Know Your 'Rafale'

[arya]

guys till then enjoy below song

 

[p2prada]

We are not seeking a partnership, that's only a myth that Brazilian media is spreading, A.K. Antony has already dismissed that. For Brazil it would be a way to reduce costs and industrial benefits, for us it wouldn't be an advantage, because of Brazils smaller order.

Maybe not a partnership, maybe something like what we have for the Malaysians. Sourcing parts from the OEM would be expensive, so they can source parts from us. France is already contemplating sourcing Rafale related supplies from India, currently being supplied by the US. Servicing and maintenance contracts can also be won.

More welcomed would be, if they would integrate MAR 1 anti radiation missile to Rafale, this would increase it's capabilities and would could get some more infos about the capabilities of the missile, which PAF has now as well.

No effing way. It is a generation behind the HARM or MBDA's ALARM. Even KH-31P would be better. Anyway, Rafale's current avionics suite does not give an ARM higher preference over other a2G ammunition like a cruise missile. No point getting the MAR-1 and degrade Rafale's capabilities. R-27P gives air to air capability too while ALARM can loiter.

With a Rafale contract we can perhaps pay off the Brazilians to get info on MAR-1. It may not even be necessary.

Btw, in defence circles, MAR-1 is called a "poor man's HARM." Maybe we should call JF-17 as a poor man's F-16 too.

 

[Armand2REP]

MV Mysura Reddy accepted a bribe by BAE front group.

 

[arya]

MV Mysura Reddy accepted a bribe by BAE front group.

what ?? is that true ??

 

[weg]

what ?? is that true ??

He's French, so of course not.

 

[Sancho]

Maybe not a partnership, maybe something like what we have for the Malaysians.

The advantage for Malaysia or Bangladesh to send their Russian fighters to India for maintenance or to get certain spares lies in the close distance, instead of Russia. For Brazil there is no advantage in transporting parts from India, when France is closer, but there were reports that Brazil will produce parts for export Rafales, just like the Indian productionline will have a share as well. However, going into partnerships or JVs with them for the production of both orders doesn't make sense, especially for India. For us it would be a bigger benefit to join with the UAE, since India could be a maintenance or production hub for them as well and since India and UAE might get the technically most capable versions, I wouldn't mind a partnership at all.

No effing way. It is a generation behind the HARM or MBDA's ALARM. Even KH-31P would be better.

No matter how capable it is in comparision, it is good for us to know about the weapons that might be used against us and if Brazil selects Rafale, the integration of MAR 1 is very like and would increase the capabilities in SEAD, because so far it can use only AASM.

Btw, in defence circles, MAR-1 is called a "poor man's HARM." Maybe we should call JF-17 as a poor man's F-16 too.

No need to underestimat both, when the 150 x JF 17s are inducted, they will form a good and cheap to operate base for PAF.

 

[p2prada]

The advantage for Malaysia or Bangladesh to send their Russian fighters to India for maintenance or to get certain spares lies in the close distance, instead of Russia. For Brazil there is no advantage in transporting parts from India, when France is closer, but there were reports that Brazil will produce parts for export Rafales, just like the Indian productionline will have a share as well. However, going into partnerships or JVs with them for the production of both orders doesn't make sense, especially for India. For us it would be a bigger benefit to join with the UAE, since India could be a maintenance or production hub for them as well and since India and UAE might get the technically most capable versions, I wouldn't mind a partnership at all.

It has a lot to do with costs of manufacture. Other than that parts are mainly sent by aircraft, and that does not add a lot to costs. Only large parts are sent by sea and even that does not matter as much.

An entire air force's spares and supplies can be sent in 4 or 5 shipments for the IAF from Russia. Will barely cost anything even if the ships circumnavigated the globe a couple of times.

No matter how capable it is in comparision, it is good for us to know about the weapons that might be used against us and if Brazil selects Rafale, the integration of MAR 1 is very like and would increase the capabilities in SEAD, because so far it can use only AASM.

MAR-1 would degrade Rafale's capabilities. I would understand if you said JF-17 because the sensors do not allow greater detection and tracking ranges beyond 50Km, while Rafale can pick up radar emissions passively from 600-800Km and perhaps even track it. MAR-1 is restricted to 35 Km. Even ALARM has a range of only 45Km, but it has a more advanced seeker and can loiter.

Aim-120D and Meteor can do the same as R-27P against air targets. But it cannot engage ground targets unlike the R-27P. But HARM can engage ground targets for the Americans. The R-27P is quite modern if you compare Russian tech to western. The KH-31 has good range and is Ramjet powered which gives less time for countermeasures to be deployed.

MAR-1 on Rafale is like a biscuit. It is meant for small aircraft like JF-17 and LCA. Rafale's passive detection capabilities, mated to a cruise missile will do wonders, way better than all the ARMs. Only F-35 will surpass this capability. MAR-1 shouldn't make a difference to Rafale's capabilities in SEAD either.

No need to underestimat both, when the 150 x JF 17s are inducted, they will form a good and cheap to operate base for PAF.

The PAF is basing the JF-17 on the premise that their AEW&C and tankers will survive. That's foolhardy. Some nationalists will say the MKI has a massive RCS, which is a dorky presumption if you consider the first aircraft that will fly against the enemy are the big and badass aircraft like the Flanker, Eagle, Foxhound and Tomcat.

Good and cheap will ensure their AF will not survive. But they can live in their dream world. Wikileaks released a cable with the Pak ACM saying they cannot survive against the IAF. Please do not overestimate PAF either. I still remember our MKI pilots saying they have been consistently killing our Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s even before they see the MKIs. We had a French pilot saying the Rafale and Mirage-2000 will be detected and tracked first by the MKI.

 

[weg]

MAR-1 would degrade Rafale's capabilities. I would understand if you said JF-17 because the sensors do not allow greater detection and tracking ranges beyond 50Km, while Rafale can pick up radar emissions passively from 600-800Km and perhaps even track it. MAR-1 is restricted to 35 Km. Even ALARM has a range of only 45Km, but it has a more advanced seeker and can loiter.
MKI.

Bullshitter. So the Rafale, at its maximum altitude, can see 200-400km beyond the horizon ? it can out perform any giant AWACS with in tiny little sensor?

Give me a break.

 

[p2prada]

Bullshitter. So the Rafale, at its maximum altitude, can see 200-400km beyond the horizon ? it can out perform any giant AWACS with in tiny little sensor?

Give me a break.

Sure it can. The MKI with the EL/M 2060P can map areas 200Km away on the ground from an altitude of 10-11KM. And this is active capability. Passive capability doubles that range. The F-35 can detect and track even low frequency signals from 800Km. Don't worry I would say the new EF-2000 DASS is also capable of the same(but not as much as F-35 or Rafale). It is these small things that allow Rafale to do well in evaluations.

Phalcon can detect and perhaps even track targets from 600Km away passively(track I am not sure though, but it seems everybody can do it nowadays).

There is a reason why big aircraft like F-15 and MKI want 1000Km cruise missiles on them. As detection capability increases, so does the reach of armaments.

Btw, Rafale's avionics are not tiny.

Gambit also agreed with my opinion that a large radar like the Bars can equal or even outperform a full fledged AWACS in detection.

It is just that the AWACS carry more workstations, has more processing power and space along with more modes for the radar. When it comes to ELINT and SIGINT, both AWACS and aircraft should have similar capability except that the Phalcon/Wedgetail can start processing the signals right away.

During peace time you will not use this capability to engage targets, but during war time, the situation changes.

 

[Sancho]

It has a lot to do with costs of manufacture. Other than that parts are mainly sent by aircraft, and that does not add a lot to costs. Only large parts are sent by sea and even that does not matter as much.

And you think the production costs in India are so much cheaper that all the transport costs would be equalised? Not really! They are just trying to share the procurement costs with us and get more advantages, because if thy can combine their offer with our big one, they can brag for lower costs. But as mentioned, for us it's no use, since they have just a smaller order and are too far away to share logistics.

MAR-1 would degrade Rafale's capabilities.

Rafale currently has no ARM, so adding it would be a new capability and can't degrade it again. The 35Km are only early media estimations, when you look at Brazilian sources or what the Manufacturer says, it's pretty different:

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Folha-infográfico-mísseis-Mectron.JPG

MAR 1 could be a cost-effective alternative to AASM in Rafales SEAD capability, so would be a good addition to it's weapon package.

The PAF is basing the JF-17 on the premise that their AEW&C and tankers will survive. That's foolhardy. Some nationalists will say the MKI has a massive RCS, which is a dorky presumption if you consider the first aircraft that will fly against the enemy are the big and badass aircraft like the Flanker, Eagle, Foxhound and Tomcat.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of underestimating that I meant! Chest bumping and looking at 1 on 1 exercises won't help you in real air force vs air force scenarios, even if you have the "bigger fighters".


Do you remember Cope India 2004 exercise?

But American officials also credited Indian pilots with being "very proficient in [their] aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome," USAF Col. Greg Neubeck told Inside the Air Force.
"The adversaries are better than we thought," Col. Mike Snodgrass added. "And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated."
According to the magazine, "The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MIG-27 and MIG-29, but the two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MIG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MIG-21, and the SU-30K Flanker, also made in Russia."

http://defensetech.org/2004/06/24/india-1-usaf-0/


We shouldn't be as naiv as the US were and underestimate our opponents, they are much better than you think! The "bigger" F15s in that exercise had problems with the cheap and small Bisons, not because the Bison was so capable, but because they benefited from sharing radar data of the Su 30s and the same could be the case now for our MKIs against JF 17s with AWACS support!

JF 17 is small, BVR capable and can be guided by their AWACS. So no matter how much more capable the MKI is as a fighter compared to JF 17, the first sight advantage of MKI with BARS radar is gone!
Also keep in mind that PAF has the geographical advantage, they can focus all their forces to one border, while we have to split them to two. Today that results in the fact that we have only 3 x AWACS for 2 huge borderlines, while they already have inducted 4 or 5 AWACS for a single smaller borderline.

To sum it up, they smartly changed the game by adding strategic capabilities, next to their fighter modernisation program. They are upgrading their F16s faster than we our Mig 29s and Mirage 2000s, they are replacing older Mig 21 (clones) faster with JF 17 than we do with LCA and most of all, they are inducting AWACS faster than we do.

Even their offensive capabilities are much stronger than before! Mirage strike fighters with long range Ra'ad cruise missiles (not a single IAF fighter has the same capability so far) and can extend their range by mid air refuelling now (thanks to IL 78 tankers). The latest F16 Block 52 came with CFTs, good avionics and JDAMs for precision deep strikes and when JF 17 has integrated all the Chinese A2G weapons (+ MAR 1), it will be a credible threat too.

I'm not saying that PAF is better than IAF, but underestimating the opponent, only because he is smaller, has less expensive techs and weapons is the biggest mistake we can do. Not to forget that we have to face a way superior opponent on the other side of India at the same time too!

 

[p2prada]

And you think the production costs in India are so much cheaper that all the transport costs would be equalised?

What I am saying is that the transportation costs are negligible to the cost of the spares. It won't matter it the ship came to Brazil from Argentina or from France or from India. The consignment is worth more than the cost of transporting it. It only matters if you are selling coal or oil, not aerospace products.

Rafale currently has no ARM, so adding it would be a new capability and can't degrade it again. The 35Km are only early media estimations, when you look at Brazilian sources or what the Manufacturer says, it's pretty different:

Thanks for the pic. But, that range still degrades the capability of Rafale. If you really want an ARM on Rafale, then we can go for HARM, way better.

MAR 1 could be a cost-effective alternative to AASM in Rafales SEAD capability, so would be a good addition to it's weapon package.

MAR-1's gonna cost a million bucks. AASM costs 1/4th that amount and can engage targets from 60Km away when launched from high altitudes. If we take that picture you posted to be true, then it only matches AASM at 4 times the costs.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of underestimating that I meant! Chest bumping and looking at 1 on 1 exercises won't help you in real air force vs air force scenarios, even if you have the "bigger fighters".

Hmm. It seems you are either new to the forum world or directly jumped into this forum from some Paki infested forum.

My view has nothing to do with chest thumping. This has nothing to do with 1v1 scenarios either. Which aircraft do you think provide escort when SEAD operations go on? It is the big 4 that I mentioned. Pretty soon the big 4(minus 1 because Tomcat is no longer in operation) will be replaced by the big 3, PAKFA, J-20 and F-22.

Do you remember Cope India 2004 exercise?

http://defensetech.org/2004/06/24/india-1-usaf-0/

The Mig-21s success is because it was backed by aircraft like the Su-30. Anyway, this article is a chest thumping type article. Tactics won the day for India, not platform.

We shouldn't be as naiv as the US were and underestimate our opponents, they are much better than you think! The "bigger" F15s in that exercise had problems with the cheap and small Bisons, not because the Bison was so capable, but because they benefited from sharing radar data of the Su 30s and the same could be the case now for our MKIs against JF 17s with AWACS support!

It was a tactical victory especially considering the fact that IAF had poor situational awareness as compared to the F-15Cs. No AWACS were used. Also, you believe AWACS will survive in the Indo-Pak scenario. Heck the USAF builds simulations against PLAAF with the assumption that AWACS and tankers have already been taken out early on.

JF 17 is small, BVR capable and can be guided by their AWACS. So no matter how much more capable the MKI is as a fighter compared to JF 17, the first sight advantage of MKI with BARS radar is gone!

Now you are bringing in a 1v1 scenario when you don't need to. The MKIs we have are more in number, with much higher capability and the fact that the MKIs were always designed to take out transports, bombers and AWACS first.

This will only exacerbate the problem for them when we get the capability to engage targets from extreme long ranges.

Also keep in mind that PAF has the geographical advantage, they can focus all their forces to one border, while we have to split them to two. Today that results in the fact that we have only 3 x AWACS for 2 huge borderlines, while they already have inducted 4 or 5 AWACS for a single smaller borderline.

We are currently building a capability based force. We are separating the forces into two commands. One for the east and the other for the west. The eastern forces will not share equipment with the western, this is only for the Army. Anyway, Pak has to amass fighter forces on three borders, the other two are the coastline and the Afghan-Iran border, where our MKIs have the capability to penetrate.

Even if we do have a lesser number of AWACS, we still have detection and engagement capability that surpasses both PAF and PLAAF. So, we do have a situational awareness advantage.

To sum it up, they smartly changed the game by adding strategic capabilities, next to their fighter modernisation program. They are upgrading their F16s faster than we our Mig 29s and Mirage 2000s, they are replacing older Mig 21 (clones) faster with JF 17 than we do with LCA and most of all, they are inducting AWACS faster than we do.

Only their F-16s pose a direct threat to the MKIs, perhaps the J-10 later on.

I'm not saying that PAF is better than IAF, but underestimating the opponent, only because he is smaller, has less expensive techs and weapons is the biggest mistake we can do. Not to forget that we have to face a way superior opponent on the other side of India at the same time too!

To be able to engage our ground forces, they will need to take possession of the skies. Their F-16s may be able to match the MKIs with AWACS and tankers, but then we have far too many MKIs. By the time they get J-10s to equalize the numbers(at least 72 by 2020) we will already have upgraded the MKIs to higher standards while starting induction of the PAKFA and Rafale. Please, it is not me who is underestimating PAF, it is you who is overestimating PAF.

Btw, you say we do not have a Raad type capability on our own fighters. This is an advantage they have, but we have been operating the KH-59 since a long time. So, while the range advantage is important to them because of our strategic depth, we don't have such issues because their command nodes are much closer to the border. Anyway, locking on to a target at 300Km and coming into a firing position will be much more difficult for them, especially considering we will start deploying our own ABM capability this year and the next.

 

[Sancho]

Thanks for the pic. But, that range still degrades the capability of Rafale. If you really want an ARM on Rafale, then we can go for HARM, way better.

As stated, Rafale don't have an ARM so far, so the addition of any ARM is increasing not degrading it's capability, especially since AASM currently offers the same range in that role, but at higher costs. Of course we can ask for integration of HARM, but I never stated that IAF wants ARM on Rafale, I just said that Brazil might integrated it as a useful addition to it's weapon pack and that we might get useful infos about the weapon that way.

Hmm. It seems you are either new to the forum world or directly jumped into this forum from some Paki infested forum

The latter, because I like to see both sides of the story and get to my own conclusions then.

Tactics won the day for India, not platform.

Exactly and that's contrary to the 1 on 1 exercises you mentioned right? What many people forget is, that we have not the luxury like in past US and NATO wars, to have the technologically, numerically and tactically superioirty against our potential opponents. Be it PAF or PLAAF alone, both are way more capable than anything the US or NATO has fought against, so simply diverting their situations to us is not possible and way more things have to be taken into account!

Now you are bringing in a 1v1 scenario when you don't need to.

Not really, I showed that it offers the same advantages (but with latest techs of course) like our Bisons back then and supported by AWACS, just like Su 30s supported the Bisions, a single MKI will face the same difficulties like the F15s faced!

Please, it is not me who is underestimating PAF, it is you who is overestimating PAF.

I don't think so, especially since you still looking at the numbers on paper only! The MKIs are spread around the country, most newly raised squads are based in the east, so have no relation to fighting PAF in the west. That's what I meant by saying we have to split our forces to defend ourselfs against 2 different opponents.
So when we will have 228 x MKIs by 2015 on paper, if at all only half of them will be fielded against PAF and that's pretty much the number of upgraded and new F16s they will have as well. Their JF 17 numbers will even surpass our the numbers of Mig 29SMT / Mirage 2000-5s and at the same time we might get our first Rafale squads, they also seems to get their J10B squads.
Yes, we still have an edge on quality in terms of fighters, but the numerical will be much lower and the tactical edge that we had during Kargil war is gone to a big extend, because they will have big numbers of BVR capable fighters as well + better AWACS support (more aircrafts, to cover the whole borderline at the same time).

To be able to engage our ground forces, they will need to take possession of the skies.

No, because the first actions in a war are pre-emptive strikes against radar or SAM sites, as well as air bases. That leads the way to air superioirty, see Iraq or recent Libyan war for example.
Now with credible strike weapons, increased range and AWACS support, they have anything to start offensive actions against us and that is something that worries me, because as mentioned above, it's mainly because of our delays in indigenous developments and procurements that caused this.

 

[p2prada]

The latter, because I like to see both sides of the story and get to my own conclusions then.

Agreed. But there is not a lot you can judge looking at the specs offered and the avionics available. JF-17 is inferior to a F-16 Block 52 and superior to the F-16 Block 15. So, that's where it is at. It is exactly where the LCA is. The currently configured MKI is better than the F-16IN in radar capability for air to air engagements.

Exactly and that's contrary to the 1 on 1 exercises you mentioned right? What many people forget is, that we have not the luxury like in past US and NATO wars, to have the technologically, numerically and tactically superioirty against our potential opponents. Be it PAF or PLAAF alone, both are way more capable than anything the US or NATO has fought against, so simply diverting their situations to us is not possible and way more things have to be taken into account!

While they pose a challenge to us, we also pose a challenge to them. However, as it stands today, our air force is better than both. It is the army which counts anyway.

Not really, I showed that it offers the same advantages (but with latest techs of course) like our Bisons back then and supported by AWACS, just like Su 30s supported the Bisions, a single MKI will face the same difficulties like the F15s faced!

Our Bisons were never supported by Flankers. Our Flankers did not have a radar or datalink at the time. They used OLS to detect and shoot down F-15s. Even the BVR shots were taken with OLS information. They used voice commands from other aircraft for situational awareness. They were not equipped with IFF either.

The Mig-21s used their own radar and missiles to lock and kill F-15s. Bisons would disengage from the formation and merge well after the F-15s have initiated merge with the Flankers and Fulcrums. So, when the F-15s had their hands full, that's when the Bisons engaged the Eagles. In a plain 1v1 against Bisons even with AWACS support, the F-15 will almost always win.

I don't think so, especially since you still looking at the numbers on paper only! The MKIs are spread around the country, most newly raised squads are based in the east, so have no relation to fighting PAF in the west. That's what I meant by saying we have to split our forces to defend ourselfs against 2 different opponents.

Each of our MKIs can engage 4 JF-17s without being detected. If a group of 6 MKIs enter Pak airspace, they can engage 24 JF-17s, even without AWACS support.

So when we will have 228 x MKIs by 2015 on paper, if at all only half of them will be fielded against PAF and that's pretty much the number of upgraded and new F16s they will have as well.

Not exactly half. We have planned for 4 squadrons (+1 in Kailakunda much later)for the North East. The rest are all within areas which can engage PAF(except for 1 in Andamans) as well as PLAAF.

The F-16s are nowhere near the 9 squadrons of MKIs that will be parked in our bases close to their border by 2015.

If AWACS and BVR combo is really efficient then we currently have 120 BVR capable Bisons against their F-16s or against 150 JF-17s by 2016. But that is not how it works. There is a limit to how many targets the AWACS can track at a time. Beyond that the fighter will still have to rely on it's own radar to provide mid course updates and track the target. AWACS provide the extra detection capability, that's it. This is where the MKI triumphs. Previously 4 MKIs were linked to each other via datalink. So, in a realistic scenario one MKI could help the other 3 MKIs engage 4 targets. With the new Israeli datalink, that capability has been spread across a much larger spectrum.

During an exercise, the AWACS provide only an air picture to both sides. They do not assist in engaging the targets because that will make it a beacon for the enemy, a particularly large beacon. Engagement happens with each particular aircraft turning on it's own radar and providing target coordinates and mid course updates to other aircraft within the group. The JF-17 is not capable in this aspect. If it relies on target coordinates and mid course updates when the missiles are in flight, our MKIs will directly engage the AWACS.

While the AWACS is a force multiplier, it is in no way a magic wand. An AWACS can never replace a fighter's radar in it's current form.

If you really want the AWACS to work as you are expecting, then you should have one AWACS for each squadron of fighters. Quite like how the USN carrier battle groups operate. The E-2Cs are as capable as an Erieye or ZDK-03. 4 or 5 for an entire air force isn't much of an advantage.

Their JF 17 numbers will even surpass our the numbers of Mig 29SMT / Mirage 2000-5s and at the same time we might get our first Rafale squads, they also seems to get their J10B squads.

At the same time, we will already be taking delivery of the Super 30 MKIs. The only way to retain any kind of combat capability against IAF, they will need either the J-10s or more F-16s.

Yes, we still have an edge on quality in terms of fighters, but the numerical will be much lower and the tactical edge that we had during Kargil war is gone to a big extend, because they will have big numbers of BVR capable fighters as well + better AWACS support (more aircrafts, to cover the whole borderline at the same time).

I can agree to this. But our advantage goes beyond numbers. We will also have a more capable SAM system.

No, because the first actions in a war are pre-emptive strikes against radar or SAM sites, as well as air bases. That leads the way to air superioirty, see Iraq or recent Libyan war for example.
Now with credible strike weapons, increased range and AWACS support, they have anything to start offensive actions against us and that is something that worries me, because as mentioned above, it's mainly because of our delays in indigenous developments and procurements that caused this.

Nothing begins without having air superiority fighters provide cover to SEAD equipped fighters. The biggest problem for an air force isn't SAMs but other air superiority fighters. The thing is compared to an aircraft, a SAM is static. A fighter is at risk only within the SAMs engagement area while a fighter's engagement area is fluid.

The thing about the recent wars in Iraq and Libya is that these countries have non existent capability in the air. It was different during the Gulf War where F-15s and air superiority configured F-16/F-18s were the in the air first along with AWACS support because they had an important part to play.

 

[p2prada]

Btw, an ARM on Rafale does degrade its capability. A Rafale can carry 6 AASMs with 3 drop tanks and 4 missiles. Add ARM and the Rafale will carry 3 drop tanks, 4 missiles and only 2 ARMs. Not worth it. Rafale's capability is in it's ability to kill the SAM sites radar along with the 3 or 4 batteries attached to it using AASM. With just 2 ARMs, only the radar is engaged, leaving the batteries intact. Waste of time and space.

Rafale isn't an MKI where it can carry 6 ARMs with 4 missiles at similar ranges.

 

[Armand2REP]

Longuet said, "If the Indians are interested in the Rafale, that's because, contrary to other clients, there is the idea they might have to use it one day."

France Offers Transport Aid in Possible Mali Intervention | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[p2prada]

Longuet said, "If the Indians are interested in the Rafale, that's because, contrary to other clients, there is the idea they might have to use it one day."

France Offers Transport Aid in Possible Mali Intervention | Defense News | defensenews.com

Saying stuff like that in public is hilarious.

I always thought the UAE deal will happen before India. Brazil should also have happened a long time back. Ah Well! It is never too late. At least we know for sure the UAE deal will happen.

Someday the IN RFP will be released and the whole MRCA saga will start over from scratch.

 

[ace009]

Longuet said, "If the Indians are interested in the Rafale, that's because, contrary to other clients, there is the idea they might have to use it one day."

France Offers Transport Aid in Possible Mali Intervention | Defense News | defensenews.com

That comment is funny, but deadly serious too. I am not sure who Brazil will fight using Rafales - most of their neighbors are friendly and the couple who are not friendly are too small to need Rafales. Hell, India can sell the LCA to Brazil for their tactical needs.
Same goes for Switzerland. They have not fought a war in the last 400 years and probably will not fight another for quite some time to come. Their Rafales (or Gripens) will be used in patrolling.
The closest country that may use the Rafale (after India) is UAE - if hostilities break out with Iran. But by the time the Rafales are delivered, the present Iran situation will blow over.
So, that leaves India as the only potential country (outside of France) where the Rafale might see some actual combat in the future.

 

[natarajan]

May be used to drop dossiers in pakistan and china

 

[Armand2REP]

That comment is funny, but deadly serious too. I am not sure who Brazil will fight using Rafales - most of their neighbors are friendly and the couple who are not friendly are too small to need Rafales. Hell, India can sell the LCA to Brazil for their tactical needs.
Same goes for Switzerland. They have not fought a war in the last 400 years and probably will not fight another for quite some time to come. Their Rafales (or Gripens) will be used in patrolling.
The closest country that may use the Rafale (after India) is UAE - if hostilities break out with Iran. But by the time the Rafales are delivered, the present Iran situation will blow over.
So, that leaves India as the only potential country (outside of France) where the Rafale might see some actual combat in the future.

Brasil borders Chavez dictatorship. It may need them to outfight Su-35s. Single engine fighters don't really meet the needs of a nation with such a long sea border and vast wilderness. They also have naval ambitions.

Switzerland can get by with just about any fighter as they are a bunch of wussies.

Any country that has a dispute with China would be a candidate for Rafale. Looking forward to Malaysia.

 

[Adux]

or also would reflect how Indians feel about American tech in offensive nature, and how seriously France takes India as a strategic partner, so have the french their desire to sell and arm the chinese?