Know Your 'Rafale'

[Punya Pratap]

Negotiation on for Rafale aircraft: India | Big News Network

So whatever happens GoI is committed to Rafael...Now we need to see whether India reduces the numbers/ToT to make it financially viable or displays the much vaunted Indian bargaining skills.

 

[Pulkit]

Negotiation are still going on .... and the option of scrapping it has not been ruled out....

Reducing numbers will also be an option...

This deal in no way is economical .......

So whatever happens GoI is committed to Rafael...Now we need to see whether India reduces the numbers/ToT to make it financially viable or displays the much vaunted Indian bargaining skills.

 

[Punya Pratap]

This deal is going to be the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.... I am worried simply because when we start receiving "our" Rafaels PLAAF will start getting J20's!! I think we really must spend 22 billion$ than lets get ourselves a 5th Gen fighter that can counter J20!! I wonder whether my logic applies to IAF or the rest of the argumentative Indians!! Eventually what is going to happen is IAF will again start demanding a 5th Gen fighter within 5 years or get bullied by China !! Than who the hell is going to shell out the money? if we must then 5 yrs down the line acquire a 5th Gen fighter... WE THE TAXPAYERS!!

IAF recently red flagged the engine issues for FGFA even though Sukhoi clearly stated that it is developing new engines but are satisfied with M 88 - 50/75 Kn DRY & WET!! It is the same M88 who's core they rejected when DRDO wanted to mate with Kaveri!!

 

[Pulkit]

FGFA as of now is on track....
yes If that much huge sum is spent for Rafale it will not only have a negative impact on FGFA but also AMCA and Tajas ....

IAF top elite is not seeing what a common man of Indis is or we are not seeing or missing something(Everything available in public forum has been evaluated Rafale is a bad deal).

This deal is going to be the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.... I am worried simply because when we start receiving "our" Rafaels PLAAF will start getting J20's!! I think we really must spend 22 billion$ than lets get ourselves a 5th Gen fighter that can counter J20!! I wonder whether my logic applies to IAF or the rest of the argumentative Indians!! Eventually what is going to happen is IAF will again start demanding a 5th Gen fighter within 5 years or get bullied by China !! Than who the hell is going to shell out the money? if we must then 5 yrs down the line acquire a 5th Gen fighter... WE THE TAXPAYERS!!

IAF recently red flagged the engine issues for FGFA even though Sukhoi clearly stated that it is developing new engines but are satisfied with M 88 - 50/75 Kn DRY & WET!! It is the same M88 who's core they rejected when DRDO wanted to mate with Kaveri!!

 

[Defcon 1]

This deal is going to be the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.... I am worried simply because when we start receiving "our" Rafaels PLAAF will start getting J20's!! I think we really must spend 22 billion$ than lets get ourselves a 5th Gen fighter that can counter J20!! I wonder whether my logic applies to IAF or the rest of the argumentative Indians!! Eventually what is going to happen is IAF will again start demanding a 5th Gen fighter within 5 years or get bullied by China !! Than who the hell is going to shell out the money? if we must then 5 yrs down the line acquire a 5th Gen fighter... WE THE TAXPAYERS!!

IAF recently red flagged the engine issues for FGFA even though Sukhoi clearly stated that it is developing new engines but are satisfied with M 88 - 50/75 Kn DRY & WET!! It is the same M88 who's core they rejected when DRDO wanted to mate with Kaveri!!

At least read about the things before speaking and making a fool of yourself. IAF did not reject Snecma JV on Kaveri. MOD rejected it, because France wasn't ready to provide ToT. Everything is not IAF's fault. Anyways, this thread has got nothing to do with MMRCA. There is a separate sticky thread for that purpose.

 

[Punya Pratap]

At least read about the things before speaking and making a fool of yourself. IAF did not reject Snecma JV on Kaveri. MOD rejected it, because France wasn't ready to provide ToT. Everything is not IAF's fault. Anyways, this thread has got nothing to do with MMRCA. There is a separate sticky thread for that purpose.

:: Bharat-Rakshak.com - Indian Military News Headlines ::

Care to read the above link Mr Defcon. I have read it and thats why I made the statement that IAF shot down the JV with Snecma !! I suggest you use a polite term than "making a fool"before you address people!!

 

[ersakthivel]

At least read about the things before speaking and making a fool of yourself. IAF did not reject Snecma JV on Kaveri. MOD rejected it, because France wasn't ready to provide ToT. Everything is not IAF's fault. Anyways, this thread has got nothing to do with MMRCA. There is a separate sticky thread for that purpose.

Snecma played along with negotiation till mirage-2000 upgrade and rafale winning the bid was done, then refused TOT.

IAF objected tooth and nail the proposed GTRE-Snecma JV for Kaveri saying that it will not meet their need

and there will be no"learning process for GTRE",Since Snecma was proposing to to induct its already fully developed M-88 core into the JV,

and it was all over.

I don't know Why IAF was interested in teaching GTRE on SCB. Now the same Snecma is delivering rafale with the M-88 core and IAF is perfectly happy over it.

I hope Snecma teaches IAF all the nitty gritty of making SCB blades of M-88 , so that in future IAF base repair depots will have learned how to make SCB on their own and help in designing of futre engines for IAF fighter projects, which IAF feared could not be done by GTRE, which at least has a working k-9 that meets the dry thrust needs and close to 85 percent of wet thrust needs.

The proposed JV (if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT.)would have given us a 90 Kn engine which could have been used as replacement engine for Tejas mk1 and could have good export prospects. But as it turned out , it was not to be.

The proposed JV ,if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT. But we all know how the UPA joint worked.

Atmost care was taken so that indian mil aviation sector faces the prospect of orphaned child for another two decades through the manner in which the three separate deals were worked out in three separate tracks and the most important one was buried with little fan fare.

Any hard nosed negotiator would have held Snecma to the proposed TOT terms by dangling the cumulative close to 30 billion MMRCA and Mirage-2000 upgrade that will be a cash cow for Dassault for the next two decades ,

There were many fighters in IAF and IN like MIG-29, Mig-29K that would have benefited from this 90 Kn engine, but for reasons known to itself IAF wanted GTRE to learn for another decade!!!!

 

[Defcon 1]

:: Bharat-Rakshak.com - Indian Military News Headlines ::

Care to read the above link Mr Defcon. I have read it and thats why I made the statement that IAF shot down the JV with Snecma !! I suggest you use a polite term than "making a fool"before you address people!!

Old news.
Update yourself.

The Failed Negotiations with Snecma for Engine Technology

In early January this year came the news that MoD has dropped the proposed deal with Snecma. No reason has been reported for this unexpected development. Quite likely Snecma raised the cost of its technologies or refused to pass on the intellectual property rights for the new engine to GTRE as it seems to have promised earlier. At this point, it looks like a classic case of bait and switch. It is hard not to conclude that Snecma was stringing India along with promises it had no intention of keeping, until almost the end of the Rafale price negotiations, and revealed its hands when it could no longer put MoD off.

Thats why I tell you guys to read before blaming others.
In fact, if you had read yourself the report that you have posted here, you will find the reason for IAF's objection very clearly, Snecma wanted DRDO to order 300 engines which was impractical. I have been talking to you politely, you have been making a fool of yourself here for time and I only introduced to reality.

If we had gone for DRDO Snecma project, the Tejas program would have been further delayed. Now at least you guys can expect a first flight by 2017. IAF actually saved the project in this case. So learn before blaming IAF for everything.

 

[Drsomnath999]

why RBE2 aesa radar was the safest bet for india in MMRCA evaluations

After rafale had been declared the winner of MMRCA deal there were many angry reactions coming from many self proclaimed
defence experts & arm chair generals in india that Rafale's puny radar wont be able to give IAF any edge in future aerial combat & IAF would be losing it's combat edge against it's adversary.But people dont understand that RBE 2 AESA radar was the safest bet for IAF in comparision to all MMRCA contenders AESA radar's at that time
& would be in future also .


This article tries to explain why RBE 2 AESA radar was the safest bet for IAF in MMRCA evaluations??

1st we should know what was the MMRCA radar requirement at that time??

MMRCA RADAR REQUIREMENTs

1) MINIMUM DETECTION RANGE FOR AN AESA RADAR

One of the selection criteria in the tender is that the fighter's radar must have an active phased array radar with a target detection range of at least 130 kilometers (about 80 miles)."

Zhuk-AE X-band AESA radar offered to India ~ ASIAN DEFENCE


2) DEMONSTRATION OF ATLEAST WORKING AESA MODEL IF NOT OPERATIONAL
But what about the crucial AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, which is operational only on American fighters at present? MoD said the ASQRs did "not require a flying AESA radar''. Instead, vendors had to demonstrate "a baseline radar model in flight or on a test-bed, the complete working model in a lab and how it would be integrated'' on the Indian MMRCA. "Five fighters, including Rafale and Typhoon, met this requirement,'' said the source.

India goes full steam to finalize $10.4bn jet deal - The Times of India

So for comparitive basis We would be stressing more on Air to air capabilities meanwhile ignoring the Air to ground capabilities of all the radars available at that time.





SO 1st get started by taking a brief look about RAfale"S RBE 2 aesa RADAR & it's capabilities .

RBE 2 AESA radar

The french rafale at that time of MMRCA evaluations had fielded a prototype of RBE 2 aesa radar as it was not operational at that time .


a)No of T/R modules ~ Approximately around 1000 T/R modules according to thales .

SOURCE
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_11.pdf

The exact T/R module count is though classified . There were speculations of around 840/870 T/r module by seeing some pictures on net but those pics are not the real production RBE -2 AESA model but rather they are dummy models displayed during Le bourgett air show. Infact French dassault deliberatley shows the blurred production RBE -2 AESA model pics in the net & brochures to prevent exact T/R module count.

b)DETECTION RANGE Against fighter size target = 180-190km (ESTIMATED) maximum range around 200km

RBE 2 pesa has a detection range of (75 nautical miles) 130/135 km & tracking range beyond 60 nautical miles for a target 3m2 (fighter size target)

source Avionics Magazine :: Serious Squall


but French DGA claims RBE 2 aesa radar range is increased by 50% compare to PESA radar
https://customeronline.thalesgroup....-aesa-radar-successfully-completes-new-series

& some even claim almost twice the detection range of RBE pesa radar

Delivery of Rafale C n°137, the first European combat aircraft equipped with an active phased array radar

though if we take those claims then increase by 50% detection range of RBE 2 PESA radar it equals around 190/195km against a 3m2 target & if we take almost double claim then it's 200+ km range against a fighter size 3m2 target

Though it is estimated to have maximum range around 200km if we trust French version of wikipedia of rafale & refer it's citations about those claims

Dassault Rafale — Wikipédia



c) maximum no aerial target it can track=40

maximum no aerial target engaged simulataneoulsy =8
Source
http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i441/somnath30/RAFALE/rbe2functions.jpg
from this
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_2.pdf






d)angular coverage = 140 °

the RBE2 aesa provides +/- 70 degree azimuth and elevation coverage in comparison to RBE 2 pesa +/- 60 degree azimuth and elevation coverage


e)average input power of 9.6 kW -10 kW
Source
Rafale News: Air and Cosmos insight on the future Rafale
Air&Cosmos 2150, Dec 5th , 2008

f) Type of active radar array= Fixed plate



FUTURE PLANS
....In the longer term, Thales plans to develop a conformal AESA radar featuring ultra-thin, lightweight antennas and very fast data links that could greatly increase the integration of onboard systems and permit them to fuse data and perform a host of new missions at an affordable cost. ......

...The ultimate aim is to develop a multipurpose conformal array with a shared common aperture that could be distributed all over the fuselage and wings without significantly affecting aircraft aerodynamics. This will take 10-12 years, Chaltiel says, meaning it could be available for the Rafale F4 standard, which is expected to be introduced around *2020, or the Mid-Life Update, planned for 2025-30......

.....Moreover, the new design will be based on a patented "cloud transmit/receive module" (TRM) approach that will allow novel technologies such as gallium nitride modules to be inserted without changing the overall radar architecture or requiring full requalification.....


pg 32 & pg 33
http://s25.postimg.org/he4isg7n3/Activating_AESA_1.jpg
http://s25.postimg.org/631v430rz/Activating_AESA_2.jpg

Aviation Week & Space Technology | Jul-12-10 | Inside | Zinio Digital Magazines

That means enhanced angular coverage ( conformal arrays on fuselarge or wings) + greater detection range of aerial targets thanks to GaN (5 times more powerful than current GaAS) T/R modules


Drawback of RBE 2 AESA radar
It has a limited angular coverage (foV) due to it's fixed aesa plate design compare to Swashplate aesa radars which have wider angular coverage (FoV) .So in a bvr warfare scenario after EM guided missile has been launched from rafale against a plane having a swashed plate or fixed plate array , the rafale cannot manuveur more than 70 degree from the viewing angle in comparision to swash plate aesa radar planes which have more than 90 degree FOV .
So that means rafale would be closing in against those fighters which has a swash plate aesa radar or fixed plate aesa radar & meanwhile planes having swash plate aesa radar would be flying perpendicular or away from the rafale's BVR missile during it's evasion course but it would still be able to provide midcourse updates to it's own launched BVR missile .That could
make rafale more prone to enemy fighters BVR missile attack.


But according french Air&Cosmos 2355 issue defence magazine MBDA, Thales and Sagem started future Mica NG where provision has been included for third party targeting also in which wingmen / buddy rafale which is in active mode can also provide mid course updates to mica missiles launched by shooting rafale from a safe distance through (Mini awacs concept) .So the shooting rafale plane can easily move away from after launching BVR missile to it's target.





Also after inclusion of conformal radar arrays in future this would also increase the angular coverage of RBE 2 aesa radar even further & negate the disadvantage of fixed plate RBE 2 aesa radar


Meanwhile lets take a brief look about the capabilities of other AESA radar available during MMRCA evaluations & indian perspective regarding those aesa radar during MMRCA evaluations at that time

1) MiG 35's ZHUK-AE AESA radar

The Russian side have two variants of ZHUK-AE aesa radars one is FGA-29 model & other is FGA -35 model .During the evaluations they have fielded FGA 29 model but have claimed the FGA -35 model would be the real radar for MIG 35 in future.

a)No of T/R modules
Zhuk-AE' – FGA-29 model

T/R modules=652
Phazotron Zhuk AE: Assessing Russia's First AESA

'Zhuk-AE'FGA -35 model
T/R modules=1064

b)DETECTION RANGE Against fighter size target 3m2

'Zhuk-AE' – FGA-29 model
130 km (head on) in both look-up or look down modes.
Look-up tail-on detection range is 50km (40km look down).
DSC01637-773847.JPG (image)

somewhere it was reported they have achieved 148 kilometers, according to Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director.
Zhuk-AE X-band AESA radar offered to India ~ ASIAN DEFENCE

'Zhuk-AE'FGA -35 model
The detection range of this model is 200 km against a fighter plane size target as claimed by phazotron

c) Maximum no of aerial targets tracked & engage simultaneously

For FGA -29

Maximum aerial targets scanned=30


maximum no aerial target engaged simulataneoulsy=6

Phazotron Zhuk AE AESA Radar
DSC01637-773847.JPG (image)

For FGA -35 model
Maximum aerial targets scanned=60
maximum no aerial target engaged simulataneoulsy=8

d) Type of active radar array=fixed plate

e) angular coverage=120 degree i.e +/-60 degrees

Defunct Humanity: AESA radars for fighters. Brief review.

COMPARISION TO RBE 2 AESA radar
definitely RBE 2 aesa radar out performs Zhuk ae 29 model in every thing but ZHUK AE 35 model was going to be the real radar
of MiG 35 .Zhuk ae 35 radar has almost equal detection range or slightly higher .But it has higher no of aerial targets scanned compare to RBE 2 aesa radar.

Indian perspective

The IAF were not impressed by the performance of FGA-29 model basically they wanted a more powerful radar .
Engines and radar to blame for MiG-35 failure in MMRCA contest - 8/4/2011 - Flight Global

Also the Russians had not shown the FGA 35 model at that time it was in sketches only .They displayed it 1st time during MAKS 2013 airshow basically .Had they demonstrated it little earliear during MMRCA evaluations it would have made an impact .Not only that Mig 35 was not inducted by russian airforce by that time .One could be easily skeptical to beleive those claims whther the russians would indeed deliver on their promises.Still critics also claimed T/R modules MMIC technology which the russians have is inferior to western standards may be IAF didnt have beleive that russians can field an AESA comparable to western standards

Source
http://s25.postimg.org/enx10r6pb/russia_far_behind_the_us_on_MMIC_used_on_TR_modu.jpg
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Decoding_Indias_MMRCA_Decision.pdf

But none the else it's performance would also have been more or less equal to RBE 2 aesa radar in detection range .No major diffence would have happen even if they had demonstrated during evaluations.



2)F16(IN) block 60 APG 80 aesa radar

http://www.mycity-military.com/thumbs2/56181_tmb_68081959_apg80.jpg

The Northrop Grumman APG 80 AESA radar was one of the only fully developed integrated AESA radar that is operational during the intial MMRCA trials


a)No of T/R modules =1000

source

Active Electronically Steered Arrays - A Maturing Technology


b)DETECTION RANGE Against fighter size target (3m2) =120-125 miles (210-215km)
Source
Actual radar range is classified and depend on the target and altitude. But roughly, the F-16 upgrade will likely come in at 125 mi. or slightly less.
Raytheon and Northrop Grumman battle over F-16 radars

it's has a range of 70-80 miles for a 1-sqm target according to (AW&ST 03/13/00)

SOURCE
Look-up detection range of the AN/APG-66/68 radar family
so for 3sqm target it should be higher for sure around 120-125 miles (210-215km) or slightly higher than that





c) Maximum no of aerial targets tracked & engage simultaneously
Maximum aerial targets tracked=20
maximum aerial targets engagement simultaneously=6

Source

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems developed the AN/APG-80 Aesa radar for the F-16E/F fighters ordered by the United Arab Emirates. This has a greater detection range than the mechanically scanned AN/APG-68 that is fitted to most current-production F-16s, and can track up to 20 targets simultaneously or up to six with the accuracy normally associated with single target tracking
Fighters face the Aesa revolution: since 2000, a small number of fighter aircraft have been flying with Active Electronically Scanned Array (Aesa) radars. To date, these have all been American, but design teams around the world are working to develop

d) Type of active radar array=Fixed plate AESA array

The antenna of the Super Viper AESA is a fixed plate that does not move. Gone are the stability limits of the actuators driving the mechanical antennas in other fighters.

India MMRCA Programme - Lockheed Martin Presents the F 16IN Super Viper

e) angular coverage=120 degree i.e +/-60 degrees
Defunct Humanity: AESA radars for fighters. Brief review.

COMPARISION TO RBE 2 AESA radar
So APG 80 has slightly higher detection range than RBE 2 aesa radar by around 10% .But regarding maximum no of aerial target
& maximum no of aerial targets engaged it is inferior to RBE 2 aesa radar

But Dassault in order to meet the UAE requirement, the power output will be increased from 9.6 kW to 14 kW by changing the cooling pomp. This should provide an additional 10% range bonus.
SOURCE
Rafale News: Air and Cosmos insight on the future Rafale






3)F/A-18IN (model E/F) super hornet APG 79 aesa radar

It was argurably one of the most advanced US AESA radars offered to india at that time MMRCA evaluations

a)No of T/R modules =1100


Active Electronically Steered Arrays - A Maturing Technology

b)DETECTION RANGE Against fighter size target (3m2) =215/225km (ESTIMATED FIGURE)
For RCS = 1 m2 target : 120~130 km
Defunct Humanity: AESA radars for fighters. Brief review.

some even claim 200km +
http://s25.postimg.org/n2v17t19r/apg_79_radar_range.jpg
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Decoding_Indias_MMRCA_Decision.pdf




c) Maximum no of aerial targets tracked & engage simultaneously
Maximum aerial targets tracked= > 20 targets
maximum aerial targets engagement simultaneously=??? ( Not known in open sources)

Defunct Humanity: AESA radars for fighters. Brief review.



d) Angular coverage =120 degrees i.e +/- 60 degrees

Defunct Humanity: AESA radars for fighters. Brief review.

e) Type of aesa radar array= fixed array


Comparision to RBE 2 aesa radar

THe APG -79 aesa radar is definitely more capable & technologically advanced than RBE 2 aesa radar but strangely recent
disclosures from US DoD discloses that APG 79 aesa radar has failed to achieve any improvements in detection range compare
legacy APG 73 radar during operational testing

source
http://s25.postimg.org/r9atq0ujz/apg_79_poor_performance_in_evaluations.jpg
http://s25.postimg.org/wm4q19orz/apg_79_poor_performance_in_evaluations_2.jpg
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/navy/2012fa18ef.pdf

Indian perspective for all American AESA radar


Unlike the french RBE 2 aesa radar which are offering Full ToT with source codes

There would have been limited Transfer of Technology on the radar, up to the level approved by the US Government. However, Raytheon stated that the level of ToT offered would be compliant with the RFP requirements

The technology transfer, though likely to be limited, would meet the requirements of the IAF. Our proposal will be compliant with the request for proposal (RFP) issued by the IAF for the 126 combat aircraft," he said.
domain-b.com : Raytheon to transfer AESA radar technology to India up to the level permitted by US government.



4)Gripen (IN) Raven ES-05 radar

The Gripen had not demonstrated Raven ES-05 radar prototype at that time they had stated it would be installed in future .
Looking at specifications & configurations following info we have found in open sources


a)No of T/R modules =1000

b)DETECTION RANGE Against fighter size target (3m2) = >150km (estimated)
a thousand T/R modules would generate atleast a detection range of 150km or even higher than that but not less than that for sure

there are no info /claims about it's detection range at the web one can only speculate but surely 150km+ greater than meteor's bvraam operatioonal range as it is it's primary BVRAAM in future







maximum no aerial target it can track ???
maximum no aerial target engaged simulataneoulsy ???

as no specification is available for ES-05


c)Angular coverage( Field of regard) = 200 degrees ie ±100º
source
Selex to supply Raven AESA radar for Saab Gripen NG fighters - Airforce Technology

d)Type of active radar array= Swashed plate


advantage of swashed plate array of RAVEN ES-05 radar

In long-range air-to-air combat, the highest FoV means that a Gripen can maneuver at an angle in relation to the viewed axis of the target (off-boresight angle) greater than what is possible with an AESA radar with fixed TRMs matrix after launching a BVR missile and still be able to send updated information to the missile. In turn, a potential enemy will be limited to deviating up to 60º of the viewed angle after launching the BVR missile. Therefore, it will still be displacing towards a missile launched by Gripen while this, in turn, will be flying perpendicularly or even away from the enemy missile. Simulations made showed that this capacity should not be underestimated and it will have a devastating effect in the engagement result of the BVR.

source
http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/14/36/46/56/vixen10.jpg
Raven ES-05 AESA Brings Wider Eyes For The Gripen NG - Gripen




COMPARISION TO RBE 2 AESA RADAR

ignoring the swash plate scenario The Gripen E 1000 T/R modules Raven ES-05 Aesa radar would be slightly more or less equal to RBE 2 1000 T/R module aesa radar in performance in detection range basically but not more than that differnce one can expect from it. Until and unless they field GaN T/R modules in future which Sweedish are also planning like French then only
can they boast of overwhemingly superior Es-05 radar compare to RBe2 aesa radar But at the moment they are plans only for EW suite not AESA radar they are using GaAS T/R modules for ES-05 radar basically.


Gallium Nitride Gets Fighter Debut With Saab | Defense News | defensenews.com

But unlike the french they dont have plans of conformal radar arrays in future



Indian perpesctive
BTW They havenot demonstrated this AESA radar protype in MMRCA evaluations at all leading to it's cancellation. IAF sources reveal that Gripen failed to provide proof that their AESA radar development was on track and that they could integrate it on a fighter. In contrast, Dassault had fitted two prototype AESA radars on Rafale fighters, proving they were close to completion. Eurofighter, too, test-flew a prototype AESA radar for the IAF evaluation team, convincing them it would be ready by 2014-15.

Rejected MMRCA vendors fight to return | Business Standard News

Not only that At one stage, Saab had considered offering the EL/M-2052 as part of its Gripen NG proposal for the Indian air force's medium multi-role combat aircraft requirement, but US armtwisted isreal not to sell it
Israel bars AESA radar export to India - 1/11/2011 - Flight Global



5)Eurofighter Typhoon's CAPTOR-E aesa radar

Typhoon consortium group had demonstrated a prototype model of Captor-E/ CAESAR model during the MMRCA evaluations .It was
touted the 2nd best AESA radar after F22's APG-77 radar thanks to it' enormous T/R module count & aperture size compare to all rivals at that time


a)No of T/R modules =T/R modules=1400-1500 (estimated)
The Captor-E will contain about 1,500 transmit-receive modules, and Morrison said the Typhoon's relatively large nose means it could hold a bigger array than the equivalent radar built by Thales for the Rafale, France's twin-engine fighter.
First Typhoon Flight With AESA Could Open Door to Exports | Defense News | defensenews.com


b)DETECTION RANGE Against fighter size target (3m2) = 240/250km or even higher (ESTIMATED FIGURE)

Detection range for CAPTOR -M not CAPTOR E

In 1997 Marconi indicated CAPTOR had detected fighter sized aircraft at ranges of well over 160km and larger aircraft at double that. More recent information indicates the systems range accuracy is within 10 metres while it can obtain a target angle to within 1 miliradian. The system is capable of tracking 20 air targets simultaneously, automatically identifying and prioritising them.
Eurofighter Technology and Performance : Sensors

some sources say 180km for a fighter size target
http://eurofighter.airpower.at/sensorik-captor.html

So detection range for Captor E AESA version estimated should be higher than Captor M for a fighter size target
For RCS 3.0 m2 class target should be : 240-250 (minimum value it can also be higher than this value ) but on PEN & PAPER at the moment .Only after proper evaluations we can
confirm that IF similiar scenario happens like we are seeing with APG 79 Aesa radar then this claim cannot be confirmed

Other specifications like

maximum no aerial target it can track ???

maximum no aerial target engaged simulataneoulsy ???

cannot be confirmed at the moment due to lack of sources




c)Angular coverage = 200 degree +

In addition, the Captor-E will also be mechanically gimballed so that it can be slewed within the nose of the Typhoon, increasing the coverage of the radar from around 90° to 120°
https://www.rusi.org/images/library/LI53C54BEA6A077.jpg

d) Type of active radar array =Swashed plate ACTIVE RADAR ARRAYS

Comparison between FIXED PLATE & SWASHED PLATE ACTIVE RADAR ARRAYS

The Captor-E will sit on a moving plate, or "repositioner," giving it a 100-degree field of regard, as distinct from US AESA radars, which sit on a fixed plate. The advantage of a fixed plate, say US makers, is minimal maintenance.


With a fixed plate, Thales says the radar's front end needs maintenance once every 10 years.

But Morrison said the movement of the repositioner required by the Captor-E does not prompt a constant need for maintenance.
"It is a gentle, rhythmical movement compared to mechanically scanned radars, and the need for maintenance is not great," he said. "US aircraft fitted with AESA like the F-16 have a smaller nose, and would not be able to fit a repositioner in any case.
First Typhoon Flight With AESA Could Open Door to Exports | Defense News | defensenews.com


Comparision to RBE 2 AESA radar

Ignoring the swash plate advantage of CAPTOR -E aesa radar over RBE 2 aesa radar.

Captor-E on pen & paper is definitely superior to RBE 2 aesa radar in terms of performance & Capabilty thanks to it's increased T/R module count & big aperature size . But it can only be confirmed after proper evaluations & testing if similiar scenario happens like APG 79 aesa radar then !!!

But unlike the french they havent disclosed anything about GaN T/R modules nor conformal arrays in future at the moment.
May be perhaps in future we can know about that part


Indian perspective

From combat aircraft monthly jan 2013 magazine an article was posted by award winning legendary defence journalist Jon lake
Eurofighter typhoon what lies ahead?

In his article he claims

....Combat Aircraft understands that Eurofighter GmbH has resolved this impasse and that there is now an AESA radar 'road map', with an initial FSD 'Radar 1' to meet export requirements in 2015, providing a credible export-standard AESA, followed by a 'Radar 2 to meet core four-nation requirements around 2017, and eventually a derived 'Radar 3' (almost certainly with a new antenna array) to fulfil the UK's more ambitious needs......

.....In 'Radar 1' form, the E-Scan Captor should offer equivalent performance to the mechanically scanned version, but with all of the traditional advantages of AESA in terms of reliability and multi-mode flexibility as well as enhanced electronic counter-count enneasu res (ECCM).

In 'Radar 2' guise the new radar will offer increased detection and tracking ranges bv comparison with the standard Captor-M radar......
Source
http://s25.postimg.org/74h9kk0q7/jon_lake_s_article_from_Combat_aircraft_monthly.jpg
http://s25.postimg.org/4ofg6pinj/Typhoon_3_aesa_radar_programs.jpg




So basically radar 1 which is for exports wouldnot have any increased detection & tracking range than captor M .That means india gonna have to funds it's own radar requirements with the partner states .That would be too sketchy
& uncertain for india .It would be cumbersome for india to regulate with each Eurofighter partner states to develop & also would be dependent on each individual partner states level of ToT permissible to their own country's export standards











CONCLUSION

so after having a nit pick reviews of all aesa radars available during MMRCA evaluations ,It is becoming really clear that
RBE 2 AESA radar was indeed the safest bet for IAF during MMRCA evaluations




REASONS

1) 1st non US & completely french Content operational ready AESA radar at that time of winner of MMRCA evaluations as it was going to be inducted in 2012 .

2) Did met IAF's requirement of AESA radar detection range of atleast 130km or more just looking at recent trials in mont de marsan air base french airforce indeed claim of more than 50 % increase in range compare to RBE PESA radar & It' detection
range & specifications is not that bad as claimed by certain self proclaimed defence experts & arm chair generals in india
as compare to those aesa radars available at that time



Only E captor radar block 2 variants for partner states & block 3 for Britain may be overwhelmingly superior to RBE 2 aesa radar.That too is in pen & paper at the moment we got to wait in future to confirm that after proper evaluations & testing


3) Promising future upgrades of RBE 2 aesa radar during MLU program of rafale if india opts for it during 2023+ time period
thanks to it's conformal radar arrays + GaN tech T/R module leading to increased angular coverage & detection range.
It would be able to keep up with new level of future threats

4) (MOST IMPORTANT) Complete TOT of RBE 2 AESA radar with source code unlike other competitors


Critically for India, the transfer-of-technology (T-o-T) would include that of a state-of-the-art Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar that would provide Rafale the ability to also function as a close battlefield support airborne warning and control system (AWACS), apart from its designed function as a fighter. The AESA radar T-o-T would also include transfer of software source code, according to Chabriol.

This is a matter of great concern for India, or any country, that seeks T-o-T of sensitive equipment. Lack of access to the source code would not allow a country to re-programme a radar or any sensitive equipment should it so wish.

Defence analysts point out that this could seriously compromise India's national security as the IAF would not be able to re-programme the radar should it wish to at a later stage.

Two other competing fighters Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet and the European conglomerate Eurofighter's Typhoon are also being made available with AESA radars though with the provision that transfer of technology for this equipment would be dependent on the decision of their respective governments.

Earlier statements from manufacturers of AESA radars has been categorical about the fact that transfer of source code is not on the cards. Since source code enables programming of the radar, what this implies is that the IAF would have to specify mission parameters to foreign manufacturers to enable configuration of their radar, seriously compromising security in the process.
Source
domain-b.com : Dassault ups the ante with full technology transfer for Rafale





PLEASE NOTE-

1) I tried my level best to give accurate values of radars as available in the net though mistakes can also happen

2) I intentionally not included the SWISS EVALUATION REPORT as at that time some planes didnt have aesa radar in those evaluations. So no point of including them here

3) Kindly for god's sake ignore the grammar & Spelling mistakes in this article

REGARDS

 

[Punya Pratap]

Dear Defcon,

First of all let me update you with the sequence of events... MOD was all for a JV so that GTRE could tie up with an experienced engine maker but it was the IAF which came up with the objections and the scheming to ensure the K10 did not take off!!

Any business entity will look for feasibility before investing in a JV and Snecma wanted an assured order for 300 engines. But since IAF had already made up its mind that it shall do to Tejas what IA is doing to Arjun hence all the objections that GTRE would nt learn how to make engines out of the JV. By the way for your further information Kaveri had been de-linked from Tejas project before Snecma came on the scene for K10 development where the Eco core was offered for Kaveri...the upshot for Snecma was they also wanted to develop a higher thrust engine while GTRE would have got an optimum solution for Tejas.

Even your article states that "No Reason was provided by MOD" where as MOD was the one who sent out RFI's for JV.....Snecma was willing to partner in the beginning and here is the inside story..... IAF informally informed Snecma of its intention to keep the Tejas to limited numbers so Snecma knew they would nt get 300 orders for engines. The facts are simple, IAF wanted to induct Rafael in numbers and if there is a successful Tejas on hand IAF does nt get the Rafael so Snecma played along on IAF's line. Its as simple as this ... If Tejas is a success there is no Rafael and if IAF wants Rafael it has to ensure there is limited Tejas/FGFA etc etc....IAF will not exceed Tejas to more than 7/8 squadrons if it has its way!!

For further information, the Tot on Rafael, if GoI goes ahead includes parting with the entire engine tech of M88 to GTRE.. along with the same core IAF was objecting to in the first place because K10 would have made Tejas a complete package and IAF would have no excuses what so ever to blast Tejas!! The ToT of M88 will give the GTRE the expertise it needs to develop Kaveri for future... IAF wants GTRE to learn engine making through Rafael ToT not the JV for K10 coz then it stands to lose out on the Rafael deal.

Conclusion ::::: THE OBJECTIONS OF IAF WAS FOR THE ENGINING OF TEJAS

By the way if you think yourself "oh so knowledgeable" that you consider others fool I suggest you get your attitude sorted out cos nobody in this world knows the entire truth and specially when it comes to Mega deals.... Another fact, NAK Browne was appointed Ambassador to Norway on April 29 just before UPA got thrashed in the elections.... you know why???

Subramaniam Swamy is a very intelligent man and he has opposed Rafael from day one.... he knows all the internal shenanigans that went on for Rafael deal... do you know the truth behind his objections!!

Another fact... I live in Jodhpur....I know a thing or two from some horses of IAF stables about the truth!!! If you think I am a fool than you are living in a fools'world where ignorance is bliss!!

 

[Punya Pratap]

Old news.
Update yourself.

The Failed Negotiations with Snecma for Engine Technology



Thats why I tell you guys to read before blaming others.
In fact, if you had read yourself the report that you have posted here, you will find the reason for IAF's objection very clearly, Snecma wanted DRDO to order 300 engines which was impractical. I have been talking to you politely, you have been making a fool of yourself here for time and I only introduced to reality.

I hope my above post has answered you !!

If we had gone for DRDO Snecma project, the Tejas program would have been further delayed. Now at least you guys can expect a first flight by 2017. IAF actually saved the project in this case. So learn before blaming IAF for everything.

The only program IAF saved/ is saving is Rafael !!

 

[Defcon 1]

Re: why RBE2 aesa radar was the safest bet for india in MMRCA evaluat

@pmaitra
Kindly merge this thread to Know your Rafale thread. It contains numerous links which will be useful for reference later. Thanks.

 

[ersakthivel]

Old news.
Update yourself.

The Failed Negotiations with Snecma for Engine Technology



Thats why I tell you guys to read before blaming others.
In fact, if you had read yourself the report that you have posted here, you will find the reason for IAF's objection very clearly, Snecma wanted DRDO to order 300 engines which was impractical. I have been talking to you politely, you have been making a fool of yourself here for time and I only introduced to reality.

If we had gone for DRDO Snecma project, the Tejas program would have been further delayed. Now at least you guys can expect a first flight by 2017. IAF actually saved the project in this case. So learn before blaming IAF for everything.

But the government of India does not believe in using its leverage in bargaining for what it needs most. It issued a stand-alone RfP for collaboration for developing an improved Kaveri in 2006. A separate RfP for the MMRCA deal followed a year later. The US General Electric (GE) and Britain's Rolls Royce refused any form of participation. America's Pratt&Whitney is on record having expressed its willingness to aid the Kaveri project. But later reports said it was willing to participate only as a consultant. In 2008, MoD selected Snecma over Russia's NPO Saturn as the collaborator for the Kaveri. It was reported that it would take 4 years to develop and certify a new engine, after which the technology would be transferred to GTRE. MoD entered into separate negotiations with Snecma on this deal even as it was processing the MMRCA proposals. Thesenegotiations dragged onfor more than three years. Meanwhile, the Dassault Rafale, powered by a Snecma engine, emerged as the lowest bidder among those shortlisted for the MMRCA and MoD began contract negotiations with it. Was Snecma playing a game, waiting for the finalization of the Rafale deal? It would seem so. It appeared that in a bizarre twist, at this stage India had allowed France to make the Rafale deal an offset for the engine technology deal.

As what was thought to be price negotiations with Snecma progressed, it also appeared thatSnecma was really offering the "ECO" core it had already developed and that it would pass on the technology to the DRDO only after 15 years. Considering the pace at which engine technology progresses, the know-how, by the time Snecma transferred it to GTRE, would have become obsolete. MoD rejected this proposal. Evaluation of the MMRCA contenders was then going on. Snecma quickly climbed down, agreeing to ToT as soon as GTRE could absorb it.

MoD then began negotiations with Snecma for a joint venture for the development of the Kaveri. Minister of State for DefencePallamRajutold Business Standard: "(Snecma) is willing to co-develop an engine with us; they are willing to go beyond just transfer of technology. It is a value-added offer that gives us better technology than what we would get from ToT from Eurojet(the maker of the Typhoon's engine) or GE." This was misleading. GE and Eurojet were not contenders for the collaboration with GTRE. The technology they were offering was part of a deal for the import of 99 engines for the LCA Mark II. The kind of technologies sought for the collaboration on the Kaveri engine were not sought for this deal. Officially, no specifics of what technologies Snecma would offer have been disclosed. A senior DRDO official said two years ago that the work share between GTRE and Snecma would be 50:50; that price negotiations would be completed "within a month"; and that GTRE would gain the intellectual property rights for the new engine. Aviation Week reported in March 2012 that an agreement on the joint venture to develop and build a 20,230-lb-thrust engine would be reached by June that year. Snecma would provide "exhaustive know-how" on the technologies and manufacturing processes GTRE lacked, the sources for the report claimed.

In early January this year came the news that MoD has dropped the proposed deal with Snecma. No reason has been reported for this unexpected development. Quite likely Snecma raised the cost of its technologies or refused to pass on the intellectual property rights for the new engine to GTRE as it seems to have promised earlier. At this point, it looks like a classic case of bait and switch. It is hard not to conclude that Snecma was stringing India along with promises it had no intention of keeping, until almost the end of the Rafale price negotiations, and revealed its hands when it could no longer put MoD off. Snecma, by bidding for the collaboration, prolonging the negotiationsfor several years, and finally hardening its position, has made India's engine development programme lose precious time.

The decision to build a 20,230-lb-thrust engine is also questionable. Such an engine would be inadequate for India's future needs. The 22,000lb thrust GE engine is being procured for the initial batch of the LCA Mark II ordered by the IAF. The improved Kaveri, with a 10 per cent less thrust, would not be adequate for later batches of the LCA, should the IAF decide to order more of them. It is also doubtful if it would be suitable for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) which India is planning. The AMCA, a stealth aircraft, would need to have an internal weapons bay, fairly high internal fuel capacity, and supercruise capability. If the LCA program imparted any lesson to Indian military planners, it is that the AMCA is going to turn out to be heavier than now planned. Developing a 20,000lb class engine now for it makes no sense. Presumably, it is the maximum level to which Snecma's ECO core can be developed. As Air Marshall Philip Rajkumar (rtd.) recounts in his book The Tejas Story, the DRDO and the IAF had a falling out in the 1980s over the choice of partners for developing the LCA's flight control system. The IAF wanted to go with Dassault, while the DRDO preferred Lockheed Martin. This disagreement had caused the IAF to wage a decades-long cold war against the DRDO and the LCA project in particular. Quite possibly,DRDO bought peace with the IAF by accepting the latter's preference for Snecma.

In the wake of the VVIP chopper scam, Defence Minister A. K. Antony has promised corrective action. He cannot act until he finds out what really happens behind the scenes in the procurement process. The complete lack of transparency in all matters relating to defence makes it easy for unscrupulous elements to manipulate the system. Antony must order a thorough inquiry into the whole Kaveri-Snecma saga. Several questions relating to this affair need answers. Who was pushing for delinking the Kaveri collaboration from the MMRCA tender? What specifically did Snecma offer in its response to the RfP, and at what price? Why did the negotiations drag on for so many years, and on what basis were predictions of imminent agreement fed to the media on a regular basis (see here and here)? What were the reasons for the termination of the negotiations? This charade could not have gone on for so long unless senior levels of the GTRE, MoD, and the IAF were involved. A top-to-bottom shakeup in the MoD, DRDO, and the services would inspire some confidence that it is not going to be, once again, business as usual.



About the author:

Appu Kuttan Soman is a diplomatic historian, and was a Research Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University from 2007-2009. His research interests include arms control, nuclear history, and South Asian security. He is the author of Double-Edged Sword: Nuclear Diplomacy in Unequal Conflicts: The United States and China, 1950-1958 (Praeger, 2000), and Through the Looking Glass: Diplomacy, Indian Style. He holds a PhD in US diplomatic history from Vanderbilt University and master's in Psychology and bachelor's in History and Psychology from Andhra University in India. He was an Associate of the Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History at Harvard University from 1995-1997.

Appu kuttan is too diplomatic, I think. The real reasons are,

1. neither the govt of the day nor the IAF was serious in holding the success of GTRE-Snecma negotiations as precondition for rafale deal and mirage-2000 upgrade deal , which is what honest gov has to dr does it have anything to do with the sudden entry of a giant indian private sector firm , which had no experience as manufacturer of high tech items as a new JV partner for Dassault totally bypassing HAL?

All of a sudden GOI let go off GTRE SNECMA negotiations just like that citing lame reasons.

2. And the engine order lot of 300 is not the problem , because that engine can be used on mg-29,Tejas mk1 and on Rafale itself.

Now what is going to happen is Dassault is going to use the profits from the indian MMRCA deal to develop the engine separately and after a decade , it will pass it to us as a mid life upgrade at exorbitant cost with some sham TOT agreement.

From this instant you can easily know how will the MMRCA TOT work in the real world.

Dassault production line will close if indian order is not going to come and then there will be no hope for french to get back the money invested in rafale.

Still IAF, MOD let it go, by painting GTRE as an ignorant idiot in the process. This matter must be lookedinto by new govt,

 

[Drsomnath999]

Re: why RBE2 aesa radar was the safest bet for india in MMRCA evaluat

@pmaitra
Kindly merge this thread to Know your Rafale thread. It contains numerous links which will be useful for reference later. Thanks.

NO please dont do it
If he does that then on googling this thread would be lost

& My know your rafale thread would be a versus scenario & my rafale thread would be ruined

PLZ MODS & ADMINS DONT DO IT PLZ

CHEERS

 

[Defcon 1]

Dear Defcon,

First of all let me update you with the sequence of events... MOD was all for a JV so that GTRE could tie up with an experienced engine maker but it was the IAF which came up with the objections and the scheming to ensure the K10 did not take off!!

Any business entity will look for feasibility before investing in a JV and Snecma wanted an assured order for 300 engines. But since IAF had already made up its mind that it shall do to Tejas what IA is doing to Arjun hence all the objections that GTRE would nt learn how to make engines out of the JV. By the way for your further information Kaveri had been de-linked from Tejas project before Snecma came on the scene for K10 development where the Eco core was offered for Kaveri...the upshot for Snecma was they also wanted to develop a higher thrust engine while GTRE would have got an optimum solution for Tejas.

Even your article states that "No Reason was provided by MOD" where as MOD was the one who sent out RFI's for JV.....Snecma was willing to partner in the beginning and here is the inside story..... IAF informally informed Snecma of its intention to keep the Tejas to limited numbers so Snecma knew they would nt get 300 orders for engines. The facts are simple, IAF wanted to induct Rafael in numbers and if there is a successful Tejas on hand IAF does nt get the Rafael so Snecma played along on IAF's line. Its as simple as this ... If Tejas is a success there is no Rafael and if IAF wants Rafael it has to ensure there is limited Tejas/FGFA etc etc....IAF will not exceed Tejas to more than 7/8 squadrons if it has its way!!

Wrong on every count. K10 did not take off because DRDO could not develop it. Period.

IAF had every right to speak for MMRCA (Rafale wasn't selected in 2010) against LCA because they had already spent years evaluating MMRCA contenders. Also the tender for import of engines for LCA was already in motion.

In spite of all that, DRDO bought in the proposal to bring in Snecma just so that it can get Kaveri on LCA, even though another tender for engines was already going. Basically DRDO wanted IAF to scrap its tender and then again wait for years while DRDO performed its "Joint Venture" with Snecma. Then again, DRDO wanted IAF to buy at least 300 of those fighters while those things had already been settled. IAF rejected it, obviously, who won't? Why would IAF wait for DRDO to go on a second development when they had failed with Kaveri the first time.

Today, even though GE won the tender back in 2012, the first engine will only arrive in 2015. If we had gone DRDO way, it would have taken years to develop the new engine, then more years to setup engine manufacturing, then first engine will come, then first flight of LCA Mk2. Today at least you can expect first flight of Mk2 by 2017. If DRDO had gotten its way, you will still be reading headlines such as "GTRE Kaveri fails tests again, LCA Mk2 first flight delayed to 2020"

IAF at least ensured that by importing the engine directly instead of spending years on the JV, we get the engine in minimum possible time and thus first flight of LCA Mk2 can be carried out earliest possible date. That's how IAF saved the program. And you are too thick to see such obvious things.

For further information, the Tot on Rafael, if GoI goes ahead includes parting with the entire engine tech of M88 to GTRE.. along with the same core IAF was objecting to in the first place because K10 would have made Tejas a complete package and IAF would have no excuses what so ever to blast Tejas!! The ToT of M88 will give the GTRE the expertise it needs to develop Kaveri for future... IAF wants GTRE to learn engine making through Rafael ToT not the JV for K10 coz then it stands to lose out on the Rafael deal.

Btw: How would K10 make Tejas a complete package? Can you even prove that its performance would be better than GE414? Don't talk out of your a**. You are not impressing anyone.

Subramaniam Swamy is a very intelligent man and he has opposed Rafael from day one.... he knows all the internal shenanigans that went on for Rafael deal... do you know the truth behind his objections!!

Since you are so big fan of Subramanium Swamy, ask him to stop the Rafale deal. His party is in power. That will also tell you his real "aukat" inside the BJP, no wonder they didn't give him any ministerial post.

Another fact... I live in Jodhpur....I know a thing or two from some horses of IAF stables about the truth!!! If you think I am a fool than you are living in a fools'world where ignorance is bliss!!

Yes living in Jodhpur will look good on your resume. Its an indisputable proof of your knowledge. I live in Lucknow by the way.

The actual problem is you guys are so new to defence related news you haven't seen how DRDO timelines work. Barely an year ago DRDO was claiming that Tejas mk2 will fly in 2014. Thats why somethings which are extremely obvious to me (and IAF) aren't clear to you. So I suggest you spend some time on this forum before starting to blame anyone. Then we will talk. I won't be replying to this conversation anymore. I have already said whatever I needed to.

 

[Apollyon]

Re: why RBE2 aesa radar was the safest bet for india in MMRCA evaluat

Indian Air Force iirc had a minimum range requirement for aerial and ground target tracking/detection and no extra points were given to any system exceeding requirement. Rafale will be the primary Strike Aircraft not the Air Superiority for which we (will eventually) have 270+ Su-30MKI with a big a$$ Radar. So why this fixation with number of T/R modules, Range and stuff ..hain ji ?

 

[ersakthivel]

The k10 may have just 90 Kn thrust, But another important thing is weight. If it weighs a couple of hundred KGs less than GE-414 which is a larger dia engine with bigger dia then there would only be marginal difference in performance. Because bigger dia GE engine needs enlarged fuselage dia of tejas which will add its own share of weight and the drag which comes with bigger dia fuselage.

So how did IAF conclude the opposite of GTRE which should have studied something about mk2 requirement before getting into negotiations with Snecma?

 

[Drsomnath999]

Re: why RBE2 aesa radar was the safest bet for india in MMRCA evaluat

Indian Air Force iirc had a minimum range requirement for aerial and ground target tracking/detection and no extra points were given to any system exceeding requirement. Rafale will be the primary Strike Aircraft not the Air Superiority for which we (will eventually) have 270+ Su-30MKI with a big a$$ Radar. So why this fixation with number of T/R modules, Range and stuff ..hain ji ?

was that post for me !!! if yes

then i want to tell you & everyone i have no fixation with any thing nor do i have lots of time in my hand that i would post this thread to get cheap likes .
The motive was to correct & debunk the unnecessary rafale bashing by some so called ARM CHAIR GENERALS /SELF proclaimed defence specialists who had categorically claimed RAFALE"S radar is not fit for IAF 's bvr warfare capabilty.

Only I know how difficult was it for me to manage time from my busy schedule to post such kind of threads

CHEERS

 

[pmaitra]

Threads merged.

 

[ersakthivel]

Wrong on every count. K10 did not take off because DRDO could not develop it. Period.

IAF had every right to speak for MMRCA (Rafale wasn't selected in 2010) against LCA because they had already spent years evaluating MMRCA contenders. Also the tender for import of engines for LCA was already in motion.

In spite of all that, DRDO bought in the proposal to bring in Snecma just so that it can get Kaveri on LCA, even though another tender for engines was already going. Basically DRDO wanted IAF to scrap its tender and then again wait for years while DRDO performed its "Joint Venture" with Snecma. Then again, DRDO wanted IAF to buy at least 300 of those fighters while those things had already been settled. IAF rejected it, obviously, who won't? Why would IAF wait for DRDO to go on a second development when they had failed with Kaveri the first time.

Today, even though GE won the tender back in 2012, the first engine will only arrive in 2015. If we had gone DRDO way, it would have taken years to develop the new engine, then more years to setup engine manufacturing, then first engine will come, then first flight of LCA Mk2. Today at least you can expect first flight of Mk2 by 2017. If DRDO had gotten its way, you will still be reading headlines such as "GTRE Kaveri fails tests again, LCA Mk2 first flight delayed to 2020"

For your info the rafale did not fly with M-88 from start , it flew first with ge-404 engines.

Also it would not take years to get this new engine, because Eco core is already developed.

And since Eco core could withstand higher operating pressure ratio and turbine entry temperature, we could have easily reduced a stage in K-9 and further reduced weight with french expertise.

Such a engine could be used as next engine in rafale as well in mid life upgrade in case it is possible,
Every fighter requires three engine changes in its life time, So we can buy 99 GE 414 engines fit them in mk2 and fly them for a decade and then put the JV engine into it,

or We could have asked Snecma to start collaboration on a bigger thrust engine to satisfy both AMCA and tejas mk2.

It is a win win deal for all three parties.

As tejas fuselage is going to be enlarged for Ge-414 , a higher dia new engine with same tech as M-88 eco core could have fulfilled that need.(M-88 is lighter and less in dia than Ge-414.)

IAF at least ensured that by importing the engine directly instead of spending years on the JV, we get the engine in minimum possible time and thus first flight of LCA Mk2 can be carried out earliest possible date. That's how IAF saved the program. And you are too thick to see such obvious things.

The Jv k-10 would have been lighter than k-9 by atleast 300 kgs if we go by M-88 weight. And if the power is 90 Kn (6 Kn more than Ge-404 on tejas mk1, then it cold have made mk1 more potent , lesser weight , better acceleration, smaller dia and lesser fuselage weight as the fuselage need not be enlarged as in the case of GE-414 in mk2, which also induces more drag and deeper airframe redesign. )

Btw: How would K10 make Tejas a complete package? Can you even prove that its performance would be better than GE414? Don't talk out of your a**. You are not impressing anyone.

Since you are so big fan of Subramanium Swamy, ask him to stop the Rafale deal. His party is in power. That will also tell you his real "aukat" inside the BJP, no wonder they didn't give him any ministerial post.


Yes living in Jodhpur will look good on your resume. Its an indisputable proof of your knowledge. I live in Lucknow by the way.

The actual problem is you guys are so new to defence related news you haven't seen how DRDO timelines work. Barely an year ago DRDO was claiming that Tejas mk2 will fly in 2014. Thats why somethings which are extremely obvious to me (and IAF) aren't clear to you. So I suggest you spend some time on this forum before starting to blame anyone. Then we will talk. I won't be replying to this conversation anymore. I have already said whatever I needed to.

If at all IAf-MOD combine wanted to enter into a JV for higher powered brand engine with higher dia and weight equivalent to GE-414 they could have got it by holding Mirage-2000 and rafale deal as a bait.

It would be useful for Snecma also as JV gives a bigger engine with higher thrust.
They chose to do nothing offering lame excuses.