly, allowing the specialist air-surface assets to operate to their maximum abilities; uncompromised by the need for self protection against air threats. Typhoon's swing role ability also allows it to start contributing to the air-surface battle sooner, even in the face of a residual air threat.

My impression is that with the MMRCA the IAF is not simply replacing some notional assets (say the MiG-21 and you can add the MiG-27 and Jaguar, if desired), but is moving down the path of transformation into three classes of combat planes: light, medium and heavy. All new assets will have to be multirole, adaptive and versatile, and ideally contributing with their own different areas of excellence.

I think Typhoon will fit pretty well in the evolving combat force structure of the IAF and the future threat scenarios, as it is multirole, versatile and adaptable, and with a huge growth capacity. Last but not least, its unique and unrivaled area of excellence is air superiority.
 

SpArK

SORCERER
New Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
Eurofighter rep summoned to MoD 2day. (EADS & MoD officially deny this)

verdict or clarification?:shocked:
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
So you say that ground attack capabilities matter a lot. I always thought that it mattered a little, but there was an emphasis on a2a in the defined specifications.
We know the MRCA will replace Mig-27 followed by Jaguars.

The MKIs were meant to build additional capability while replacing Mig-21s. The LCA was meant to replace the Mig-21 en masse. The additional 82(40 in 2007 +42 in 2011) orders of MKI are meant to replace the 80 Mig-21s that will be phased out from IAF by next year. The remaining 120 Mig-21Bisons to be replaced by LCA(hopefully).

There are 130 Jaguars along with 100 Mig-27. There is no guarantee all 130+100 are working at full capacity because they are old. That's why the current numbers for MRCA is at 126+64. More or less replacing our strike fighters.

However there is one little hiccup here. Because of the delays with MRCA, IAF originally wanted Mirage-2000 since 1999, many of the Jaguars will be upgraded. This means there is a bit of flexibility in the choice of aircraft. Once upgraded the Jags can be replaced from 2025 which allows waiting for AMCA, once ready after 2025. So, the initial objective is to replace the Mig-27s and this can be achieved by the MRCA with the initial orders of 126 followed by the extra option of 64 after 2025, in case the AMCA ends up as a failure.

So, there is a certain amount of preference to ground attack. In case EF is chosen, the Mig-21s can be replaced by the EF squadrons while the Mig-27 role can be handled by the MKI. Of course there is a bit of uncertainty in saying this because MKI can happily handle both air superiority as well as strike and so can EF with it's superior technology and weapons. It obviously is IAF's choice and they may have already decided what goes where.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
The first Gulf war demonstrated that you do not fly low level (look at what happened to the Tornado's) and since then most weapons have been stand off long range for ground attack.
You can't compare the old Tornados to the Rafale.

@Vanadium

I wouldn't disagree with your post. But let's not forget we will be receiving the PAKFA at a similar time frame as the MRCA induction. The first PAKFA squadron is expected to be operational in 2017. First MRCA squadron is expected in 2014, 2015 or even 2016 depending on when we sign on the dotted line.

PAKFA's production time will far outlast the MRCAs and maybe even the production rate, as compared to MRCA's "a squadron a year."

So we have to assume IAF believes they have air superiority covered. In my previous post I have mentioned we don't have any replacement for Mig-27s and Jaguars apart from AMCA in the future and we can't depend on that unless we see LCA Mk2 flying. So, the MRCA should have capable strike capability and Rafale is the better of the two as of today, thus IAF's preference.
 

vanadium

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
239
Likes
44
You can't compare the old Tornados to the Rafale.

@Vanadium

I wouldn't disagree with your post. But let's not forget we will be receiving the PAKFA at a similar time frame as the MRCA induction. The first PAKFA squadron is expected to be operational in 2017. First MRCA squadron is expected in 2014, 2015 or even 2016 depending on when we sign on the dotted line.

PAKFA's production time will far outlast the MRCAs and maybe even the production rate, as compared to MRCA's "a squadron a year."

So we have to assume IAF believes they have air superiority covered. In my previous post I have mentioned we don't have any replacement for Mig-27s and Jaguars apart from AMCA in the future and we can't depend on that unless we see LCA Mk2 flying. So, the MRCA should have capable strike capability and Rafale is the better of the two as of today, thus IAF's preference.
One such major conflict, if it is not stopped pretty quickly by the international community, may well risk to escalate to its ultimate and catastrophic consequences. This may even be the hidden calculus of the aggressor and therefore giving him a strong incentive to achieve very rapidly a dominant position on the huge front line. This must be predicated on obtaining control of the air to allow their own freedom of manoeuvre. If this strategy is successful, a ceasefire--before the conflict escalates--will emerge and be based on lines unfavorable to the defenders.

In such a scenario the availability of a line up of first class fighters such as Su-30MKI, Typhoon and PAKFA is exactly what is needed to suppress the threat fighter force quickly, to deny them the vital control of the air and eventually to conquer air superiority.
These three types, once control of the air is established, will be more than capable of performing all the panoply of surface attack missions required and will be joined by the rest of the force.
But the first pressing and vital (literally speaking!) problem is air superiority and its achievement in a pretty compressed timeframe.
 

sukhish

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
312
just dying to see if EU fighter gets the deal. I will celebrate with a bottle of wine.
 

SpArK

SORCERER
New Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
Thales To Continue Rafale Electronic Gear Support

13 Jan 2012

PARIS - France has renewed with Thales a 10-year service contract for an undisclosed sum to support electronic equipment on the Rafale fighter, the company said in a Jan. 10 statement.

The fixed-price contract includes a power-by-the-hour feature, with an agreed price for guaranteed availability of the equipment, a Thales spokeswoman said.
"The ten-year contract, known as Maestro, is a renewal of the current through-life support contract and broadens the scope of responsibility to ensure that Thales works more closely with operational personnel to guarantee fleet availability," Thales said in the statement.

The contract was awarded at the end of November, the spokeswoman said. No financial details were available, although the contract is understood to be worth several million euros.

The joint aircraft service support department, Structure Intégrée de Maintien en Conditions Opérationelle des Matériels, awarded the contract.

Under the arrangement, Thales guarantees fleet availability by boosting equipment reliability and will deploy company personnel on site to be closer to the operator, the spokeswoman said.

On the Rafales flown by the French Air Force and Navy, Thales will maintain the aircraft's phased array radar, electronic warfare suite, avionics, front-sector optronics and cameras, and communications.

Thales To Continue Rafale Electronic Gear Support - Defense News
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
One such major conflict, if it is not stopped pretty quickly by the international community, may well risk to escalate to its ultimate and catastrophic consequences. This may even be the hidden calculus of the aggressor and therefore giving him a strong incentive to achieve very rapidly a dominant position on the huge front line. This must be predicated on obtaining control of the air to allow their own freedom of manoeuvre. If this strategy is successful, a ceasefire--before the conflict escalates--will emerge and be based on lines unfavorable to the defenders.

In such a scenario the availability of a line up of first class fighters such as Su-30MKI, Typhoon and PAKFA is exactly what is needed to suppress the threat fighter force quickly, to deny them the vital control of the air and eventually to conquer air superiority.
These three types, once control of the air is established, will be more than capable of performing all the panoply of surface attack missions required and will be joined by the rest of the force.
But the first pressing and vital (literally speaking!) problem is air superiority and its achievement in a pretty compressed timeframe.
Then we will have only air superiority fighters by 2025. MKI, Mirage-2000, Mig-29, EF-2000 and PAKFA along with some old Jaguars for DPS. So, you see why IAF may prefer Rafale.

Even AMCA will be multirole, at least according to what IAF and ADA have mentioned till date. Earlier ADA said it would be a strike aircraft and this changed before preliminary studies started. Hopefully it should be equivalent to the Rafale in roles, except for the 5th gen tag. If that happens then this could be a reason for EF being shortlisted.

Don't worry though. If EF was shortlisted IAF possibly thinks the strike capability is enough. More importantly, IAF has little part to play in what happens next. Everything hangs on MoFs decision. They are unfortunately known to cancel deals which they don't like, the A-330 MRTT tender comes to mind for the latest cancellation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top